tech, I got your point, that larger gap *are* conquerable by a good player, and I agree with that.

But please admit there *is* also a point that dynamic movement of gaps is problematic in regards of constant fairness over time.

fuzzycat - I still have to disagree with you, if you say:

"the main reason I complain, is that beeing at higher or lower tables depends on having the right tables at time you are at a given score..."

try to see it from another point of view: beeing on a higher or lower table depends less to your points (they are secondary), but they depend on the fact to belong to the Top 250 / Top 1000 ... To simplyfie it, they fix the table-borders to the full hundreds... k?

And why I think that it´s more important to belong to the TOP xy then to see the points?

The ELO-points are a setting depending to the other players. They visualize only your relative rank compared to other players, and they can´t stand alone!

dumpfbaeckchen, apart from all strategy and skill, luck IS a factor in the game, so it does matter with whom you play, to get the best ELO of your luck/unluck. If you understand what the logic behind this is.

yes maybe you just don't belong to the top 250 players, all that I say, due to the dynamic movement of barriers. Players that were only on, with "convenient" barriers are more likely to be rated within top 250/1000/whatevery, as players starting later. Altough the later might be better than some of the earlier.

Thats what i mean by "unfair", not that if some is really quite better still can't just get over any barrier.

"The ELO-points are a setting depending to the other players. They visualize only your relative rank compared to other players, and they can´t stand alone!"

Did I ever say something different?

In chess ELO is e.g. very stable. A 200 point difference means that the higher one will win 75% of all games. Nevertheless I doubt this can hold true for kdice at all.

What kind of design only allows for 4 "groups" of tables?

Why did the 1600 minimum have to go away for 1700? Can't there be at least one table at every 100 points between 1500 and 1900, with more as needed?

I'm sure it would be possible to come up with more maps if that was the issue...

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Why not have tables every 50 points? Its only a numbers problem for the higher players which don't have as many players.

For the lower players I could have a 1400, 1450, 1500, 1550, and there would be enough players to fill games.

The point is that these minimums aren't supposed to be used as a crutch. They are supposed to divide players into 4 skill levels. If I simply called the tables low, medium, high, expert there probably wouldn't be an issue.

With that said, if ratings climb and gaps become greater than 200 then I will consider another level. 1500,1700, and 1900 where here with the old system and they were fine.

Agreed Ryan. But you know they do function as a crutch (if I understand the word correctly):

There influence on ELO is that the more different table limits you have, the lower is the fluctuation(?) of points. It's easier but a lot slower to climb up.

having 200 steps is in my opinion the right measure of challenge on one side and speed of changes on the other.

(imagine your losses/wins of points if there were no limits and how hard it would be to ever reach high places - or how few you could gain if there were tables at every ten points but how easyly you would slowly reach the top...)

But all this has been said so many times before *sigh* :)

(imagine your losses/wins of points if there were no limits and how hard it would be to ever reach high places - or how few you could gain if there were tables at every ten points but how easyly you would slowly reach the top...
you wouldn't.
cause as ryan pointed it out earlier: "It's all a numbers problem."
Those who have been here a while know that its not that a big of a deal to get a 100 elo points lead with luck/self-sacrificing allies.
And those people also know that its more annoying to wait half an hour for a table to fill up than to lose your oh so valuable Elo to someone happen to just be ranked 150-250 elo below you.

And for the Elo thing. I do belive that average elo of players are a good estimate for virtual 1on1 games (as you can have them on dicewars) outcomes. And i would love to see ryan implement soch an free for all challenge without elo changes to those willing to prove me wrong. Did I hear anyone say "Yeah lets use the sandbox for that"? Great.

His Madness

im on 1657 or somet and when i play on 1500 and i get bad points so put it as 1500 1600 1700 1800