Is the 1 vs 1 ladder not as popular as it should be ?

I have figured out that I am likely to get 1650s points for ELO score as in RT ladder so it may be working as it should be.

There are some players I don't know in the 1600-1700 bracket. Hopefully, many players ranked lower than me in RT with 1500s pts have roughly the same elo.

I wondered if it is needs to be harder because of more better players. By example, 1800-1900 in mutliday ladder is more skilled or you have a more true score as the gap between players is smaller.

Is it just another multiday ladder with one template as seasonal ?

Edit : Why people would stall games ?

Edited 8/16/2015 15:50:08

RT and the 1v1 ladder use different ranking systems, but iirc the 1v1 ladder is the most popular of all. It still has fewer active players than DARKLORDS has members, though.

As for game stalling, people do that to maximize their peak rating by building a win streak before they have to finally Surrender. The other common way to game the ladder involves surrendering a lot of games and then re-climbing quickly while you have easier opponents (which only helps marginally). Neither of these is meaningful if you don't care about your peak ladder rating.

These gaming issues aren't really solvable without the introduction of mechanisms that can themselves be gamed, so we're kind of stuck for now although I hope the new CSL framework, when I release it, will finally provide a solution.

does that mean darklords are the ost popular ladder?

The 1v1 ladder uses bayeselo, the average rating at all times is 1500.

The RT ladder uses TrueSkill, a completely different calculation algorithm in which people can have scores under 0, and there's no specific pre-determined average rating.