It is a new ranking system, but I would like a forum post explaining how it works.

Ryan, can you answer these questions:
- do you round to 2 decimals the score points => rated not in top 100 --> 0 points.

- how often do you plan to reset the scores?
- or do you plan to weight them down each month, e.g. score = score * .6

- more score points for better rated players is a good idea, however 1/rank_of_rating seems to give to many points to top rated players.

- as a top rated player you get a lot of points even for losing streaks, this seems counterintuitive

- these stats would be nice on the profile:
rank by score: 27th, score: .27
rank by rating 18th, rating 1809

while playing at a table, rank by score/rating info is enough (no need for data overload)

Thanks

These new rankings are stupid.

I see the ranking system has been tampered with again. And whether you'd like to hear my opinion or not...I think it's screwed up. The old way seem to reward for dominance and place, now it's bake to place again. Dominance has little meaning now, thus taking the scoring system change and pissing on it. Just my opinion though

Quick question. The ranking system now rewards players who go on lucky streaks to win a few times in a row and penalizes players that win a game and finish last the next because they got bad luck, right? If this is the case, the luck factor just went up more, which I didn't think was possible.

check out the news on wiki, not too many details apart from the official notice from Ryan ...

- do you round to 2 decimals the score points
It goes to 7 decimal points. 2 are displayed on the top 25.

- how often do you plan to reset the scores?
I'm not sure yet. Lets see how it goes. Possibly monthly. Possibly not.

- or do you plan to weight them down each month, e.g. score = score * .6
hmmm

- more score points for better rated players is a good idea, however 1/rank_of_rating seems to give to many points to top rated players.
This is the idea. You get rewarded more for every game you play with a high rating. The effect is that the more games you play with a high rating the higher your rank is. I think this is a good definition of rank. The old rank was purely rating which meant that any good/bad luck streaks made rank unstable and caused people to stop after a good luck streak.

- as a top rated player you get a lot of points even for losing streaks, this seems counterintuitive
This is an effect of the system starting when people already have high ratings. It seems like you get alot of rank for losing but its just because there haven't been many games. If a player had 200 games and was at 1900 the loses would not change rank much at all. Get it?

- these stats would be nice on the profile:
rank by score: 27th, score: .27
rank by rating 18th, rating 1809

Yep, I'll get them there soon.

Thanks Ryan.

as an example of a losing streak right now bcmatteagles is ranked 2nd but has lost a lot of his rating. Now he is 191st for rating which means the games he plays are only worth 1/191 or 0.005. After many games you can see that this losing streak is not a good thing.

a suggestion

If you do monthly resets or whatever, make sure you do not start the 'rank - score' part right away, maybe have a 3 day delay or something.

this would be to prevent random person x from playing 1 game and getting 1 point to rank because he was the first to have played a game and won.

so basically, if there is a monthly reset or whatever, let there be 2 or 3 days for people to jockey for position (elo) so that when it starts they are in place. I hope that makes sense.