I suppose congrats are in order for the team that usurped our #1 spot on the 2x2 ladder. My only hesitation is that they got there by beating a team ranked 1450 (most recent win). I don't think we ever got a match against someone ranked that low, let alone while we were contesting for a top position.

I guess the matching system was tweaked again to favor teams with 10+ matches, otherwise an 1850 team could not be matched up with a 1450 team.

Yeah, just glad it wasn't Raging and Nuck :P

Haha we'll accept your begrudged congratulations Duke but I don't think it was our win over a 1454 team that did it for us. Keeping in mind the 3 month expiration timer on Ladder games, we've recently dropped 2 losses (1 from a 1322 team from our first game and the other from your team D&R in our 2nd game). Pair that with the loss you guys just added from D&G and it all adds up to us jumping ahead in short order. I for one will enjoy the feeling of 1st place while it lasts as the competition will only get more fierce as this 2v2 Ladder gains more popularity and I find it highly improbable that we'll be retaining the title for long =P

Looking forward to seeing you guys again soon for the showdown!

That helps explain my abrupt drop on the single ladder (and then climb). All my early (easy) wins stopped counting and I guess one of my losses stopped as well. I've been going up and down in the rankings without playing a game.

Yeah same here, it's actually causing me to doubt my original firm belief in the 3 month expiration timer. Or perhaps it just reinforces my belief that there should be a permanent standing Ladder with separate seasonal rankings.

Well, I still believe there are a lot of flaws with the ladder ranking system, I just no longer have the fire to argue for change, since it seemed like the majority of people were happy with the way it is or frankly don't care.

If the value of past victories/losses were to slowly decrease over time instead of suddenly not counting at all anymore, the transition would be much smoother.

Agreed. They should depreciate gradually, but never go to zero.

I think that is true, but with this system it's what is causing all this change in the Ladder. I think lately I've seen a lot more movement with each player (sans Imp). With new people coming in and also the people that are in there are losing some steam and have to put some more games under their belt. It's doing exactly what we knew it would do. It's ensuring that people stay active and fight for their position. This is at least making the ladder interesting because now people are going to be forced to not just do 1 game at a time, but now they will need to do 2 maybe 3 a time to stay afloat.

When we all first joined the ladder we were all doing 5 games a piece and blazing through games. Now a majority of players are down to 1-2 games a piece and with that decline, we're losing games at a faster rate than what we can play them at (hence the slight drop).

Its better to have this change then to not have it at all. Having it go down gradually is more ideal then just dropping the game, but how are we supposed to implement that gradual change?

Well, Ruthless, the current system still rewards you playing less games than more games. If you want to see change in the ladder, switch to a different ranking system where people are rewarded on a game-to-game basis instead of relative to everyone else, and you'll see a LOT more people moving around as well as the top players having to play more games to fight for their spot.

*shrug*...I just think it's silly that we're just now seeing a very small amount of movement in the ladder due to the 3 months thing and we could have had a much more exciting and competitive ladder all along with a better rating system. Rather than be excited about it now, we should have been clamoring for change earlier. Oh well.

I think we should redo the vote on the rating system. With new players in the mix and some time to think about our decision...I want to see how it changes. I would like to see something more active then what is currently happening.

personally, I think you should be rated by your current performance. Old games constantly effecting your rating just seems a lot less accurate a measure. The only time I'd LIKE to see my rating shift, is if I were to win or lose a recent game

I would advocate taking another look at ['seasons'](http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1521999-ladder-seasons-?ref=title) as Eitz mentioned above. I think it incentivizes players to play more games as the final rankings for each season would be permanently posted on profiles (perhaps just a participation star for the lower 50 percent or something?). Each new season would be a total fresh start and we wouldn't have to worry about rating decay at all.

However, if we do keep the current system and wish to mitigate the drastic shifts that rating decay can have we might consider something such as

Games after 3 months count 75% towards total rating
Games after 4 months count 50% towards total rating
Games after 5 months count 25% towards total rating
Games after 6 months count 0% (or 10% if it is decided that it is better for games to always have at lease SOME influence on current rating) towards total rating.


I would especially like to see a season-ending tournament of some type, even if only the top 64 (insert arbitrary number here) qualify. This would of course require a change in tournaments that would place players in the bracket based on rank (1v64, 2v63 etc).

Just a few quick thoughts.

I do hope the Seasons idea that has been thrown around here and there is being heard by Randy. I think he would like to get this Mobile App out as soon as he can. From there it seems he may have more time to rework the ladder

I really like everything Troll just posted.

I like the idea of seasons as well