make games 1-50 after that, no 21-60, but 41-70 and ,no 41-80, but 51 to 80 and no 61-100 lets have 71 to 90 and 81 to 100

lets make the games easier to get filled in the lower level cause thats where the trouble is getting games started there

and lets make the higher level games a bit more challenging to get in also in the higher game u get to go against more people with ur level skill
so new ranges would be incase if i confused u all
1-50, 41-70, 51-80, 71-90, and 81-100

i also wanted to add to switch begginer games to currently running and take away the double trouble from them this way newbie can experience the game faster and have a sense what to expect later cause there is no double trouble later and the currently running will have them not asking "why i cant move or do anything?"

I guess the question is, is there currently a problem for filling lower level or any level of games?

If so, then yes something should be used to stimulate more rapid forums of filling those games up. If i'm not mistaken this was the initial purpose of the que system. Is it working or not?

I know at last count, there are 36 players who are high enough to enter in 61-100 games. Though it is very clear that most of those players either don't like 61-100 games, or do not feel they are ready to face the most elite players who only play in those formats.

Making the purposed change should be easy enough to do on Req's side. If he crunches some numbers to see how active players lvl 50 or less are and believe this will increase the lower games into starting sooner, and does the same based on the suggested new level ranges. Then I think it would be a good idea.

I like the system now, I don't see anything wrong with it...

see ur not getting the big picture this isnt for u ur an established player im concern about the new players that want to play and see that games take forever to start thus leaving
and there isnt much of a challenge to go up in the end this will improve that
i think with this changes... this will improve wol as a whole

i like the idea with games from 1-50.
about the change in the other level restrictions we´ve got to talk again i think.

Well, by your system I'd go from being in the 61-100 games to the 51-80 bracket, which gives me a lot less potential for growth. Of course I don't like it. I just got OUT of the 80-max games 2 games ago...

Last Edited : Monday, 27 September 2004 - 16:47

we have 4 groups now...

1-40, 21-60, 41-80, 61-100.

Which i think is a pretty good range-set. 40 points in each group and 4 groups to spread out the play. Its obviously better when we have more players though.

The other option i was thinking about (which is better for less players), is only 3 groups...

1-50, 25-75, 51-100.

This makes it easier to join games with more ppl, and its easier to climb (or drop) in rank as the spread is 50 not 40.

25-75 and 51-100 imo would not be good. It seems very clear to me that their is such a large skill discrepancy in the 2nd two groups, that you would have people who are the elite of their skill bracket, easily beating down newer players so much so that they would feel that they don't have a chance to progress.

As far as at higher level brackets. I think the 61-100 is fine. Since I have been waiting for various 61+ games to fill up. Over the past month or so. But even still, I would prefer not to have players who are in their 50's lvl to go up against, because generally speaking they are not prepared for a high end game.

Again, Req needs to determine if the low end games are filling up fast enough. If they are to his likely, then there is no need for a change.

-Sage: currently your not listed in any 61+ games, so regardless of the skill brackets, your not going to use any potential for growth if your not facing the highest of competition that your current lvl affords you to fight. If you are in one, and I missed it, let me know, so I can join that game, and see if we can get the game going soon.

25-75 and 51-100 would be horrible...level 25 players going up against 60 and 70's players? 51's going up against 90's???

Last Edited : Monday, 27 September 2004 - 22:34

well thats my point 41level against a 80 level who u think will win sage?thats why i wanted the higher end of the games to be a close net game cause since u cant go beyond 100 and this is a progressive way to gain points meaning there willmore and more higher level player as time goes on and i perfer that the end of the scale fights player of the same calaber

I don't want to seem presuming, but are you looking at the big picture when you say you want brackets so closed Raptor? How do you think people of lower levels learn, but through playing people of higher ones?

I've tried pushing ideas of rewards for some kind of mentorships in games, but the closest we have for that now is clans, and those are closed to the general public... if you make the brackets narrower, you stiffle peoples abilities to learn. if you make them wider, games will fill up faster, and people will learn faster because they will be put in situations where they can see there betters actions, and learn from them.

Yes, there are downsides to this. some people wont want to learn, they'll just sit in games and become weaker targets for more learned players. maybe the penalty for going inactive should be harsher.

Also, don't think that if Req puts 51-100 in effect, it'll ruin your day. you can still schedual games among top players exclusive. It's just that the penalty for losing will be a bit less inviting.

soo, for rank misers, the three bracket system would be bad. but for learners (who we are trying to encourage to play, right?) it would be better. at least until we have thousands of actives.

one last thing. Sage said:

"25-75 and 51-100 would be horrible...level 25 players going up against 60 and 70's players? 51's going up against 90's???"

now, in our current system, how often do you see a level 70 player in a 20-80 game? I've seen it once I believe, one player out of all the x - 80 games I've played. people just don't usually play at the top of there bracket, so the only time you are going to see that is in the 51-100 bracket.
so, if there is anything wrong with the three bracket system req. suggested, it would be (IMO) not the size of the brackets, but the amount which they over lap. If you could make it so that people could not enter the 25-75 bracket until they were level 40, and couldn't enter the 50-100 until they were level 65, that would be better. of course, you'd have to mark the player as having reached the bracket, instead of having the bracket being based on your level... like it is now.

ector ur not looking at the future ur just stuck on the present like sage the winner of a 71to 90 will move on to a 80-100 game thus u get the competition at its best and this mean if u arent able to reach at least 80 in a 71-90 game u dont deserve to play and learn from the best if u cant hack it with people of levels 71-80 cause noone over 80 would be in that game u see the logic behind it now?

I think you always deserve to play and learn from the best. if the best don't want to teach, thats there problems, there not gonna get any competition any time soon, and thats what they SAY they want.

Think about it Raptor, some people learn a lot faster than others... I'd like to be playing you top guys right now, because I don't have anything left to learn in my current bracket.
when you have the brackets like they are now, all the good people leave them as soon as they can, so you don't have any teachers left over to teach. each bracket has its own level of skill, mostly because at the bottom people just plain don't know what they are doing, and they advance without any body who does know what they are doing teaching them. so they have to figure it out alone or with very little help, up till about level 40, where they need to really learn at least some of the basics or get in last place every time, because now people are always active. then you have this middle level which I am stuck in, where people try, and almost everybody knows the basics, and some good strats, but not nearly everything. and then theres the top level.

Educating the bottom level(s) as much as possible would improve competition in all levels. compartmentalizing our brackets even further would set the teachers even farther from the students, reducing the information passed on through combat experience, and thus reducing competition throughout.

^ector, in my last 41-80 game, I had two players in their 70's playing.

Anyways, I contradicted myself. I guess what my mind is saying is that while level 41+ players can at least LEARN from the level 70 guys, level 25's are going to be so lost that they'll just die. Level 25's don't even know the basics yet, a lot of the time. 51's fighting 100's is a little bit better, but still....the brackets are FINE as they are now.

one think ppl are forgetting is LOSING points...

in a 71-90 game, who cares if you come last!
you get 70 points still!!!! out of 5 games that barely effects your overall rank. you'd have to lose 5 of those games to see any drop in rank.

to me, thats just stupid.

the whole idea with this type of system is that players go up and down in rank over time based on their game performance.

and YES. one bad game SHOULD effect your rank.

you may play against bad players, but if they manage to join at 51, it shows they must have won some 25-75 games. so they cant be total crap.

if they arent lvl 80 quality, so what. they will never reach lvl80, and the better players will be lvl80+.
isnt that the whole point?

the best thing about any ladder is when there is the risk to drop in rank quickly, but also the hope to raise in rank quickly. too many ranges ruins that.

how about adding a -10 range in all games over 50 for the drop?so in a 71-90 it will be spread to a 61-90 thus creating risk but making entry harder on the rise?

I do like Raptor's last post here. If you know that you finish poorly in a game that is 71-90, so that you only get 61 points for it. It will mean you will want to play your best. Under the current system, if you enter 5 61-100 games, then your rank will be 61. so it means you will always be able to enter those level of games and never go down.

Since Req has just clarifed that is something he doesn't want (and I agree with him on this) then the current brackets are flawed. If a good player does have a bad score or two, and they are "forced" to player a lower level game, they will usually do well and get right back up into the elite games. Then I think that is a good thing.

As far as lower "bracket" games I think it is a good idea to increase those initial ranges, so that new players will not have to wait very long before a game starts. If a new person comes to the site and signs up for a game, they don't want to ahve to wait a week or two just for their game to start. I understand that their are beginner games, but even still. It is better to help low level games especially be starting all the time.

Of course one way to do that is limit the number of open maps. Perhaps, not give them the option for the maze map (that map bites anyways ) and only give the option for 12 hr and slow games until they have gotten up to the next skill bracket. Req will want to determine which games get enough use at lower levels, but generall 8 hour and 6 hour games are probably going to be too fast for the new player. If the game types were limited even for jsut lower level players, this would help funnel them to getting lots of games played and get experience with minimal waiting between games. Then they can get to the top levels and wait around forever like the rest of us for their games to start

Putting the -10 would be fine if you also put a +10 at the top end. So for a 71-90 game the score would range between 61-100 instead. (Unless you wanted the games slanted to result in lower scores overall). x-100 would have to still be capped at 100 though, since a player who reached 101 or more wouldn't be able to join any games...

Don't overlook the earlier suggestion that beginner games just put the new player in a game instantly. We need to have some instant fun besides battles going here. New players would find themselves in an on-going game and learn the basics while they waited for a real game to start.