Spotlight
ERROR1025 (1402) / vvd (1454) ®"Undead win Loyalists" ~ERROR1025
[15/11]
kkk111 says there's only a few left to beat and enters the Top 5.
[07/11]
momom2 has fought plenty to become one of the Top 5.
[07/11]
hitandrun is now over 1900 Elo points.
[02/11]
clmates is right behind the leader at 3rd place.
[21/10]
newbieA has rightfully claimed the ultimate spot and is ranked number 1!
News
Discuss the following in the wesnoth ladder thread in the forum, and keep to that thread (found in Multiplayer >> Ladder Online...)
1. Would there be any interest in the community for open nominations to a re-election of ladder admin. If the current one resurrects/answers my mail and/or reads/replies in here and shares that notion, and if there is such an interest, it would be good to know which persons the nominees would be (logically it would be people that are on the ladder and that have played on it, and also are adult and know enough English to communicate with the rest of us.) If the admin ignores the question then re-elections really should be kept anyways.
2. In the current version of the ladder code that I'm working there is a function that enables activity to be measured differently, demanding at least x amount of games to be played withing the most y recent days for a player to not be switched over to passive mode. What would you deem are good values for x & y? (This far it has been x = 1 and y = 30, but it doesn't really seems so competitive to me, at the same time the values shouldn't be overdone...)
3. In the current version of the ladder code that I'm working there is a function that enables admin to set it so that any winner that has x much higher rating than the guy/girl he just beat wins x Elo points instead of the normal sum.
For example, currently at the Wesnoth ladder that's online a player with an Elo of 2330 can still get 4 points for beating a player thats 1890. The difference between these players is > 400 elo points. Yet the winner still gets something for his/her win. In an environment where players can't choose their opposition them self Elo has no problems with this. In an online enviornement where a player can always play people that are much more less rated and still get points for it, it is a problem (as discussed elsewhere in greater detail in this very thread).
Another example from the Wesnoth ladder: A 2000 player can beat a 1600 player and still get 4-5 points for it, again, the difference is 400 elo.
Now, the new code offers us to set a cap, so for example, if a 2000 player beats a 1500 player, (s)he would get 0 points. Such a setting would say that if the difference in Elo between the winner and loser is 500 or more, the winner would win 0 points.
What such values, if any at all, would you be interested in seeing on the ladder? Is 0 points for stepping over the boundary reasonable, or should it be 1p or x points? My personal thought was to set the boundary to 100, making it so that whenever you win over a player that is 100 or more elo points below you in rating you would earn 0. Effect would be that players would mainly seek opposition within their own elo range and/or above them, but more seldom very much below them. A 1500 player with those settings could get normal points for any games against people down to 1400, then he'd get 0.
Some might fear that this setting will lead to less activity on the ladder. I agree that it will be so to a degree, but it doesn't matter since the results of that "extra activity" that currently happens with the code that runs the current wesnoth ladder (rev 157 i think) causes a rating problem that must be fixed. Then again, activity need not to take such a huge hit at all if this feature is combined with what is presented in # 2 above, where players, even good ones, are still forced to play every now and then to stay active, which would sometimes include games against people they maybe would get 0 points for beating. (After all, why would a player get any points and move upward in rating for beating a player below him/her? This is ofc an Elo question per se and relates to the system as a whole, but it's more relevant when trying to mend the problem with players picking own opposition).
/eyerouge, temping
March 22, 2009 - Wesnoth 1.6 is out!
March 3 - Ladder moved to a new Humhost server.
January 24, 2009 - Please Save Replays Of Your Matches
December 15, 2008 - server back up again
December 15, 2008 - Main Server Down Again
December 14, 2008 - new admin
December 11, 2008 - Official Server Back Up
- Alternate servers
November 8, 2008 - Match Cap Removed
- The king is dead, long live the kings..
newbieA (1781 / +70pts)