Spotlight

ERROR1025 (1402) / vvd (1454) ®

"Undead win Loyalists" ~ERROR1025




[15/11] kkk111 says there's only a few left to beat and enters the Top 5.
[07/11] momom2 has fought plenty to become one of the Top 5.
[07/11] hitandrun has ascended to the heady heights of 1900 Elo points.
[02/11] clmates is the number one contender at 3rd place.
[21/10] newbieA says there can only be one at rank number 1!

News

should we use divisions?

Head over to this thread and tell me what you think about dividing the ladder in senior/major and a junior/minor divisions, based on Elo rating.

Here's the idea:

I have been thinking about dividing the ladder into 2 divisions, one major where the moe skilled players would be, and one minor where us mortals would be found, and I'm wondering if it sounds like a system that would make sense for Wesnoth?

The way it would work is that a division is defined by a ceratin range of Elo rating. As an example, all players that has 1500+ would be in the major/pro division, while the others who have below would be in the minor.

That way you'd see 2 different ladders when viewing the ladder table. The major division would have it's own ranks, and currently OWlface would the leader. The minor would have it's own ranking, and currently I would be the leader of it. At the same time, players would still be free to play against anyone who is part of the ladder, independent of which division they appear in.

The point being? Well, I guess it's mostly psychological: At times I wonder why on earth somebody would be interested in the ladder or following it's results if he's on the 50:th place, as an example. It makes more sense and seems more intuitive to keep the better players in a separate list and the not-so pro on another. An argument for it is that the not so pro players would be ranked compared with other players in their own skill class. And that seems as a fairer way to rank them.

So, even if it's true that I suck compared with all players, it's not as true that I suck compared with players that have about the same skills. If so, maybe it isn't really all that fair or interesting that all players appear in the ladder right now, since they are of very different skill classes. I don't know, what do you guys think? To me it seems like if all players except the top 20 will be discouraged from participating and playing since they'll think they aren't doing that well, while the truth is that the maybe are but that the comparison of the ladder, which includes all the top players as well on it, isn't forgiving

The system I suggest would work in a way that allowed every player to play against every other that wants to, just like it already is. Nothing would change on the players side or how the games are reported. However, you'd appear in different divisions (major / minor.. or maybe we should call them senior / junior?) depending on your rating. Whenever you qualify (get high enough rating) the site would move you into the correct division. So, one day I could be number 2 in the minor division, and after 1 week and many victories, I get transfered into the major division, where I could end up as number 21.

Is divisions something I should implement or not? Drawbacks?

---

Other news articles:

- passive mode added!
- rules change & faq update...
- new play now list functions...
- two rule changes...
- Ranking entry changed...
- in-game friends list added...
- password bug fixed
- site server update coming...
- Server crash / Disconnect rule changes...
- Elo correction & multiple accounting...