ryan, you probably already foresee this happening, being the great prognosticator that you are... but a lot of us top players will probably not play for the rest of the month once we secure a reasonable 2000+ elo. 1) we get rewarded for top 100, 2) we get rewarded with a head-start on the pack with the reset. i think that makes sense. i will wait for grun to correct my logic.

<kissass>again, great game and thanks for all the effort. </kissass>

You are so confused that I dont even know where to begin... lol.

* The top 25 players list HAS changed a LOT since the reset where this system of scoring was put in. Rewind (Tzisc) was #1 for long time and had a rank of 7 or 8 and the next closest had 4, rnd. At the time everyone said it would be impossible for anyone to catch em. Then rnd got to #1 elo and surpassed Rewind and got to be #1 for a while.

Overall, the top 25 has been pretty active. Only in the last week or so has it slowed down somewhat (with activity in the top 10). Activity or motion of players moving up and down spots has happened a LOT in the slots of 11th place through 25th.


"i understand that when you are at the top, it’s not easy to give it up…..but unfair is unfair "

* As for your comment, it's rather uncalled for. I have been one of the biggest advocates of trying to reset the scores, despite being 1st.

* As for your example with Palleon - it really makes me question whether or not you understand how the new scoring works. No one is expected to play THOUSANDS of games to get high rank. That is utterly rediculous.

The point is you have to get high rating (elo) to climb quickly. And yes, getting high elo is hard, that's the point!! Someone COULD play thousands of games to get rank. But that's impossible / rediculous and silly.

The point is to get high elo so that you gain 1 rank, .5 rank or other high values added to rank. Yes that is hard to get high elo, but that's how the previous scoring system worked anyway, and that's a more accurate measure of talent.

* I'm not sure what you meant by this question. But overall, look at the top 25. There is a significant amount of action (+ or - gains on the day) than with the previous system. This is because there is high incentive to play with high elo rather than sitting on it protectively, as with the previous scoring system. So in that aspect, Ryan's change has been extremely useful in addressing that issue.

* You are extremely confused, yes. :)

Ryan is saying he plans to reset the rank. Rank is the (0.00) number by peoples names. At the moment mine is 34.11 Ryan is suggesting reseting those scores down to 0.

He is saying however, whatever the elo is, whatever the RATING is will be kept. Rating = like the tables, you need 1600 rating to sit here, that's what rating is. ok?

so technically, if he implimented the plan right now, the biggest advantage would go to whoever the top 5 players are in elo right now (check the news link to see top 5)

account: youre not quite right. if a 1574 player plays 14,552 games, and stays at 1574 the whole time, they do NOT deserve to be in top 25. the only people who deserve top 25 are ones who play lots of games and increase to a high elo, or maintain their high elo. if you can only maintain a 1574, you should NOT be in top 25.

so, if you play lots of games, and your elo increases (which means you are better than your average kdice opponent), then the number of games required to reach top 25 becomes exponentially smaller and smaller.

just my $0.02

i propose we put accountx3 on the top 25. it's only fair.

"“You can climb a TON if you get to #1 elo�

i totally understand how this works. What I am saying is it’s difficult to achieve high elo, much less #1"

That's true, and that's also why those who do manage to achieve high elo are rewarded with a large number of rank points.


"how much has the top 25 players’ rank change since the reset? my bet is not much and that’s exactly my point."

There has been a decent amount of change, more than I thought there would be. As the ELO ratings at the top shift around several players have made signifant jumps both within and into the top 25.


"i understand that when you are at the top, it’s not easy to give it up…..but unfair is unfair

Palleon (25th rank) has a 5.53, say another player, with 1574 (2585th and 0.02), so 1/2585 = 0.00038. so, for this person to crack to top 25, he/she has to play approximately 14552 games (assuming the ranking don’t change). how is this fair to new comers?"

I agree that the system is somewhat unfair to newcomers, but not for the reason you stated there. Palleon has a 5.53 because he's kept a high ELO rating, and had #1 ELO at some point. If some new player comes along and can't manage to get their rating over 1600, then I don't see any reason why they should be ranked over Palleon (especially if they can't improve after 14000 games!).

The only truly "unfair" thing about the current system is that it favors the top players who have been around for a while. If some great player started today and managed to climb up to the top 10 ELO, it would still take them quite a long time to break into the top 5, and it might be impossible for them to pass Grunvagr, say, as long as he keeps playing and doing well.

This is what Ryan is addressing with a score reset. I definitely think resetting the rank points periodically is a good idea. I'm not sure if I agree that leaving the ELO ratings as they are is fair, though. I've found that it's much easier to maintain a high rating than to climb to a high rating. I think it may gives those who are already at the top a sizable advantage.

I also thought that those first few days after the last score reset, when everybody was at 1500, were some of the most fun - there was a big mix of skill at any table you sat, it was hard to predict what was gonna happen, and I liked it. If you reset both scores, it truly evens everyone out and gives all players a fair shot at climbing the ranks together. Of course, then there's no reward for the players who worked hard to keep their ratings high before the reset... so I'm a little torn.

Damn you Grun, you must've posted your reply just as I started composing mine.

1/(elo rank)

and what Kwiz said

“Then rnd got to #1 elo and surpassed Rewind and got to be #1 for a while.�

I don’t know exactly what happened, but what if: rewind did not play at all, and rnd play tone of games everyday. playing more games with a high elo seems to have helped rnd to moved to #1. hence playing more gets rewarded. i love this game so much and i like to be ranked high so I should just quit my job and play 24/7…………

“moving up and down spots has happened a LOT in the slots of 11th place through 25th.�

Then why is the top 10 not moving as much. I used cracking 25th as an example, but now you seemed to have implied that the 11th to 25th player were having a tough time getting to top 10.

“As for your example with Palleon - it really makes me question whether or not you understand how the new scoring works. No one is expected to play THOUSANDS of games to get high rank. That is utterly rediculous.�

but you cannot discount the fact that playing more does help you. in my example, even if the player keeps on winning (which is not possible considering your initial placement play a role – but that’s another discussion), and the score keeps on improving - 1/2000=0.0005, 1/1000=0.001, 1/500=0.002 = he/she still needs 2765 games to reach 5.53. 2765!!! Ridiculous!! (correct spelling)

rank, rating, score….who wouldn’t be confused? but you have clarified somewhat, so thanks. and now I think the reset at least solve some of the problems.

“so technically, if he implimented the plan right now, the biggest advantage would go to whoever the top 5 players are in elo right now (check the news link to see top 5)�

so, it does favour someone……..why can’t we just reset EVERYTHING (score, rnak, elo, whatever), just like gpkor? That would really create a level playing field for everyone.

and if you are ALWAYS that good, you shouldn’t mind cause your skills (plus some luck) can always help you make it to the top.

grun, I appreciate your passion in this, but try to be less biased and more objective. put yourselves in others shoes.

Last thing I want to say before retiring from this post: whatever. it’s not like anyone would listen to a small potato like me and implement changes. the know it alls always have the power here. don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy the game, I just don’t get some of yours arguments sometimes. oh, I get it. it’s my problem, i am always wrong and you guys are always right.

thanks kwizatz. finally someone who is mature enough to look at both side of the fence. and sicne your are #2, people would listen to you more.

Ryan wanted suggestions and let's try to bring the discussion back to that.

My only concern is that whenever you set the rank AND elo back to 0 and 1500, is that whoever plays the first game and wins gets 1 rank added to their score (simply because no one else has finished a game and thus is at 1500). If they finish another game in 4th or so prior to anyone passing their elo, they get another rank point for having 1st best elo.

That's not a real display of talent, so much as it is a display of 'I played and finished a game in first before anyone else finished a game'

2, 3 or more rank could be gained quickly by lesser talented players (lesser talented meaning those who don't climb to the highest tables and manage to stay on them for a long period of time) and it would be a negative on the community to have someone who has 9, 10,11, 14, 16, 18,24 win %s , for instance, be on the #1 spot overall because he or she won 3 games in a row when the scores reset.

Ways around this: either keep the elo as it is, or reset elo to 1500, then have a waiting period prior to rank being counted. So, for instance, set elo to 1500 for all, then after a week, start counting rank. And that way, whoever has climbed to the highest elos are in position to add to rank. And they deserve it because theyve won so much to put themselves in position.