'Smurfing' on the ladder... very un sporting!

Oh no no, I completely agree, I'm only saying that some day it'd be nice to have.. Like if we get a larger player base.

This would go away completely if you needed to play a lot of games to maintain high ranks. The top players got there and can't lose those spots unless they lose games. If they were forced to be much more active, it would be harder to maintain second accounts too.

*shivers*

When i wrote that i was not expecting this to happen lol.

lol, i finally see why bluestrike has a gargamel account lol

Having to maintain a rank would be a good way to deal with stagnation, I know it was considered at one point for the unofficial ladder. As for smurf accounts, I don't see it as a massive problem. I think a lot of it is challenge, it's the MP equivalent of a SP speed run to have two accounts highly ranked, or restricting yourself to weird rules like 'no air' and seeing where you end up. Not losing ranks for inactivity is the main problem imo, as smurfing is no longer juggling multiple accounts at that point, it's just starting again to fill another slot.

I can see the arguments on both sides as valid. (once I slogged through the flamewar and ignored some profiles) But I gotta side with Elodea since all he wants is to be able to experiment with new builds (guys, he's trying kick the meta out of stagnation.) and unless you really think the AI responds as a player, thats just not an option. He could use custom games, but that's gonna give him more or less random feedback given the unstructured nature of custom games. I think the possible bonuses from the attempts of a highly ranked player (someone who well understands good and bad play) to develop more options for strategies outweighs the damage done to a fledgling ladder that's still being developed and growing. Besides, losing or winning against his smurf means you're learning what does and doesn't work too.

Ferreals though, inactivity rank decay. Honestly thought it would be a thing from the beginning.

Something like this.

Uber more units pretty please.

It would deal with the smurf issue. Also the rating system already deals with actual inactivity by increasing the uncertainty of the player's ranking. Which has the effect of putting the player through placement matches again. In order to figure out where they stand and placed them appropriately.

It's a great start, but it doesn't deal with the problem of people getting into the top 10 and then just never playing again on that account. They don't degrade over time.

I was agreeing with Obscillesk on the smurf issue and the need for some way to decay ratings over time of inactivity. Also pointed out that already deals with a similar issue. Agreed.

My two bits on this issue is that with no penalty for inactivity. someone could just work to a high level. stop playing, and no one can match up against them. There should be point losses for being inactive.

As stated above by Captain and others.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/rank-inactivity-poll.66909/ i have created this poll based off a few constructive ideas tossed in by community members and gave multiple options

I'm sorry but this isn't a good reason, not at all.

To break down your statement you are smurfing because:

1: others are doing it. If you saw someone jump off a cliff would you do it too?

2: as you don't want to lose points when your not at your best. So myself and I think the majority of other ladder players lose points against their account and take the rank hit accordingly but apparently that's not acceptable for you? Am I the only uber ranked player who has one account?

If your not up to playing ranked, don't play it imo. Play a custom game.

It's all well and good to not play your main account because you want to test things out against ranked players without risking yourself. But I doubt the person on the other end has fired up Ranked play just to facilitate you and your safe experimentation.

I mean, if you want to avoid public lobbies, why not just pester a skilled friend or two?

The ranking system being used is one of the main problems here, rather than smurfing itself. I wish I could understand the reasons for the ranking system we've got as it is utterly ridiculous. I have been penalised for playing around 150 games in that it is impossible for me to now get back into the top 10 after 1 nights drunken ranked gaming where I lost to a few of the higher ranked players. I've stopped playing ranked games now as it is feels like a complete waste of my time, I can win 20 games in a row and gain 1 rank?!

The penalties for losses do appear rather harsh compared to the gains for winning

It probably also because when the ladder just started and everyone was fresh it was easy to grab points since terrible people still had a huge amount of points. Now all these points are safely in the main accounts of smurfers so basicly out of the game entirely. I don't care about this since PA stats laddering was brainless farming too, but that ladder also had lots of smurf accounts in the top 50 (probably the same people). Also i find it extremely greedy to take 2 ladderspots for 1 person, like someone taking 2 busseats while others have to stand. I think the benefits for the entire community to have a ladder that is right is absolutely above the personal benefits of being a smurfer and having all the benefits (losing less points, having different name, taking all the ladderspots etc). Same as in the bus where 2 seats are meant for 2 persons.

That's not how Glicko works.

Someone who starts to ladder now will earn as much points per win on avarage as someone who started right after the reset?