Strider84
Joined: Jun 03, 2009
|
  Posted:
May 22, 2019 - 09:05 |
|
And I thought getting 0.01 is bad |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
  Posted:
Jun 25, 2019 - 23:40 |
|
I'm interested in the decay topic. It's been 5 years since I played, and anyone who watched my Winter Whispers game yesterday knows.. I ain't no super star anymore.
But my understanding is that losses will affect my cr more due to my 'current' high CR right? So decay might not be needed? |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
On a macro scale, decay is a bad idea. Someone who doesn't participate for a long time will artificially move towards "neutral" even if they spend the time playing in another way (tabletop tournaments for example). This greatly misrepresents their ranking when they return.
This becomes a problem even for players who are away for a relatively short amount of time.
I have ruled out introducing decay because of this. It's also a mechanic I dislike because it encourages people to play games for the wrong reason (ie "play every day or you'll lose CR"). While that's great for "engagement" numbers, it's getting closer to the type of mechanic I hate about mostly any mobile game out there (which for profit's sake is being added to triple A titles too). I'd much rather try to improve the experience in positive ways to keep people playing.
A better way to deal with people who are away is to introduce a concept that the Glicko system uses. Effectively, it's an "uncertainty" factor where if you're away for a period of time, the system gets uncertain about the rating you currently have and will adjust your rating at a faster rate for the first few games after you return. Much in the same way some rating systems use "placement" matches that move you at an increased rate. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
  Posted:
Jun 26, 2019 - 02:42 |
|
That makes sense, thank you for the explanation.
Hopefully I can relearn enough to bring Shindahl back to the majors! |
|
|