Proposition.

 [ Ak_47]Tsunam1


Edited 21 November 2016 - 4:09 am by [ Ak_47]Tsunam1
Maybe is too obvious, but the idea is to put the decay in 1800 as in ESO, there are lots of accounts acumulated with rtds 1699 down so it shouldnt be difficult for the community to get the decay up and fill the 1700-1800 rateds. Many people dont see useful to play rtd because of the soon decay there is, its true that permits more players to play between them, but the diference of lvls are visually none if you cant play 1 day in a week. There are not so many regular users as in the past so the soon decay is, I think, a bad system for the more ``casual`` players.

Sorry for my english.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 +BlackAdder_


Posted 22 November 2016 - 2:28 am
Thanks for the suggestion!

While I see where you're coming from, I'm not really sure this would solve the problem you're trying to address - don't forget the decay is only 20 points, which means that if someone drops to 1699, he was 1719 max - so you see, that's just the lower "fifth" of all the 1700-1800 players, and if they are still around that number and cannot get above by like a game or two to need e.g. two decays to get so low, then they are either really not better or they are pretty much completely inactive and no decay setting would "save" them really (decay is meant to spur activity and remove point-sitting, if you start accommodating to players' needs with it, it loses its purpose as it stops working).

Tbh when you look at the current situation, it means there are barely any 1800 players overall in the first place due to the ratings being to a degree warped mainly from smurfing - the reality is that ESO's 1800 is not the same as today's Voobly's - if you remember how the ratings were spread then, you'd know there were many 19++ and even a decent number of 2k+, so right now it's fair to say that ESO's 1800 is actually Voobly's 1700, meaning the decay is approximately at the same place where it was back then.

लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [ Ak_47]Tsunam1


Posted 23 November 2016 - 5:49 am
My point of view is that its impossible to force someone to play and the soon decay is doing damage to the comunity, that the comunity is suffering a soft crisis respect last 2 years and that the decay constricts the comunities diversity to nothing if you dont play 1 time per week and many people cant and the way to attract that people that cant play every week is with a decay that affects less people and put it in the 1750+ or 1800+ people.

We have to understand that you cant put in a less rtd decay point to a weaker community which inactivity is higher because many people dont find sense in playing rtd because their rtd is not going to be saved.

Our community is made by a majority of mature people 20+ that cant play always because they have obligations its not a new comunity, this type of people or players dont have the flexibility of young users.

I think that actual situation is ok to make a jump in the limit of the decay, there are lots of 1699 users that play sporadicly that would fill that rateds in next year.

Sorry again for my english, i dont know if i have mistakes i had to traduce your text because its really heavy for me to understand something complex that isnt in spanish language im correcting a lot for trying to make clear my point. If I have mistakes just say.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 +BlackAdder_


Edited 24 November 2016 - 11:54 pm by +BlackAdder_
Decay is working as an incentive to make players play, but it's not aimed at inactive players per say, but rather mainly at point-sitters, and I imagine you know full well there are plenty of those in any community and we are no exception :)

The point I was trying to make is that even if we remove decay, the players at the level you're talking about, the hovering around 1700, are quite probably not going to increase in rating, they are going to stay within several points of 1700 anyway - after all, by simple logic, you cannot expect to be reaching good result (which 1700+ on Voobly is) by barely playing. Since the ratings are not the same as on ESO as I said, meaning 1700 is already a pretty high level, something like at least 1800 on the old ESO, by the virtue of the size of the community there are not going to be too many of those players to begin with. Sure there might be some that could be higher-rated, but it will probably not be more than isolated, singular cases.

I took the time to go through all the current 1699 accounts on the 1v1 ladder, and this is the statistic of their last ladder game:
cca 1 week ago: 2
cca 2 weeks ago: 11
cca 3 weeks ago: 5
cca 4 weeks ago: 5
more weeks ago: 26

naturally achieved through games: 4

1699 starts at rank 59.

So you see, the vast majority of the accounts are pretty much completely inactive, most often because they're unused smurfs. This means that your assumption of "filling 1700-1800" is not really correct, as we're potentially talking about affecting maybe like 15 accounts, the others are just not active at all. Even if we considered that some are inactive because of the reason you say, it's not like there's some "huge" pool of players potentially affected by this, even when we take things in the perspective of our player population.

It also means that the number of accounts affected by decay is about a hundred max, and many of those are of course smurfs, so let's say like 50 players - that doesn't really seem to be too much, considering there are 2170 accounts on the ladder overall, so maybe 500-1000 actual players - decay affects about 5-10% of all the players, which is not really a lot - if they are inactive, there are plenty of other players who could take their place freed by the decay. The numbers and percentages also confirm that 1700 is really already a very high level of play on Voobly, which was pretty much considered the 1800 level on old ESO.

Through the statistic though there could be some reason to think about making the period a bit longer, like previous 10 days or 2 weeks, but again, that's already a pretty long time and it begs the question if decay would do anything then.

At any rate, thanks a lot for your suggestions and concerns, we'll talk about it amongst staffers to see if the situation warrants any changes like you think :)


लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
[1]
Displaying 1 - 4 out of 4 posts
फोरम कूदो
1 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 1 guests