Fine tuning of the rating-system, SL Options

[sl.ErdnussJack]

It is fact that many players in the Top100 play only once within 7 days for a short time. They don't want to mess up their ranking. Unfortunately, this isn't according to a ranking and to offer such players an incentive for playing and not penalize active players respectively we have made a "short-lived" ranking now.
This means one doesn't play, the rating is made go down easily so (after 24 hours of inactivity). The more inactive player and the higher his rating, the more steeply he falls in the ranking. The whole isn't as bad as it listens to it here.

For example, we have a 20-rating player: If he plays every two days then he loses every two days 0.03 rating points. If he plays only every 5 days then he loses 0.33 each within 5 days. Within 14 days abstinence he loses already 3.02 points. However, these are all values which one can easily make up again. How we recognize does the new modification apply primarily to players who don't play.
Active players are virtually untouched of this and that is also not bad.

In addition, we have reduced the minimum player limit from 8 to 6 players test wise and therefore more players should get a valid session. If the practice tests are positive we keep the new player limit.

[sLy ?]

they can do follow things:

->ignore the whiners
->work on this new system this is good ..better then the old 1 sl good work

[Warmonger]

I agree. The new system is much better than before...it's ALMOST flawless.

Most of the posts in this thread are devoid of content entirely. Some people just can't believe that they could possibly deserve to fall in the ratings, so it must be the system's fault. Ive fallen over 3000 places since the new system started, and Im still dropping, but I'm not whining about THAT...know why? Because I was OVERRATED with the old system (like many of the above posters, I have little doubt). The whiners above just refuse to accept that. I'm have NO complaints about my drop in rank.

The problem I mention above is only a small statistical one. It's probably not causing major errors, but I still think it should be addressed. However, the system as a whole is extremely fair and--besides the issue I raise--statistically accurate.

Maybe if you are falling below where you THINK you should be...it's because you're not as good as you THINK you are...

It's simple statistical math...it is not lying to you. It does not measure SKILL...only SCORE. If you're looking for something to measure your SKILL, then take a nap and dream something up; because such a thing does not, and can never, exist.

The Elo system on which this is based has long ago been accepted as statistically accurate by people far more intelligent than any of us. Deal with it.

This post has been edited by Warmonger: Nov 30 2006, 10:54 PM