|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 21, 2007 11:16:46 GMT -5
There is a person who seems to believe refreshing my activity at the top of the ladder/Elo is frowned upon, since I am not actually active. I am wondering what everyone else's opinion is on this matter. Both Slartucker and I have not played an Elo-rated match (excluding our draw) in months, although I suppose his profile claims that he will accept Ladders. And Spacca refuses to play Ladder matches (against me anyway) but is very active in the tournament etc. so where should the line, if any, be drawn?
Really I mostly log in to check my messages, which are numerous...but I'm pretty sure if I went inactive then people would stop asking for help, so it's kind of a vicious circle. I mean, everybody already knows who I am, so I don't care too much about displaying my rank. Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 21, 2007 11:31:59 GMT -5
Yeah, it's too bad you can't voluntarily de-list yourself -- or have an "active warlocks" list that only includes warlocks who played a rated game in the last 3 days, rather than simply who logged in.
That's why I used alt accounts for the first year I didn't play VFs. I switched back to better advertise the Refuge and more easily coordinate the tournament.
(Uh oh... Rycchus is in range of me. I might have to play a ladder match after all!)
P.S. I am trying to deal with the Awall/Toyotami mess, but haven't had a proper moment to sit down and look through the games; real life has been unexpectedly busy. I'll rule as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Oct 21, 2007 12:21:34 GMT -5
I don't think its a big deal if someone is perched on the top of the ladder... as long as that peron(s) are willing to take on future ladder matches.
However, why is it that the top players don't play each other in rated games?
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Oct 21, 2007 12:26:47 GMT -5
However, why is it that the top players don't play each other in rated games? What?! and risk those precious Rungs on DPPP/PSDD mirrors for 50+ turns? (Just snarking, btw)
|
|
|
Post by awall on Oct 21, 2007 12:37:56 GMT -5
Exdeath and Slarty may not play rated matches, but I'd still consider them both "active." It's mostly people like Pig and Yaron who haven't been heard from in ages that I think shouldn't be listed at the top of the rankings, and the list works fine for that. It's sort of a measure of who still thinks about the game.
If we were redoing everything from scratch, then yes, it'd be nice to have a separate listing just for those warlocks who participate in rated games. But with the system as it is, I don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 21, 2007 13:41:42 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with it in that I'm not really high up enough for it to concern me. It's not something I've thought a lot about but I guess I'd say a Warlock can be considered active if he's playing any kinds of game, whether they're rated or unrated. I've gone through spells myself where I'll only play VFs, but I'll still play a lot of people... I don't see why it should be any different for the Masters. And Slarty, don't worry, it's taken me years to get this high up. It'll be a while before I let you kick me off the ladder Also, Yaron's still slightly about, isn't he? He had a fantasy team for the tourney and I've seen him floating around the forums at times...
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 21, 2007 14:16:24 GMT -5
I've always thought those players who are "active" (in that they log in on at least a weekly basis) but don't play rated games should have their ELO/Ladder status reset after a reasonable amount of time. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Oct 21, 2007 14:49:10 GMT -5
I doubt anybody will benefit from ExDeath's moving to inactive list now. I mean, one shouldn't stop checking mails and logging in just because it "affects" ladder stats. I see nothing wrong with it.
However, this is all due to definition of activity RavenBlack chose back then. Should nawglan (or anyone else) rewrite the game engine, I think it would be better to define activity as "playing (any) match", i.e. making turns.
|
|
morzas
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 30
|
Post by morzas on Oct 21, 2007 14:55:59 GMT -5
Rating decay makes sense. The people at the top should have to fight to stay there.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 21, 2007 15:56:31 GMT -5
Dubber basically hit the nail on the head. In my mind, there's no such thing as "activity" and "inactivity". As I see it, I am #1 in ladder score (which doesn't mean much to me) and #2 in Elo, whether Taliesin is retired or whether he logs in every day, it doesn't matter. I very much would like to play more matches and be #1, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be, but first I must solve the parity of DPP/PSD or I won't feel comfortable enough in my edge to get there.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 21, 2007 17:13:52 GMT -5
I think there should be an all-time list. Which is not what the inactive players list is, because it doesn't show people's highest scores, only their latest ones.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 21, 2007 17:45:33 GMT -5
"ELO decay" would at least force innovation, would it not?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 21, 2007 17:59:56 GMT -5
"ELO decay" would at least force innovation, would it not? Perhaps. It would also force high-rated players to stay in the game when they don't want to, which seems like a very bad thing.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 21, 2007 18:12:43 GMT -5
Perhaps. It would also force high-rated players to stay in the game when they don't want to, which seems like a very bad thing. Or what? They lose their place at the top of a game they don't play anymore? Doesn't seem like much of a loss to me...? Imagine if the Yankees (or fill in some other team name here... I'd personally say the Ottawa Senators) had played their first 5 games of the season, and then decided to go on hiatus for the rest of the season, or the next 3 seasons, but the league decided that they had won their first few games (or first 5 games, even) so they will just keep them in first place in the league. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 21, 2007 21:13:50 GMT -5
Perhaps. It would also force high-rated players to stay in the game when they don't want to, which seems like a very bad thing. Or what? They lose their place at the top of a game they don't play anymore? Doesn't seem like much of a loss to me...? Imagine if the Yankees (or fill in some other team name here... I'd personally say the Ottawa Senators) had played their first 5 games of the season, and then decided to go on hiatus for the rest of the season, or the next 3 seasons, but the league decided that they had won their first few games (or first 5 games, even) so they will just keep them in first place in the league. Make sense? An elo decay system would have to be equal for both sides regardless of activity. i.e. chess, if a match is a year old, it gets purged. That seems fine. But decaying only on inactive players means a loss of total Elo points over time for everyone. If 3 2000+ players all quit, the system loses those 1500 extra points forever, which is not how it should be. That will make it harder for future generations to achieve the 2000 mark and eventually 1700 will be considered a high rating, and you'll have to reset the whole thing.
|
|