Originally posted by zozozozoYes, but this is a very minor problem when compared with the benefits of attracting more players to the ladder. For example, it would need a large number of 'high division' players to flood into the ladder at any single time for it to affect rankings significantly - and there aren't that many high-rated players.
The only 'problem' is that, when someone new to the ladder would be placed at the bottom of a higher division, he/she should get a rank/position. This would mean all the players below that division position would lose 1 rank without finishing any games.
It depends what you want to achieve - a ladder designed to favour early entrants; or a ladder designed to increase the amount of competitive chess between equals
Originally posted by zozozozowell, no one really expects a 1200 to be number 1, but that really doesnt matter, the sistem should work equally (giving equal chances to achieve the top positions) for everyone, I don't think rating discrimination is the way to go here. At least as long as this happens in one ladder. Perhaps making different ladders for different rating groups would work, banded ladders would be more fair, giving lower graded players the ability to reach a n1 spot. But I don't think this can made to work very easily: we must remeber that ratings aren't static, and therefore intermediate players could end up being jumbled around.
I think your first suggestion is a bit tricky. Right now the ladders are still based on rating, but when challenges are won and lost, people with a lower rating could end up relatively high on the ladder (because they might put very much effort in thier ladder games or whatever), and vice versa. So if your rating is 1200 and you should be placed somewhere i ...[text shortened]... ll the players below that division position would lose 1 rank without finishing any games.
Anyhow it is clear to see that there just are too many people participating in each ladder. Perhaps make more ladders with different time-controls (no timebank-games/only timebank games/whatever), so the players get more spread out between them. And maybe give maximum number of users in each ladder (100/150/200?)? or restrict players to only playing in one ladder. All of these clearly have disadvantages, but maybe they would make the sistem more fair. I don't know.
Anyhow, once you get in the top 100 the sistem seems to be working great, and I'm having loads of fun 😉 keep up the good work
I'm having a problem with the 7 day ladder. There is only one player within range that I can challenge, but I already lost a ladder game to him (more than a month ago). When I click challenge player I get the message that I cannot challenge this player within 14 days of our last game, but it has been far more than 14 days since the last move in our previous game. What am I missing? Anyone else having this issue?
Originally posted by KewpieYea I know you can look it up there, I would like it next to the labble in the game when your about to move "00 Day Timeout" and have it say defending or attacking
The ladders "find me" page shows this info on the left. I expect you want it to show in the MyGames list.
1) The current "problem" that would keep non-subs from participating, that they might potentially need to take on an additional game when they already had six in progress, is bogus in my opinion. I would gladly intentionally give up a regular game to have a chance to participate in this. Now, I'm not saying that it should definitely be extended to non-subs (although I would love that); rather, I'm saying that a legitimate excuse would be more appropriate, in my opinion. If you simply don't want non-subs involved, then just say so!
2) As a suggestion to the slow-moving challenge problems, why not break each ladder up into rating groups, and have new players start at the bottom of each rating group. For example, say you have a 1400-1600 bracket and a 1600-1800 group, and Player A rated 1605 joined. Player A would join the 1600-1800 bracket at the bottom. Then say you have player B rated 1595, and he was in the top spots of the 1400-1600 bracket. He would be able to challenge the bottom-rung players of the next-highest bracket; i.e., the 1600-1800 bracket.
I realize that others have made this suggestion, but I thought I would clarify a tad more.
Originally posted by wittywonka1. Im not sure where you read that as only reason. But I think the reason: Dont pay: dont get much. Pay: get much. is also a fine reason🙂
1) The current "problem" that would keep non-subs from participating, that they might potentially need to take on an additional game when they already had six in progress, is bogus in my opinion. I would gladly intentionally give up a regular game to have a chance to participate in this. Now, I'm not saying that it should definitely be extended to non-s ...[text shortened]...
I realize that others have made this suggestion, but I thought I would clarify a tad more.
Originally posted by zozozozoI agree. But they should say that instead of giving the impression, "Oh, it's a shame that non-subs can't play because of the game limit." when in fact that is a problem that could be overcome.
...I think the reason: Dont pay: dont get much. Pay: get much. is also a fine reason
Originally posted by zozozozoNon subscribers get adverts which we subscribers avoid seeing altogether. Assuming the adverts generate revenue for the site, then surely it is silly to regard non subscribers in such negative terms as free riders? If we only had subscribers, there would be zero revenue from adverts.
1. Im not sure where you read that as only reason. But I think the reason: Dont pay: dont get much. Pay: get much. is also a fine reason🙂
There are lots of reasons why people can't or choose not to subscribe. It seems to me that subscribers are far too snotty about them and there is every reason to provide a decent range of facilities to them.