| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Ladder comments and suggestionsI think the ladder system is a fantastic addition to the GameKnot competition suite. Many seem to agree with me as there have been over 2,000 players sign up in the two Ladders. In the relatively short period of time the ladders have been running, however, I have detected what I perceive as areas for improvement. Many may agree with me as there has already been several hundred participants who have dropped out of the competition. 1. 800-1200 players of widely varying skill levels is too many. I would like to hear your thoughts on dividing each ladder into two sections each, with entry requirements similar to the GameKnot tournaments. Players above a certain rating, say 1600 would be required to enter the upper sections, while those under 1600 would be free to join either upper or lower sections. 2. If proposal 1 is not implemented, what are your thoughts on a rating limit such that a challenge must be within a specified range of your rating, say +/- 400? 3. How does the community feel about the 5 game minimum that must be played? Is this too high or too low? 4. Is the adjustment for winning/losing appropriate? Should the losing player who is higher ranked lose more than 1 position? 5. Is the 10% range in ladder positions the appropriate range for challenges? Your thoughts on these and any other issues you may have would be welcome. And if this is already being discussed somewhere else, kindly refer me to that discussion. I am very interested in everyone's opinion and suggestions on improvements, if any, that we can suggest GameKnot make in the Ladder competition. |
||
|
1. I don't see that this is currently a problem. But if other changes are made, this could become one. 2. The fun part about the ladder is that you can challenge people completely out of your skill level and they cannot refuse. I would keep it the way it is. Higher ranking players will just need to get used to playing a few that are significantly less skilled. I find these games tend to play a lot faster anyway. So the higher ranking player doesn't have to worry about these eating up his time for nothing. I simply look for the best possible play in the given position, period. This can be more interesting and fun against a lower ranked player. You get to find truly game smashing mating combinations. 3. Changing this may have merit. Perhaps the minimum should be 20 so that the rating is something closer to real. I don't mind playing a low rated player; but playing a master who currently has a 1400 rating is no fun. This is a potential area for improvement. I just am not sure how it should be fixed. 4. The losing player should lose more than 1 ring on the ladder. I am not sure how much, but know it should be more than 1. At the same time, the penalty for losing should not be too steep. 5. Yes it is appropriate. It eliminates some of the problems that some are worried about in number 1 and 2. |
||
|
lighttotheright On point 4, I agree with you that the losing player should lose more than one rank. Why not just as much as the lower player rises? It will make things more dynamic. |
||
|
I don't know how I misinterpreted that, but it happened. I certain don't want to be forced to play 20 games at a time! ___________________________________________________ I think the number 1 position should be forced to defend the position more often. I also think the top 5 should have the option to challenge number 1 no mater how many ladder games he is playing. On the flip-side, number 1 should be able to put a limited number of won games in reserve to maintain his status. Every 10 won games by the #1 player while at that position should allow 1 reserve bonus point that counts if #2 wins a game. This is incentive to keep playing a lot of games while @ #1. This should stimulate more game playing by top players. Just food for thought. |
||
|
... |
||
|
On the ladder system forum can be useful in order to keep it running. I will comment on the five points and try to be as concise as possible. 1- I think that setting divisions is of paramount importance, imitating the Gameknot Tournament system. 2- I think that if (1) is not implemented players SHOULD challenge every lower rated player possible (no matter the rating difference) so that the 'normal distribution' (algol , I don't remember what it actually was) is reached as soon as possible. I've spoken to players who complain that a lot more lower rated ones challenge them (as well as the other way round), and I know that a lot of them are trying to "be fair" or have "good games" by challenging players in their similar rating range. But if we all did the 'effort' of challenging every lower rated player (sacrificing the "good game" concept or appearing to be a "bully"), I'm sure that things would speed up. 3- I think that 5-6 is already enough (is it the league minimum too?), not everybody wants to fully dedicate to ladder, and it is comprehensible. 4- I agree with lighttotheright that losing player should lose more than one position (I actually thought it already was this way). But I think algol 's suggestion might be too much, because a player could lose (currently) about 40 positions when losing. Maybe (mentally setting a maximum of 15 positions loss) it could be set 1/6 of the different ranking between two players: 1 position loss with 1-6 positions of difference, 2 loss with 7-12 difference... And so on until 15 loss for 85-90 difference. Just an idea. 5- I think that 10% is OK too. 6- (invented by me) One of the problems might be that there is a large difference between the possible number of games played at one time. Maybe a maximum should be placed. If not players who want to keep in a standard 6-7 games (namely, have a life outside the ladder) won't be able to keep up with 30 games monsters. I haven't studied this point at all, it just hit me on the head. ------------------------------------------------------------------- About the first position having to be more defended, I really don't think that it even is 'defendable'. If antinephilehi wins a game right now, she will pass me. It could be done that the range of challenge of the top 5 players was shorter... But I still think its complicated and have to go to sleep. Keep it on! |
||
|
As for: 2. I have a very subjective point of vue. I am against a rating limit, because I always enjoy the games with players, who have a much higher rating. always when one of these players is available at that moment. 3. I cannot really say something, because viewing my amount of games, I am not a real measure of it. 4. I think moving up/ down one rank is good. I think this tremendous mistake of the league rules shouldnt be repeated, especially when the ladder should be devided into different sections. its N° 3 of the league rules, the calculation of more than +/- 1 for a win or loss. that is simply unfair for certain players, it leads to biased table standings and it also forces players to delay lost positions to avoid the relegation into the lower section. I know league issues are discussed somewhere else, but I dont want the same mistakes to be made again! |
||
|
Re-thoughts 2- Apart from what cheeky_knight has stated, the problem is that if we look at the distribution of density of players and ratings, we will find out that players falling in the tails are going to be in great disadvantage when willing to find games. Someone around 2300 could hardly get 50 games (2700 - 1900) while someone around 1400 could get over 500 (1800 - 1200). I really don't think it was fair. 4- I maintain my proposal of the loss of 1/6 of the difference between players, but I'd say that only if the higher ranked player is the one who loses or if the lower ranked player loses and had challenged. So the only ones who'd lose one position would be lower ranked players who were challenged. I think that losing one position is too little if we want the ladder to be dynamic. I don't know how the league works, but I know that there are lots of participants (around 1500) and divisions (not according to rating, although related). I think than in any competition there is a part of manipulation among players, but I don't think it's tragic. |
||
|
SLOW ladder is shrinking |
||
|
Changes to the slow ladder are needed. It needs to be more dynamic. Just don't make the same mistakes as what occurred with league play. The ladder needs to remain very different than any other form of competition on GK. If you want league style play, then join a league instead of trying to make a carbon copy of it with the ladder. Stiffer penalties for a loss would be the biggest change to make a significant difference in how dynamic the ladder is. It would be simple to implement and would least likely to negatively impact other characteristics inherent in the ladder system. Heck, even making a loss lead to a drop of two rungs would be significant. That's twice as far as it is now. |
||
|
They want to play a real person with master strength skill. The ladder currently gives them that opportunity. The ladder should not be just for the high rated player, but also for the little guy who wants a chance to improve his or her play. We all know that the only way you get really good at chess is playing stronger players. Changes need to be made carefully. We don't want to ruin it for the little guy. |
||
|
|
||
|
I don't mind being referred like that at all. It is actually appreciated. Besides it seems appropriate given that we are playing for rungs on a ladder. LOL! |
||
|
Since the ladder only allows you to challenge a particular player when that player's number of games drops below his limit, one might have to wait a long time before his desired opponent becomes available. I guess the ladder was designed this way to make it more plebian rather than patrician. |
||
|
rt4sm 11-Oct-09, 15:47 |
a different opinion As for grandphish's original points; 1. I didn't find the rating of my opponents a problem. Just the number of opponents i was being forced to play at once, with 1 day time controls 2. Ditto point 1. 3. 5 games minimum seems fair enough. 4. I think the losing player should lose a lot more than 1 position. Because at the moment you can lose 100 places by losing 100 games, but it's possible to gain 100+ places by winning just one game. That sounds pretty silly, huh? 5. You can argue all day about the 10% challenge range. Some would argue it enables people to jump up the ladder too quickly, or force people to play much lowerrated players. Others would say these factors are what makes the ladder good. It's up to you to decide |
||
|
And as far as the FAST ladder being a wretched experience, I agree. It sounds like you'd be happier playing on the SLOW ladder where things are very sedate -- I get sleepy just thinking about the slow ladder. |
Log in 
