'20 is a good solid number for determing percentages of increments of 5%' does not equal 'Increase the minimum number of completed games to 20.'

How does one disincentivise ladder runs?

Edited 8/5/2014 12:36:55

Edited 8/15/2014 17:51:42

I said lots of times and i ll say it again. instead of discussing 15 20 or 50 we should decide a percentage for minimum number of completed games. when there was 100 or 150 players in ladder 15 games were enough. now we have nearly 300 players in ladder. there shuld be a formula for this. for example 10% of number of active players in ladder can be a good number for the minimum number of games completed . if there are 220 players in ladder you should finish 22 games, if it is 350 then 35 games.

warlight is growing. maybe next year we will see 1000 players in ladders. 15-25 games wont be enough. %10 wont work too.

solution: make divisions. for example at 1st division 100 or 200 players. make 10% of number of players in this division as minimum number of games completed. make a promotion and relegation system. for example every month worst 20% of players in 1st divison relegates to 2nd division and best of 2nd division promotes to 1st division. with this system players will play more games and ladder will be more competitive.

I would really love such a system! A weekly promotion/relegation would work too i think. And players won't get paired up with guys that are 70-80 ranks higher/lower. Those matchups are just unfair if you want to have a good rating.

15 games/ 300 players (aproximately) = nearly 5% and everybody can see problems in ladder. that means %5 is under the percentage error of this system and we passed 5% months ago. most of players wants to be ranked quickly (with finishing 15-20 games) so you cant change minimum number of games completed. because of this you cant use current system for more than 150 or 200 players.

If you have divisions how do you deal with people joining and leaving the ladder? Modification of this system is the best we can hope for rather than a total overhaul.

If the expiration date for games was pushed to six months rather than 3 and the number of games required to rank was increased to 20/25 I think the ladder would be improved. It's a small change, and more could and should certainly be done, but it would be a good start.

make it 30 game minimum and 6 months before games expire. You only move into #1 if you are still #1 after all your current games when you first hit #1 end. Now you have a legit ladder that more players would take seriously.

Edited 8/6/2014 02:43:28

Got an update?

As for expirations on the ladder, I suggest:

minimum games to get ranked - 30
Expiration after 3 months
A game cannot expire regardless of time, if the player has less than 50 unexpired games
A players keeps his rating, but stops being ranked after quitting the ladder.

@ Jaackie Treehorn

i was waiting this performance from you but you did better. i think it is 34-16 now. win 3 more and make it 37-13 i will update when i have free time for it. good job!!!

Edited 8/13/2014 09:17:58

	Rank	Player			Win	Lose
	____	__________________	___	____
NEW	1	Ottoman Emperor		38	12
-1	2	degrret			37	13
-1	3	MG ♦ ɌeLite ♦		36	14
NEW	4	13CHRIS37		35	15
♦	5	Krzychu			34	16
+12	6	Jackie Treehorn		34	16
-3	7	dwoogee			33	17
NEW	8	master of desaster	33	17
-6	9	Dom365			32	18
-1	10	Kantos			30	20
-3	11	Iceman			30	20
+3	12	bananbird		30	20
+3	13	JV			29	21
-7	14	Master Bjarke		29	21
NEW	15	Arlecchino		29	21
-6	16	Dreamworker		29	21
-3	17	Roob			28	22
NEW	18	Math Wolf		26	24
-6	19	BraaK			26	24
-1	20	CONQUISTADORS		24	26

I will choose some games to watch. please feel free to share games between 5-13 AUG 2014 and share your thoughts about list.

Edited 8/13/2014 21:04:06