1v1 ladder transparency

I supose if you got a rating and a ladder position. You could play to improve your rating even if you know your position wont change. Also it might give an indicator of when you will actually move up or down on the ladder.

I waited for 5 mins without a game, so I guess that's not a great idea

Okay, so moving up is something we want for some skinner-box-type feedback loop. But how do you accomplish that in a consistent way? You can't simply move everybody who plays up - unless everyone gets its own ladder.

No, I think what they mean is instant satisfaction. So, you win a game, you move up. You lose a game, you move down. Win against somebody ranked way above you, go up several places. Lose against somebody way below you, drop several places.

Unlike Glicko, which can take quite a while to adjust, if at all.

There's something to be said for both systems.

5 minutes? Pretty sure I waited 20-25 once =P it really depends on the time of day and what level of players are joining hahaha
#rankedaddiction

That's the problem when you get too good eh Violet?

Try my hour and 30 min queue on for size.

@cdrkf oh please, you could probably still beat me,
@reptarking that would be a dream come true because it'd mean i was uber =P tehehe

as for this thread, having points would definitely be more encouraging. Losing to a top 10 gold almost dropped me by 10 ranks, losing to elodea dropped me a rank even though he's so much higher, but beating a top 10 plat or uber only takes me up 1 to 3 places... Also i think showing what your opponents rank is would be good as well. A lot of the time you're not matched with your own rank, and if you win a game and drop 2 ranks (which happened once >.>) or if you stay the same rank when you've won 3 times in a row and you're still at the same level... It'd be nice to know why. I definitely agree with the people in support of having the rating showing. haha ^^

I really wish someone from uber would tell us why all the secrecy =P

lol ouch! you're getting mean in your old age violet...

Why do I get used as the example of 'i'm so bad I lost to cdrkf'... I'm ranked top of plat (which is what, 18th overall) and something like 12th on paladder.com

if players in the top 20 aren't considered decent who is?!

wait wait what???? I didnt say you were bad, you said i was good and i said you could still beat me! >.< i'm sorry if i offended you!

lol.... My point is me being able to beat you doesn't / shouldn't mean your bad haha. also I wasn't being all that serious... <3

Why not just use Win/Loss Ratio?
It is, essentially, already a win/loss system. However it includes several additions so that it's possible to match players against opponents of equal skill, even if all of the players involved have the same 50/50 WLR.

Can't someone just explain...
The 'score' you get basically depends on the consistency of the outcome. 'Lucky' wins happen even against strong players, so you won't be rewarded as much for a notable victory as you will be for a string of more middling wins, and likewise it will punish you in the reverse. If you win half of your matches (50/50), you'll likely stay exactly where you are, even if it means being severely punished for minor (but statistically validating) defeats to compensate for major (but statistically unlikely) victories.

GIEF NUMBERS!
The most important number is rating. The others have an eventual target value not related to player peformance, so there'd be no value in displaying them. Rating is a fickle number in the Glicko system that is designed to be updated after several matches. For games where it updates after every match, its behavior is prone to frustrating fluctuations. That could probably be mitigated by displaying a running average....

Win/Loss is a bad idea since if you started out losing constantly, but later on improving, you will still be held back by the early games you played.

I agree the ladder has to change in some way for it to be meaningful and encourage competition. I played 30 ladder games, went straight up to 1st (as 'gow=eshez') and now whenever I feel like playing a game I will be #1 for another week. Despite being nowhere close to the best player now, all I have to do is play a game and I'm 1st, and yaegz would probably be 2nd. It doesn't make sense. I think inactivity should reset to the bottom of the division you are in instead of just hiding you.

All ladders use some form of Win / Loss, although they compensate for that by weighting points. The paladder.com is easier to understand as it shows the point gains / losses.

On there, you gain a large number of points for beating someone high above you, and less for someone lower. Conversely you lose only a few points if beaten by a top player, and more if a 'lower' player beats you.

On that basis, if you get significantly better, you'll start beating higher up players and as a result counterbalance any losses you had before.

What's strange with glicko though is that is looking for an overall trend and once it's established one it's very hard to change it.

not reset at the bottom just move you down progressively over time. No need to encourage smurfing.