"why we should do things differently?"

Why doesn't kdice have a refill button? A reset ELO button in kdice would mess up system accuracy, because resetting ELO messes up system accuracy.

Also, whoever is most active after the reset would have an inflated 1st place and could make an unsurpassable ton of points. So you can delay rank until most ELO is back to normal, or you can just leave them as normal. To compare, gpokr whoever is 1st place for first week could have advantage, but people can catch up.

First of all, I have been here longer than some of you here. I have played a lot of games in the past two sandboxes (the 18 stack and the average size one). And regardless of how many games I have played since the reset, I can still voice my opinion here.

“Also, whoever is most active after the reset would have an inflated 1st place and could make an unsurpassable ton of points.�

So the current system is somewhat flawed. It happened when we reset a few months ago – people who play a LOT of games after the reset have accumulated an unbeatable sum of ELO and thus it’s has made it almost impossible for others to catch up. Hence, I would say that this is a STRONG argument that we should have a complete reset. The ELO affects how much you are adding to the rank and just resetting the rank hence seems like kind of a moot point.

“So you can delay rank until most ELO is back to normal, or you can just leave them as normal.�

Not a bad suggestion but how long should be the grace period. We are already talking about a monthly reset, and if the grace period is 1 week, than we are only left with 3 weeks of “real� playing.

“To compare, gpokr whoever is 1st place for first week could have advantage, but people can catch up.�

Gpokr players can catch up more easily than kdice players because of the ELO and that it’s extremely hard to move up. The system does not create a level playing field for everyone.

How about setting up a poll?

http://www.free-website-polls.com/

"So the current system is somewhat flawed. It happened when we reset a few months ago – people who play a LOT of games after the reset have accumulated an unbeatable sum of ELO and thus it’s has made it almost impossible for others to catch up. Hence, I would say that this is a STRONG argument that we should have a complete reset. The ELO affects how much you are adding to the rank and just resetting the rank hence seems like kind of a moot point."

This isn't really accurate. Nobody has accumulated an "unbeatable" ELO. With the right combination of skill and luck, you could climb from 1500 ELO to 2200 in as little as 30 games. That's a bit of an extreme example, but the point is that it's not at all impossible to catch up to the highest ELO ratings. Several of the players at the top have multiple accounts with ELOs over 1900 or even 2000 - it is very achievable if you play the game well.

The RANK, though, becomes harder and harder to catch up to as time goes on and more games are played. Resetting the rank is a must, or it soon would be practically imposssible to catch up.

Grun outlined the pros and cons of resetting or not resetting ELO above. I'm still not really sure which I'd prefer. I do have a fairly high ELO, so it would be nice (for me) to have a headstart when the rank is reset. And I do feel that the top players should be rewarded in some way for their achievement. But I also had a lot of fun when all the ELOs were even, and I think it would be slightly more fair and give everyone a bit of a better chance at climbing the ranks.

i know this has been suggested before, but i forget who to give credit to for originally suggesting it awhile ago...

instead of a complete reset at the end of every month, why not use a multiplier? say, at the end of the month, your rank score is multiplied by 0.5. this would make it easier for beginners to catch up with advanced/maniacal/addicted players, as the latters' scores will be reduced much more at the end of each month.

More I think about it, the more I think this is the fairest solution:

Reset both the rank (score) and the elo (rating) back to 0.00 and 1500.

Then have two days where rank does not get calculated. After 48 hours, start counting rank after each game.


Reasoning:
__________

The first player to win 1st place after the reset instantly gets to be the #1 player overall and have 1 added to their rank. This is not really a representation of long-term skill at the game, but rather it is fortunate that person finished first before anyone else even got a chance to finish one game. In this way, someone could get 3, 4,(or more) rank score. (with thousands of players, it is highly probably that one person will string 3 or 4 or more 1st and 2nd place finishes)

This is a problem because now... at the END of the month, 5 or 6 rank score is sufficient to get someone on the top 25 players. So indeed, it is not fair that if someone manages to win a few in a row immediately following the reset that they should be rewarded THAT much.

Two days would allow players (who are all at the same 1500 elo rating) to climb into the 1600s or 1700s+ by winning. Winning is rewarded because whoever manages to win gets the higher elo. And whoever has the higher elos are the ones that will reap in the rank once the grace period ends.


Two days is a good period because, as stated above, you don't want to spend the majority of the month in a grace period, there are only 4 weeks in a month, plus change.


Thoughts?


Thoughts?

“Reset both the rank (score) and the elo (rating) back to 0.00 and 1500.�

I totally support this idea.

As for the 2 days grace period, I have another suggestion:

2 days seems a bit short. Instead of setting a finite number of days, how about we start counting on the first Sunday (at midnight) in a calendar month. My reasoning, I am guessing players in general have limited time playing during weekdays and if those 2 days falls on a weekday, there would not be a lot of “entries� to calculate the rank/ELO. Giving at least a Saturday may mean we have more players that can participate in the grace period.

Someone has to start off #1 2 3..., at least make them earn it by not resetting elo. Resetting would give more points for being lucky while the best start off slow in the unstable environment. Even if the best players were currently stuck in 1600s, resetting elo to give them a fair shot is not the best solution.

I vote for score points reset, preserve ELO rating.
This is my personal opinion. I see that some people liked the chaos of last reset, I didn't particularly enjoyes playing 1500/unrated tables. Even with the reset to 1500 ELO Grunvagr proposes a 2 day delay for getting the ELO back. This seems complicated and unfeasible for some (see Alpha1 comment). If ELO really represents skill, then in that grace period, assumming everybody gets the chace to play enough games the ELO hierarchy will be somehow restored. So why not just keep the current ELO.
<a href="http://aplayr.com/user/xicadasilva/"><img src="http://aplayr.com/user/xicadasilva/imageRankK.gif"; border="0" alt="Kdice - Free Online Strategy Game"></a>

let's start from stratch every month, re-set everything. it's then become a monthly tournment. we can give our trophies to the top 100 players. fun!

I think ELO should be reset only if the scoring algorithm is changed.

Also, if the ELO will be reset people will start playing crazily in the last days. This in addition to the first days after the reset, when everybody is labeled 1500 but some players are actually better than others.

ELO needs time (many games) to stabilize in order to be meaningful.