This is why you have a low rank

Which reminds me where are the ST nerfs?

 

Right below the UD ones!

 

Buff SL

 

Sunderpede with weaken spells base confirmed

 

Seriously, I don't even understand the point of this post. I read it three times and I don't know what I am supposed to comment about. I will read it again...

 

H0spy wins? I mean what? Yea

 

The decay system was also introduced because of alts. There was a time when 1 person held down like 4 spots in the top 5. The meta game inside the game kind of became "how many alts can I make a top player?" Decay made it a little more of a chore to keep multiple accounts at the top. There was also a guy whose name was star something or rather who came in shot to the top by a huge margin and then just peaced out. And I think players just got tired of seeing his name at the top of the rankings for multiple months when he never played. Hiding him from the ladder probably would have had the same effect, I guess.

 

Well that's annoying, but is it worth essentially breaking the rating system? If I have followed the responses correctly so far, the logic goes a bit like this: The rating system is broken because of frequent rank resets (my assertion), rank resets are necessary because of decay, decay was introduced because of alts (and inactives).

In the end, the main purpose of the rating system should be to facilitate fair match ups and to provide a realistic metric of true skill. Ranking is fine and all, but wouldn't you prefer to have a rating indicating your true ability (or close to it), than be at the top of a ranking list which nobody takes very seriously anyway? Getting a rating like 1800, perhaps breaking the 2000, etc, should mean something.

There would be countless benefits to a functional rating system. Even if fair matchups can't be created due to the small player base, getting an accurate picture of the real skill gaps would certainly make players more relaxed about unbalanced matchups (at least you can clearly tell when you are outmatched and you know it's not going to affect your rating in a significant way to lose that match).

It would also make the creation of "elite tournaments" much more straight forward, and aren't those a lot more interesting to identify the top players, than a half-broken ladder system?

 

I don't think the "rank resets are necessary because of decay" thing is really accurate. Reset would happen before decay existed though, I'm not really sure resets are "necessary" at all. The resets used to be (many years ago) something that you'd really only see after an expansion came out (or maybe a really huge patch of some kind). This would be like twice a year or whatever. I could've been misreading things but I think a lot of the player base generally had a favorable of the resets in those instances. There would be a few days when people who didn't really deserve to be in the top shot up but after a week or two it would generally stabilize.

You would have this cycle of expansion released and a lot of players would come back to the game who'd been away. The ranks were reset and there'd be a flury of activity for a month or two and then things would die down, then some more, then some more. Then an expansion would release and the cycle would repeat.

I think the resets kind of gave a "fresh start" feel. You make some good points and I think your idea of just hiding inactive players probably would have probably solved a lot of the griping that used to happen. I don't know, not really arguing against what you just say just trying to include some historical perspective.

 

the last rank decay was something "more" than just decay... during 2013 autumn, 90% of playerbase left the game for few months. the results? creating account made you to start the game in top30.

1300 isn't the top. I've been following top experience and it was like 1450-1550.

if some prizes would be introduced, people would start camping with one deck and try to master it. in such a case, we might see more "true" skill. it might even create evolving META to adapt things etc. but it's not the case of fixing how ladder works. give a reason to actually climb this ladder. at the moment, not much players tryhard.

I do agree that we could toy a bit more with numbers of exp decay though.

 

Phew, and here I thought it was because I'm so ugly. Thanks brah.

 

Well , that too #Rekt