bumb for jurg

Thanks Das, I appreciate them all but I am only going to bump one or the forum's first page will be screwed up again. Good readings.

I had had it with ELO for a while but now that it has been gone for so long, I realise it was an awesome concept.

Ryan could still add elo as a side-event if he wanted. I would go for something like this:
*elo tables with 200 point gaps
*no monthly resets, just an everlasting ranking (people could play it at the beginning of the months more when there are no 2k tables anyway)
*you have an elo score calculated like in the past
* current elo score will be on your profile but the actual elo ranks are based on your avg elo of your last 50 games
*you could maybe award elo medals every 3 6 or 12 months?

It will take a few weeks or months for everybody to have reached their rank plateau but this will be a much more accurate elo ranking and I also hope it is one that is more resistant to cheating.

bring elo back

+1

Great point jurg about using the moving average elo. It smooths out the stochastic bumps, discourages phoenixing, and is easy to understand, as opposed to the TAZD.

yup, thats my point to propose it

I remember when the elo's got so high for top3 it was ridiculous. The player in second was almost forced to pga to be sure to get 1st.

With a moving 50 avg system, I hope everybody will be gentleman enough to compete fairly. If people only have like 30 games, you could add 20 1500 scores to it so everyone can start with an avg of 50 immediately

maybe not a full reset is needed, but id recommend a -5% for each inactive month. otherwise, i would fear that, with cheating or without, once someone happened upon a lucky 50-game streak (which definitely happens), they would camp on their ludicrously high elo-average to gloat on the leaderboards.

yes, I mean, YES!!!, great improvement proposed by Monte and a very valid point

practical suggestion for it:

let's say 2150 is a good high elo

if at the beginning of a month, you add 4 1500 scores to the running avg (pushing out the 4 oldest results), that player drops to 2098 (assuming he had 50 results of 2150).

Dropping 52 points is the equivalent of reducing a score by approx. 2,5%. Dropping 5% is possible but knocking off 100 elo points might be a bit too much each month (but acceptable to me)

jurgen: OK, so who's in favor of adding this side-comepetition for fun?
KDice community: WE ARE! Ryan, what do you think? Come on man, PLEASE!
Ryan: oh shit, there goes all my free time for the next 4 weekends but OK
KDice community: YAY Ryan, you are the best!
Ryan: just kidding
KDice community: BOOOO
greekboi and yodel: Ryan , you ****CENSORED****
jurgen: Well, I am not banning that, they are damn right

yeah good points.

maybe instead of penalizing their elo, you could simply remove them from the leaderboard after too much inactivity. they could keep the same elo, but in order to appear on the leaderboard, you must have at least 50 games within the past 50 days. or something like that.

do you remember back when Ryan implemented the -3 elo for every day of inactivity? that KILLED people. i forgot how bitchy people (including myself) got when their elo was dropped.

yeah and you could have solved that by many simple things, a few come to mind:

- don't drop the first X days (4 or 7 seem balanced)

- only start dropping -3 if your avg games per day (over the last week) drops below 1,0. So someone that played 7 games on Monday will be allowed one week of inactivity. This roughly means you need to play 30 games a month with no longer gaps than 6 days to have no elo deducted. I know the way I propose now is not good yet but something along that line.