Are you counting rating at the time you beat them or now?

Because I beat Teddy when he was #2, but has a 0 rating now. Not that I'd be on your list, was just an example

IMO, it should be anyone that averages over 1500 rating, or has been over 1500 at one time.

Edited 7/30/2014 20:16:37

it was a very busy day for me and i am back now.
new rules;

1- player should be active in 1v1 ladder and ranked between 1-100.

2- games older than 1 year wont be counted.

3- games against opponents whose rating are less than 1600 (this is current rating not rating when game was created) wont be counted.

4- player should have 50 games finished with these criterias.

5- list will have only 20 players (more than 20 is hard to update). first 20 players of first 100 players in ladder who meets with criterias will be in list.

6- if players have same amounts of wins, i will check their ladder ratings to rank them.

7- this list is not against current ladder system. this is for players who likes to play more games in ladder. it is very hard to be ranked between 1-5 if you have more than 50 games finished but you can be #1 at this list.

8- i want to create a board with minimum 7 members to bring new rules and to update list. members will be from;
*1 member from every clan chosen by clan leaders (if they want to be a member)
*some players (will be voted) who is not active in ladder and not a member of a clan.
after board is created i wont touch system.

i will update list and add these new rules in my first post now

Edited 7/30/2014 22:27:20

new list with new rules;

Rank	Player			Win	Lose				
____	__________________	___	____	
1	Ottoman Emperor		38	12		30.07.2014	GMT	21:38
2	MG ♦ ɌeLite ♦		35	15		30.07.2014	GMT	21:36
3	Dom365			35	15		30.07.2014	GMT	21:36
4	master of desaster	34	16		30.07.2014	GMT	21:35
5	13CHRIS37		32	18		30.07.2014	GMT	21:01
6	Krzychu			32	18		30.07.2014	GMT	21:44
7	dwoogee			32	18		30.07.2014	GMT	21:41
8	JV			30	20		30.07.2014	GMT	21:17
9	Kantos			30	20		30.07.2014	GMT	21:52
10	Roooob			29	21		30.07.2014	GMT	21:58
11	Longhouse		29	21		30.07.2014	GMT	22:01
12	Iceman			29	21		30.07.2014	GMT	22:05
13	Master Bjarke		28	22		30.07.2014	GMT	21:36
14	Dreamworker		28	22		30.07.2014	GMT	22:14
15	CONQUISTADORS		27	23		30.07.2014	GMT	21:56
16	BraaK			27	23		30.07.2014	GMT	22:09
17	Jackie Treehorn		27	23		30.07.2014	GMT	22:12
18	Bananashake		27	23		30.07.2014	GMT	22:14
19	bananbird		27	23		30.07.2014	GMT	22:18
20	Lolowut • apex		26	24		30.07.2014	GMT	22:07

Edited 8/3/2014 13:32:58

	Rank	Player			Win	Lose				
	____	__________________	___	____				
♦	1	Ottoman Emperor		38	12		31.07.2014	GMT	21:46
♦	2	MG ♦ ɌeLite ♦		35	15		31.07.2014	GMT	21:45
NEW	3	degrret			35	15		31.07.2014	GMT	21:59
♦	4	master of desaster	34	16		31.07.2014	GMT	21:43
-2	5	Dom365			34	16		30.07.2014	GMT	21:54
♦	6	Krzychu			32	18		31.07.2014	GMT	21:48
♦	7	dwoogee			32	18		31.07.2014	GMT	21:50
-2	8	13CHRIS37		31	19		31.07.2014	GMT	21:39
-1	9	JV			30	20		31.07.2014	GMT	21:42
-1	10	Kantos			30	20		31.07.2014	GMT	22:02
+1	11	Iceman			30	20		31.07.2014	GMT	22:09
+1	12	Master Bjarke		29	21		31.07.2014	GMT	21:57
-3	13	Roooob			29	21		31.07.2014	GMT	22:11
♦	14	Dreamworker		29	21		31.07.2014	GMT	22:16
+5	15	Lolowut • apex		28	22		31.07.2014	GMT	22:07
-1	16	CONQUISTADORS		27	23		31.07.2014	GMT	22:04
-6	17	Longhouse		27	23		31.07.2014	GMT	22:12
-1	18	BraaK			27	23		31.07.2014	GMT	22:15
-2	19	Jackie Treehorn		27	23		31.07.2014	GMT	22:17
-2	20	Bananashake		27	23		31.07.2014	GMT	22:14

Edited 8/3/2014 13:32:39

	Rank	Player			Win	Lose
	____	__________________	___	____
+2	1	degrret			36	14
♦	2	MG ♦ ɌeLite ♦		35	15
+1	3	master of desaster	34	16
+1	4	Dom365			34	16
+1	5	Krzychu			32	18
+1	6	dwoogee			32	18
NEW	7	Vendetta		31	19
+4	8	Master Bjarke		30	20
+1	9	Kantos			30	20
+1	10	Iceman			30	20
-2	11	JV			29	21
+1	12	Roooob			29	21
+1	13	Dreamworker		29	21
+1	14	Lolowut • apex		28	22
+1	15	CONQUISTADORS		27	23
+1	16	Longhouse		27	23
+3	17	Bananashake		27	23
+1	18	Jackie Treehorn		27	23
NEW	19	bananbird		27	23
-2	20	BraaK			27	23

Edited 8/3/2014 13:32:14

	Rank	Player			Win	Lose
	____	__________________	___	____
♦	1	degrret			37	13
♦	2	MG ♦ ɌeLite ♦		36	14
♦	3	master of desaster	34	16
♦	4	Dom365			34	16
♦	5	Krzychu			33	17
♦	6	dwoogee			32	18
♦	7	Vendetta		32	18
+3	8	JV			30	20
♦	9	Kantos			30	20
♦	10	Iceman			30	20
+2	11	Dreamworker		30	20
-4	12	Master Bjarke		29	21
+1	13	Lolowut • apex		29	21
-2	14	Roooob			29	21
+2	15	Bananashake		28	22
+4	16	BraaK			28	22
+2	17	bananbird		28	22
-2	18	Longhouse		27	23
-1	19	Jackie Treehorn		27	23
-5	20	CONQUISTADORS		26	24

GAMES TO WATCH

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6637101

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6730254

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6722664

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6724990

Edited 8/3/2014 13:31:34

	Rank	Player			Win	Lose
	____	__________________	___	____
♦	1	degrret			37	13
♦	2	MG ♦ ɌeLite ♦		35	15
+1	3	Dom365			34	16
+2	4	dwoogee			33	17
♦	5	Krzychu			33	17
+1	6	Vendetta		33	17
+5	7	Master Bjarke		30	20
+2	8	Iceman			30	20
♦	9	Kantos			30	20
+1	10	Dreamworker		29	21
NEW	11	INSIDE			28	22
+1	12	Lolowut • apex		28	22
+3	13	BraaK			28	22
♦	14	Roob			28	22
+2	15	bananbird		28	22
-8	16	JV			27	23
+1	17	Longhouse		27	23
+1	18	Jackie Treehorn		27	23
+1	19	CONQUISTADORS		26	24
NEW	20	Master Adrianokx	22	28

GAMES TO WATCH

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6717699

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6738376

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6730252

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6641613

Edited 8/5/2014 06:13:20

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6641613 rad
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6738376 the game is good the chat is better

Edited 8/15/2014 17:51:12

I agree with what you've said.

Just to add to that, the current system encourages 'ladder runs.' This is very damaging to the ladder because it incentivises leaving the ladder for months at a time while you wait for some bad losses to expire. This is one reason the vast majority of top 1v1 players are not on the ladder at any one time. The ladder is supposed to be a continuous thing but really it is played in a stop start manner by many top players.

'20 is a good solid number for determing percentages of increments of 5%' does not equal 'Increase the minimum number of completed games to 20.'

How does one disincentivise ladder runs?

Edited 8/5/2014 12:36:55

Edited 8/15/2014 17:51:42

I said lots of times and i ll say it again. instead of discussing 15 20 or 50 we should decide a percentage for minimum number of completed games. when there was 100 or 150 players in ladder 15 games were enough. now we have nearly 300 players in ladder. there shuld be a formula for this. for example 10% of number of active players in ladder can be a good number for the minimum number of games completed . if there are 220 players in ladder you should finish 22 games, if it is 350 then 35 games.

warlight is growing. maybe next year we will see 1000 players in ladders. 15-25 games wont be enough. %10 wont work too.

solution: make divisions. for example at 1st division 100 or 200 players. make 10% of number of players in this division as minimum number of games completed. make a promotion and relegation system. for example every month worst 20% of players in 1st divison relegates to 2nd division and best of 2nd division promotes to 1st division. with this system players will play more games and ladder will be more competitive.

I would really love such a system! A weekly promotion/relegation would work too i think. And players won't get paired up with guys that are 70-80 ranks higher/lower. Those matchups are just unfair if you want to have a good rating.

15 games/ 300 players (aproximately) = nearly 5% and everybody can see problems in ladder. that means %5 is under the percentage error of this system and we passed 5% months ago. most of players wants to be ranked quickly (with finishing 15-20 games) so you cant change minimum number of games completed. because of this you cant use current system for more than 150 or 200 players.

If you have divisions how do you deal with people joining and leaving the ladder? Modification of this system is the best we can hope for rather than a total overhaul.

If the expiration date for games was pushed to six months rather than 3 and the number of games required to rank was increased to 20/25 I think the ladder would be improved. It's a small change, and more could and should certainly be done, but it would be a good start.

make it 30 game minimum and 6 months before games expire. You only move into #1 if you are still #1 after all your current games when you first hit #1 end. Now you have a legit ladder that more players would take seriously.

Edited 8/6/2014 02:43:28

Got an update?

As for expirations on the ladder, I suggest:

minimum games to get ranked - 30
Expiration after 3 months
A game cannot expire regardless of time, if the player has less than 50 unexpired games
A players keeps his rating, but stops being ranked after quitting the ladder.

@ Jaackie Treehorn

i was waiting this performance from you but you did better. i think it is 34-16 now. win 3 more and make it 37-13 i will update when i have free time for it. good job!!!

Edited 8/13/2014 09:17:58