Community Forums > General > General Discussion > Suggested Voobly Rating Decay IMPORTANT PLEASE READ

Suggested Voobly Rating Decay IMPORTANT PLEASE READ

Poll: Do you want a Rating Decay System on Voonly
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't care
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
 RIP_Vanthom


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 16 July 2012
Posts:622
Posted 27 November 2012 - 1:37 am
Quote:
Voobly receives many many complaints every month regarding the Ladders being false / fake, well this is your chance to make a difference by Voting for it.

I voted strongly agreed. However I somewhat agree on this point , but I think most of the complaints are more about point trade and point wh0rers that only play low rates and run from a fair game. That being said I think this idea is good and will improve the rating overall.
Link | Reply | Quote
 Fedex_zZ


Group: Silver Membership
Join Date: 20 January 2011
Posts:109
Posted 27 November 2012 - 1:47 am
100% agree, we need this, smurfs+inactives sux
Link | Reply | Quote
 Yippie_kai_yey


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 31 December 2009
Posts:17
Posted 27 November 2012 - 1:54 am
Playing one game every week or two with the only purpose of holding an acc in the rating is just another way to cheat on this new decay system. Personally, im not gonna do it...but those who are obsessed with their ratings as much as to play dirty will surely do it.
Voobly ladders are not the ATP ranking nor should they pretend to be.
Defending a more accurate ranking system passes first from a "one account per player" rule, then we can talk about a decay system. for example; daut is ranked #3 #14 #19. He just could play 3 games every 15 days to hold its accs (im pretty sure he wouldnt do that), and the player in the #20 spot will still be ranked -2 places as he should be. So on my point of view, today, decay system is to put the cart before the horse.
Only in that cases in which the player is really inactive and doesnt login for 6 months this will work, and if the player comes back after a long period of inactivity and sees his rating has died, maybe he's just gonna quit again...
Anyway i appreciate the work of the mods, admins and everyone's ideas to improve this.

Link | Reply | Quote
 VN_Archlord


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 5 June 2008
Posts:30
Posted 27 November 2012 - 1:57 am
1 month should be good instead of 10 days, "Personal Best" is a good idea too.
Link | Reply | Quote
 _xiClauZe


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 26 August 2012
Posts:10
Posted 27 November 2012 - 2:15 am
Strongly disagree,

For all the players that don't play 24/7 should not lose points just because they have lives or play sports (like me). If inactive players with real high level of 2.2k rate come back after 6 month break with a 1.9k rate it will make more problems. And inactive players that don't play everday should not be punished because of this. Extremely unfair.
Link | Reply | Quote
 [BH_]lnIghTzl


Group: Platinum Membership
Join Date: 9 June 2010
Posts:9096
Edited 27 November 2012 - 2:26 am by [BH_]lnIghTzl
All,

We have the opportunity to create a new Rating Decay System for Voobly.

This basically means if players do not play rated games for a given time then Voobly automatically takes some points from the account.

The whole purpose of this suggestion is to try and make the current ladders more accurate.
Voobly receives many many complaints every month regarding the Ladders being false / fake, well this is your chance to make a difference by Voting for it.

This will never fix every problem but will go a very long way towards removing Players names that do not play any longer and smurf names that are no longer used. It will also eventually remove all Banned players from the Ladders.

The ultimate aim is to create more accurate ladders and allow different players to reach higher ladder positions.
Most ladders see the same players over and over just using different names.
Something that I personally see as incorrect and unfair to the majority of our users.


I will explain the basic idea below, but please feel free to ask any questions before Voting.

1. Decay will ONLY affect ratings above 1800

2. Players MUST be inactive for 10 days

3. Players ONLY need to play 1 game on that ladder in 10 day's

4. 20 points will be Decayed only AFTER 10 day's of NOT playing on that ladder

5. 10 day's starts after YOUR last rated game played. NO SET DATES

6. Once a Player's rating decay's to 1800 it STOPS.



So to summarise :

Play 1 rated game each 10 day's and NOTHING will happen, everything stays as it is now.

DO NOT Play 1 rated game in 10 day's and if above 1800 rating you will automatically lose 20 points.

If you are BELOW 1800 rating on the ladder NOTHING WILL HAPPEN

This process will eventually remove Banned players and inactive smurfs from all ladders



Hopefully players can see the real benefit in this new system, and agree that playing just 1 game in 10 day's is not a lot to ask.

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS A SUGGESTION ONLY. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNLESS THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS WANT IT TO HAPPEN.

Personally I would love to see the community take this on board, if you do too then please vote Strongly Agree.

this is a really good idea and will truly change the outcome of our voobly ladder and introduce new players who truly are top notch players through various ladders in RM/CS/DM. however, there are some concerns/flaws i'd like to point out, but many have solutions in the end:

1) as many have already mentioned, people could be inactive due to various/personal reasons such as school or going on vacation or other things. best we can do for them is to possibly make a thread indicating that they'll be inactive from let's say "november 26/2012 till dec 26/2012 due to blablabla" and we can mark that and make sure they don't lose any points.

2) focusing on 1800 players in various ladders aren't really the major concern. i think the primary case in this situation is mainly towards the 1900 & 2000+ rated players, in other words, the players who reach top rate then stop playing. also, i think if we set the decay range to a limit between 2000 (or 1900) < x < 9999, where x is the indicated player, then i think this would be a lot better. also, by allowing the decay to stop at 1800, as you've suggested, then this would be great. what about the players who are inactive and are below 1800? is it possible to focus primarily on the 2k+ players or the "top notch players"?

3) as many players have already suggested, the inactivity of players can be too long or too short. 10 days is too long in my opinion because it gives players plenty of time to play 1 game to maintain their rate. if we set the capacity a bit lower for CS, for example, to either 5 days or 1 week, then i think this would be great as well. however, the flaw of this is enforcing players to play, or they will lose their points.. which seems sort of wrong and they could/would lose interest in this idea and may not want to play at all.. sure it will reduce point freaks but it will also reduce the point of competition. RM ladders, on the other hand, as jordan suggested in terms of inactive players, would be a pretty solid idea because RM is played in a much more competitive level than CS or DM is played, and top RM players play on a daily basis in comparison to the other communities.

edit: oh nvm about the players below 1800, didn't read the rest of your quote
Link | Reply | Quote
 Yippie_kai_yey


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 31 December 2009
Posts:17
Posted 27 November 2012 - 2:36 am
another point:
a player X who is 2300 on 2012 goes inactive and falls to 1800. comes back to play on 2013...with some time, practice and patience he's gonna be back to 2300. Because that player mental qualities should still be almost the same, unless he has some kind of a degenerative mental disorder, or he suffered an accident that affected his brain or also if the player had a lobotomy during that period of inactive time (all of them very unlikely to happen).
So who's gonna pay for that 500 points that the decay system took? well, it's the 1800, 1900... players who match against player X.
For that reason i suggest a limit on points fall, lets say around 100-150?
Link | Reply | Quote
 ['RB']Dan


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 May 2012
Posts:7308
Posted 27 November 2012 - 2:36 am
Poor moe hes going to get alot of work with this and other mods will just sit back and watch him do everything! God i cant wait for that! ;D
Link | Reply | Quote
 StalinSpopovich


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 10 August 2011
Posts:5325
Posted 27 November 2012 - 2:39 am
['RB']Dan wrote:
Make it happen!

(Who voted against this? must be south american)

better respected. Sure, they disagree is in Belgium? or is sick? not generalize people
Link | Reply | Quote
 Biz


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 10 July 2007
Posts:23
Posted 27 November 2012 - 2:40 am
this is silly

for 99.99% of players, ratings are not used as trophies - they are used as a mechanism to find fair games against players of similar skill. this makes that process worse.

ladders affect 0.01% of players

the whole problem with ratings is when peoples' skill is higher than their rate and they ruin games whenever they play (i.e. smurfing). this just makes that problem worse.

the game has already alienated tons of legit decent players because nobody under 2k could reliably find a game against people at their skill level. now you want to make it easier for people to smurf? they don't even have to create new accounts all the time... they can just let it decay to 18xx and then go **** up more games.

just get rid of multiple accounts per player and then nobody will complain about points, nobody will complain about multiple spots being taken up by the same guy, nobody will complain about people camping on nicks...
Link | Reply | Quote
 ['RB']Dan


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 May 2012
Posts:7308
Posted 27 November 2012 - 2:45 am
better respected. Sure, they disagree is in Belgium? or is sick? not generalize people

Im sorry are you trying to say that you want a TD map rated?
Link | Reply | Quote
 Yippie_kai_yey


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 31 December 2009
Posts:17
Posted 27 November 2012 - 3:01 am
idea: premium memberships could guarantee the player to avoid losing points for inactivity periods, or if the player already lost the points, getting the membership would make him to recover its points.
so for those complaining about "what happens if i go on vacation"...just pay 25$ and everything is gonna be fine!!
Link | Reply | Quote
 [DZ]Mi6ht


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 21 October 2012
Posts:312
Posted 27 November 2012 - 3:52 am
Nice idea..!! Agreed.. ;smile2
Link | Reply | Quote
 ES_Piro


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 30 June 2007
Posts:40
Posted 27 November 2012 - 4:07 am
I like it.
Link | Reply | Quote
 StrayaMate


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 12 October 2009
Posts:48
Posted 27 November 2012 - 4:20 am
I voted " I don't care".

But looking forward to see if jidba will try to maintain his 10+ names in the 2200+ range rofl


Link | Reply | Quote
12345678910[11]12131415161718192021»
Displaying 151 - 165 out of 346 posts
Forum Jump:
4 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 4 guests

Most active threads in past week: