|
Post by thest4lker on Sept 27, 2012 5:03:37 GMT -5
Ok, after being away for a while, I was under the impression that the leaderboard now worked on an elo system. But from what I can see it still works by just accumulating experience from games played. Can someone clarify please.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Sept 27, 2012 5:32:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Sept 27, 2012 6:35:13 GMT -5
Not at all is more accurate.
I don't know how many plays casual vs competitive, but my bet is not very many (it takes for ever to get a game in casual if you want to test something - so don't even bother anymore).
Since most if the high ranked have used up their bonus points, it is just a grind-fest for winning most games after you got stuck where you did when bonus matches ran out. I see a lot of deceptive rush in the top - it is win fast or die fast.
Where you ended with the bonus matches also has some randomness to it as some may have gotten a lot of NOOS or other factors besides real wins. Then some have gotten extra bonus games. Some more than once, some never.
So the ranking is sadly not a testimony to true skill as an ELO system would be. But then again, with fewer people playing, an ELO system may take too long to match make with any good paring anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Sept 27, 2012 7:34:34 GMT -5
I wonder if there actually are fewer people playing or is it more a perception/network problem. Remember that people like us who are competitively minded and hone the game a lot are probably less than 5% of the entire playing population.
And yes my mistake about the ELO thing, what I meant was that they have attempted to improve the system.
|
|
|
Post by thest4lker on Sept 27, 2012 7:48:51 GMT -5
So basically it still just an accumulation of all your points from matches (I see I am still in the top 30 of all time, despite not playing for absolute ages). And you can just accumulate a few more points from some matches (which might vary per person). Big deal...
|
|
|
Post by coolkendude on Sept 27, 2012 7:58:25 GMT -5
October's just around the corner (new seasonal leaderboard) so we'll have a better idea of who really are the world-beaters and who are the pretenders.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Sept 27, 2012 9:02:31 GMT -5
Exactly, having seasonal resets offsets the accumulative. The accumulative all time thing was never gonna work anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Sept 27, 2012 10:11:50 GMT -5
Tu, wasn't trying to correct you.
There are a little more that 2000 on this periods leader board. That is not a lot of active players.
Next season we will see if the number will be.
St4lker, don't know if you missed it, but there is now more leader boards. You are high ranked on the "most experienced" leader board. There are also the seasonal leader boards where the first is coming to an end now. What I wrote about was seasonal leader board.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 27, 2012 10:14:57 GMT -5
Well splitting the groups of players into potentially 2 was a bad idea. Now if you look for a game, there MIGHT be a player in casual waiting, and you wouldnt know.
|
|
|
Post by kackman73 on Sept 27, 2012 16:51:21 GMT -5
Does anyone even try casual? In my experience in other games, it seems like most people want to jump straight to the competitive level (or its equivalent) whether they're ready for it or not.
|
|
|
Post by jeremyat on Sept 27, 2012 20:52:05 GMT -5
Does anyone even try casual? In my experience in other games, it seems like most people want to jump straight to the competitive level (or its equivalent) whether they're ready for it or not. Considering I've run into a couple of first sequence decks in competitive, I'd be inclined to agree with you that there are some out there who just jump right in. No one wants to be in the kiddie pool, even if they can't swim.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 28, 2012 0:05:14 GMT -5
Yeah, it's just a bad idea having it exist with only a small active player base.
|
|