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
 [_MSy_]Dm_NooB_TaMeR


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 30 January 2008
Posts:45
Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:50 pm
I like it !

But i think my idea is better

More high rated players will be great !

Even Super Ghengis Khan would agree with me ! :)

<3

Have your ever saw the ad from "date a real girl" ? She is so "#$%#$&#"

keep it up !
Link | Reply | Quote
 [ViCiouS]Skreemo


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 19 September 2010
Posts:5384
Posted 28 November 2012 - 12:45 am
Biz wrote:
people are so naive here...

most players who are the cause of ruining the ratings are not trying to GAIN points. they are trying to LOSE points so they can smurf more lower rated games. they don't want to compete at their level. they want to pwn people at lower levels.

anything that makes it easier for people to lose points needs to go away

inactivity is a useless excuse because all these guys are still playing aoc and keeping their skills up... just on a different nick because they are smurfs

Jeez, I guess it would be naive to think like that and to assume, that people wouldn't make smurfs for a number of different reasons such as unavailability of games at their level on offer, returning from inactivity and no longer at the level they were at before, sick of being harassed on main account, bored in general or using a different account in order to play with a friend who's at a much lower level for example.

Thanks for shining a beacon of light on something we've all been so naive about.
Link | Reply | Quote
 Good


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 28 July 2011
Posts:3763
Posted 28 November 2012 - 1:33 am
Jeez, I guess it would be naive to think like that and to assume, that people wouldn't make smurfs for a number of different reasons such as unavailability of games at their level on offer, returning from inactivity and no longer at the level they were at before, sick of being harassed on main account, bored in general or using a different account in order to play with a friend who's at a much lower level for example.

Thanks for shining a beacon of light on something we've all been so naive about.

rofl
Link | Reply | Quote
 CSA_W_Wofford


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 18 October 2007
Posts:34
Posted 28 November 2012 - 3:54 am
This will increase the number of smurfs + every 10 days is too little time 30 days should be better but then lose 50 points if no game is played
Link | Reply | Quote
 PrinceAbooAboo


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 6 June 2012
Posts:703
Posted 28 November 2012 - 4:26 am
This will increase the number of smurfs + every 10 days is too little time 30 days should be better but then lose 50 points if no game is played

50 points is a bit too radical. No?
Link | Reply | Quote
 [MLG]_Sonju


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 7 October 2012
Posts:3
Posted 28 November 2012 - 6:06 am
strongly disagree cause it will increase smurfs and it's not fair for players that can't play because of school, work etc...
Link | Reply | Quote
 RivaL_ReNeGaDe


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 4 September 2011
Posts:760
Posted 28 November 2012 - 6:17 am
JobblerJ wrote:
No they most likely wouldn't be concerned with it at the time. That being said, when they got back to the game, they would be. As I said, life happens. Someone who had a legit reason for not playing, should not be treated the same as someone who just left the game for another.

I believe Taff said if a real life incident did occur, they would help restore the lost points. This is more aimed at inactive, banned, or players that have quit Voobly. This isn’t a dictatorship.
Link | Reply | Quote
 PantsDance4Cash


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 8 December 2011
Posts:2
Posted 28 November 2012 - 7:18 am
Why cant we have some comments from the guys who strongly disagree, we need the info from both sides.

I don't think more rules is the right way to go about this. It becomes less of a game as we lose the ability to choose when to play or not (without being penalized). The ladders won't ever be accurate until "real ratings" of a player can be determined. Unless Voobly had complete control over smurfing, pting and other ways of altering rate, I don't think ladders will ever be fixed to a point where people are satisfied.
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.

Could the ladder not be made to include only one player's account? Distinguishing multiple accounts by IP and only using the highest one.


Since by the votes, it looks like Voobly will try this decay system, I tried to think up a more comprising way of doing it and could only think of a increasing % system, which gives more options for flexibility.

For the first month of inactivity 1% will be taken off a player's rate biweekly
2nd month 1.5% biweekly for that month
3rd month 2% biweekly for that month
etc...

A 2700 player would lose around 54 points the first month and 76 points the 2nd month.

While a 2k player would only be losing 40 points in the first month and 60 pts in the 2nd month.
These numbers are just fictitious and can be played around with along with making it per week/month.

This way people can have shorter breaks for exams without being penalized too harshly while campers/dead accounts on the ladders will still lose rate.

I do think that all players, below 1800 or not, should be applied to the decay system to keep things in "balance"
Lastly, I don't think the decay system is the best way of fixing this problem, but as long as we as the community keeps coming up with ideas and trying them out, I think we will find better solutions and make things overall better for everyone playing this game.
Link | Reply | Quote
 __n00b_


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 15 November 2007
Posts:84
Posted 28 November 2012 - 8:47 am
sorry i didn't read all the thread. But I agree with the rating decay, but think the decay should go until 1600. (maybe with a ever decreasing slower rate of decay).

e.g. 1600-1700 rating decay is only 90% of what decay is for 1700-1800 etc..
Link | Reply | Quote
 [I3acI]_Taff


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 18 April 2008
Posts:12435
Posted 28 November 2012 - 9:47 am
I believe Taff said if a real life incident did occur, they would help restore the lost points. This is more aimed at inactive, banned, or players that have quit Voobly. This isn’t a dictatorship.

Thanks for actually reading what was suggested :)
Link | Reply | Quote
 __n00b_


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 15 November 2007
Posts:84
Posted 28 November 2012 - 1:09 pm
Oh also team games people should still win pts if their team won (if they d/c or get defeated). Sometimes its in the team's best interest for an individual to take the hammering while they can win (yet that player loses points is a bit of a joke).
In team games team strategy should be promoted, not promoting individualism. This for me was the biggest mistake made since zone times!!
Link | Reply | Quote
 Good


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 28 July 2011
Posts:3763
Edited 28 November 2012 - 1:16 pm by Good
I'm a strong supporter of the Voobly Rating Decay System that is proposed. This is something that the game has needed for a long time and I'd like to explain the reasons why I believe this.

People want more accurate ratings.
When we talk about ratings, we often talk also about who is "number 1" or who is the "top 10". In sport we do the same thing, take tennis for example: Federer is World number 1, because he's won the most tournaments and grand slams recently. We don't refer to Pete Sampras or Ivan Lendl as being in contention for a top 10 spot. Ratings should be accurate and real-time. Decay systems provide a real-time rating.

Why should I lose my points?
If you don't play on a nickname, you will lose points on that nickname. If you don't play on a nickname, do you need the points on that nickname anyway? What is the purpose? There are numerous systems that are being reviewed on their merits, but all of them will reduce a players rating over a period of time. What's important to remember though, is that even if the decay system deducted 15 points for every 10 days of inactivity, that's only equivalent to losing 1 game against a similar rated player in the same time period. Most players would lose their first game against an equally skilled player after 10 days of activity anyway, right?

S.m.u.r.f.s
Everyone complains about s.m.u.r.f.s. Let's face it, most of us have more than one account, BUT, does that make the rating system accurate? We want to see the top 20 players active and playing, if you take the AoC DM Ladder, 10 of the top 20 nicknames belong to just one player, a great talent and achievement, but it's not reflective of the community and none of those names are actively playing rated games anymore. Wouldn't it be nice to see the top 20 list with all different players nicknames that you can log on and see any of their latest recorded games?
We're never going to be able to stop players that want to create new accounts. However, the decay system will mean that players over the 1800 limit (suggested), will have to log on to all of their accounts to prevent them from decaying. I'm not sure about you, but I think most players will get bored of that OR it will make for a more active community, with players with numerous high rating nicknames playing more games to keep their high ratings.

What about recording the highest ever ratings?
It's possible that the highest ratings achieved could be archived, possibly another part of the user profile could be added to record each individual's highest rating, this could then be added to a Hall of Fame section. Please feel free to make your suggestions here, in the Suggestions Forum or PM a moderator with your ideas.

Why now?
As you know it's quite easy to make a Voobly account, something we're proud of. However, this increases the ease in which people have been able to create new nicknames and many top skilled players have multiple nicknames all in the first few pages of the ladders. It's felt by a high proportion of users and staff alike, across the board, that this is now at saturation point, where the ladders are not reflective of the current and active top skilled players, which they should be.
Link | Reply | Quote
 ['RB']Dan


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 May 2012
Posts:7308
Posted 28 November 2012 - 1:18 pm
I will start making 1799 acounts
Link | Reply | Quote
 [Eot_]Viriathus


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 21 November 2011
Posts:1000
Posted 28 November 2012 - 1:52 pm
Once again dan is a step ahead
Link | Reply | Quote
 RIP_Vanthom


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 16 July 2012
Posts:622
Posted 28 November 2012 - 2:59 pm
Without smurfs voobly would be near dead. Stop hatin on smurfers they actually are beneficial for more accurate ratings.


Link | Reply | Quote
«456789101112131415[16]1718192021222324
Displaying 226 - 240 out of 346 posts
Forum Jump:
4 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
1 members, 3 guests
Google

Most active threads in past week: