Forum
-50 score
funk2 wrote
at 12:45 PM, Thursday January 4, 2007 EST
Hey Ryan, can you post what the parameters are for losing 50 points for non-play with an account (i.e., how many days off are required)? I was a bit surprised to see this decrease occur without fair warning, or if something was posted before to this effect, I was unaware of it...
|
pTm wrote
at 2:03 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST I have read it Ryan. So please leave me out next time ;-)
|
funk2 wrote
at 2:31 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST yeah, me2...i understand the score correction, but can you explain why some players lost points at the top and some didn't?
|
AleaIactaSunt wrote
at 2:52 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST I don't really understand why that had to be, but that's just me to lazy to learn exactly how the ranking works... But next time pls warn us before points go down again and say what we have to do to prevent it :). I was really angry when I found out...
|
Jaits wrote
at 3:33 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST if everyones points arent reduced by 50 then thats not really fair... i cant see how reducing a few users points will stabilize the ratings other than forcing the players that were in the top to actually play.. but inmo thats a mean way of doing it.... if u wanted to stabilize it then just reset the whole thing... that would be much much fairer than reducing a few users rating...
|
Ravenkbs wrote
at 4:03 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST Yeah, that didnt really seem fair to me...
I lost -50 too and snufkin/spamin just jumped to 1 and 2.. |
alea iacta est wrote
at 4:24 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST Since this game is new and many things have to be tested I am mainly angry about not being informed before: Ryan, every other changes have been discussed before and talked about with everybody, why not this big change? Anyways, I calmed down by now, but still, why not give us our points back or just start all over with the ranking ;)?
|
Ryan wrote
at 4:38 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST 63 people above 2100 sitting on scores that were obtained when you got twice the points for winning is unfair to the thousands of players trying to climb the ranks at half the speed.
Its not fair to these thousands of people that are playing well, and learning to reset their ratings. My only intention is to have a rating system that is healthy and does not need attention like this. The rating system under 1900 is healthy. Above 1900 is not. People below 1900 are slowly moving above making 1900 better. people above 2000 sitting on accounts are making things worse. |
Jaits wrote
at 4:52 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST then just reset all the scores and lets start over.... thats the only way this will be fair... ru saying that ppl below 2100 didnt take advantage of the dbl points that were set be4? we all did (high ranking players and not)... so it was fair that way.... u ve changed the point system ranking so the only way to normalize the system is to reset it (everyone back to 1500)... reducing 63 ppl 50 points certainly doesnt normalize it nor will it make it easier for someone in the 1500 tables to climb to the 1900 ones.... if u still want to remove points, then remove everyones ('extra' points - maybe half the points from all the games (won and lost) from be4 the change).. that even would be fairer than reducing the top players points alone...
|
Ryan wrote
at 4:54 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST Three things to remember when you post that you're "angry" in this forum:
1. Its just a game 2. Its a BETA test 3. Its free |
Ryan wrote
at 4:57 PM, Friday January 5, 2007 EST Jait: the adjustment didn't just target high rating players. It was an adjust to players inactive for 7 days.
And there are thousands of new players since the rating change. Perhaps more than before the change. |