REF League missing players
What's going on with the League database? It looks like it's missing quite a lot of players.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y127/q2rookie/04b6d5a9cc4cd853e6354640c...
Whew! I'm still a somebody.
A very low rated somebody, but a somebody nonetheless.
I Just wish my losses vaporized along with The Others.
Yes, our database wiz Z3phyr just implemented a display only screen of inactive players on the Leaderboard. The screen kicks in after two months. This is just a display issue, no one has had their rating reset or removed. Also, your matchmaking profile should still work and display your current rating, so if you decide to get back on the leaderboard, you shouldnt have any difficulty playing a game.
Note that after three months, there was always a higher level of inactive coding. Those folks need a password reset to access the database. That hasnt changed. (The original idea for this was an anti-cheating thing, as inactive players are the perfect people to post false wins against.)
It looks like people who've not played league games recently have been removed from the leader board, though not from matchmaking.
Should it be the other way around? ... I guess it makes sense that the leaderboard should reward action. But I wish the matchmaking part made it easier to see who is currently playing.
Edit: now I see ArtNJ's post.
Perhaps Z3phyr can implement a system where the losing player has to accept the loss before it's posted on the website?
I don't like the idea of players vanishing from the leaderboard simply due to inactivity; it makes me feel like the ranking displayed is dishonest.
I understand the cheating concern, but there are ways around it.
I don't like the idea of players vanishing from the leaderboard simply due to inactivity.
I thought that at first glance. But then I thought, "No, you shouldn't be able to hold your spot if you are not willing to defend it,"
Does someone have a fairer idea than simple disappearence?
I thought that at first glance. But then I thought, "No, you shouldn't be able to hold your spot if you are not willing to defend it,"
The spot is based on your rank, so unless you're going to hand out negative scores for inactivity, it doesn't matter. Plus, with the exception of Trip, you can just challenge someone with a higher rank and eventually rise above that player anyway. I don't think inactivity should be punished, but that's just my opinion.
"you can just challenge someone with a higher rank and eventually rise above that player anyway. I don't think inactivity should be punished, but that's just my opinion" - explain?
What I meant was that if you want to challenge the player above you in the Leaderboard but he's not active, just challenge and beat the player above him. Your new ranking should place you above the player who initially was right above you.
This is how someone like MonkeyWarlock rises to the top echelon. Plus he had so many lower ranked players challenge him, which he beat. That increases your ranking as well.
So basically my point was that we shouldn't penalize inactive players. We should be rising above them with time as we keep winning games.
What I meant was that if you want to challenge the player above you in the Leaderboard but he's not active, just challenge and beat the player above him. Your new ranking should place you above the player who initially was right above you.
Did I read incorrectly that there is a maximum ELO increase of 32 points? You seem to be describing a ladder, which is not what I understood the system to work as, when I read the rules.
As I said in the other thread, we can probably add back the all time leaderboard as an option for folks to display.
This is NOT designed as an anti-cheating thing, sorry for the confusion there. Rather, I was mentioning that the League has long had a 3 month inactivity toggle as an anti-cheating thing. That is an entirely separate issue from what displays on the leaderboard, and I probably should not have even brought it up in this conversation. The real motivation here is to allow active players to compete with each other.
Imagine how pissed the current number 2 chess player in the world would be if his ranking fell to #63 just because a bunch of dead or inactive folks once had higher ratings. (The current number 1 actually has the highest chess rating ever and would retain his spot.) I am very grateful that Trip is still around, but some of the folks on the leaderboard are long and permanently gone. I dont see this as any different from chess...you have to clean up the leaderboard, or over time its starts to look like a historical list.
So we'll move to a system like baseball has. The focus will be on the current stats, but the historical leaderboard will still be available.
As I said in the other thread, we can probably add back the all time leaderboard as an option for folks to display.
This is NOT designed as an anti-cheating thing, sorry for the confusion there. Rather, I was mentioning that the League has long had a 3 month inactivity toggle as an anti-cheating thing. That is an entirely separate issue from what displays on the leaderboard, and I probably should not have even brought it up in this conversation. The real motivation here is to allow active players to compete with each other.
Imagine how pissed the current number 2 chess player in the world would be if his ranking fell to #63 just because a bunch of dead or inactive folks once had higher ratings. (The current number 1 actually has the highest chess rating ever and would retain his spot.) I am very grateful that Trip is still around, but some of the folks on the leaderboard are long and permanently gone. I dont see this as any different from chess...you have to clean up the leaderboard, or over time its starts to look like a historical list.
So we'll move to a system like baseball has. The focus will be on the current stats, but the historical leaderboard will still be available.
Yes. I thought about chess too. In chess, the championship is a separate thing from ELO ranking. For example, although Fisher was top-ranked ELO-wise in mid 70s he lost the world champion spot because he refused to defend it (because he thought the Russians had computers hidden in the chairs or something...)
Maybe the league could have a challenge-based top 10 (or whatever) ladder separate from the ELO ranking?
Yes. I thought about chess too. In chess, the championship is a separate thing from ELO ranking. For example, although Fisher was top-ranked ELO-wise in mid 70s he lost the world champion spot because he refused to defend it (because he thought the Russians had computers hidden in the chairs or something...)
Maybe the league could have a challenge-based top 10 (or whatever) ladder separate from the ELO ranking?
The league philosophy has always been play as much or as little as you want, at your own pace, using the matchmaking system to find someone that is a good match for what you like. I dont want to force someone who likes to play pretty quickly to play a slow poke in a different time zone (so 1 move a day probably) just because one is ranked 10 and the other guy is ranked 9.
As far as a separate ladder, my thought is that tournaments basically fill the gap, providing that head to head every game matters competetive aspect that the leage admittedly does not necessarily always provide every game.
So, totally willing to listen to thoughts, but I'm pretty happy with the present display tweak, especially if we can put back in an all time leaderboard to address the valid complaints made by Vic and Trip.
And yet Kasparov is not the top ranked player in the world this days I still would like to see some kind of decay over time implemented
so we don't have phantoms sitting at high ratings but not playing games anymore as it happens with several ELO like sistems that track rating.
And on the same token perhaps establish a floor as well for players who have over 20 games so their rating can't go below certain agreed number.
And yet Kasparov is not the top ranked player in the world this days I still would like to see some kind of decay over time implemented
so we don't have phantoms sitting at high ratings but not playing games anymore as it happens with several ELO like sistems that track rating.
And on the same token perhaps establish a floor as well for players who have over 20 games so their rating can't go below certain agreed number.
Decay over time punishes inactivity -- we'll never do that. Many good players have left and come back, and I dont want to discourage that. Not displaying inactive folks on the leaderboad is sufficient.
Floors are one of several advanced ELO+ type ideas that is potentially good in principle. I believe the US Chess Federation has floors, for example. However, I think floors could have some unintended bad consequences in a turn based game -- for example, if you are getting really busy at work, just resign all your games, the floor will protect you. Regardless, of whether its actually a good or bad idea, I rejected fancy add-ons like floors when setting up the League as just adding too much complexity.
Was going to add something but the never word really shutters down the topic.....
Thanks Art. Adding another filter would be perfect.
I don't follow chess, so I wasn't aware of how things are actually done there. I think that's a good system to follow.
I used to play chess and yes i know bout the elo rating and all the fide stuff but this is hero academy and i would prefer seeing everybody rather than just active ppl on the rating. perhaps it would have been better to just take away the inactives from the matchmaking list to confirm games and stuffs. and have them re activate their accounts and add them back to matchmaking.
Maybe they made it an active only board?