Suggestion: Inactive users will start to see their rating decrease
Được đọc bởi 184 người dùng
I think it's extremely strange to get upset about a rating number at all. Look at the chess rating table for example. The top players have very strong numbers there, but the game statistics are over 45% losses. The only conclusion is that this "rating" should not be lumped together with classic ratings. No top player in any sport loses that many games.
[i]posted by Meikop[/i] Yes, gaming skills disappear over time, so should your rating. If you still don't play for half a year, your rating number is no longer adequate. Also, at that time, the "Vint.ee best players" box in the game room, where the leader of the rating table for all games is clearly visible. At the moment, you need to make 5 clicks to see who is, for example, the best 4-row player, etc.
I would argue that not playing in Vint for half a year would not lose my level. Besides, Vint.ee is not the only place to play, so the statement that a player loses their skills in half a year is not true. However, I agree that there could be some kind of compensation once or twice a year for those who have not played in the Vint rating system, for me, 1400 in five or two years. But Vint could notify the user a few days in advance of the rating decrease.
I have a feeling that Meikop will push it through despite the great opposition anyway. I call on all Vind users to at least fight against it, so that if this nonsense is pushed through, at least there will be reasonable periods and point losses. The minimum time before attacking the rating should be at least 6 months. After that, somewhere 1 point a day would be an OK drop. Then inactive users will eventually drop in the rating. But it doesn't have to happen in 2 weeks or 1 month. After all, people have lives too. There is not always time to go to Vind, and if someone plays 10 different games, then it is completely logical that some people don't bother to play 3-4 of them. LET IT LIVE. WASTE. And examples cannot be given based on one user. All users must be taken into account. My call - let's not let Meikop make people Vind addicts.
Where is the big opposition? Fantunes' first post has 11 votes for and 0 against :) If you don't feel like delving deeper, there's no need to express an opinion. There are enough haters here without you.
Why such a proposal? Why? There is a working system, it has worked for years, and now suddenly it should be changed? Ratings serve their purpose, the stronger the higher the rating, and the weaker player has a lower rating, which also ensures that he loses less points in the event of a loss. The rating of inactive users is not reflected in any ranking, so who will get these ratings? If the current rating beautifully shows the player's strength in a given game, then what is the purpose of the rating in the future? For example, in checkers tournaments, both novice school students with a rating below 1400 and strong real checkers with a rating well over 2000 meet. Currently, the weaker player does not lose points in the event of a loss, he has a good opportunity to learn by playing with the strong. According to Meikop's new plan, these people may soon meet in a tournament with completely equal ratings, but there is still a very big difference in skills. In addition, this absurd (at least in my eyes) proposal has other problems. There are a lot of game types in Vindis that are impossible to play even if you are in the game room for several days in a row, because there are simply no opponents. How can Mr. Meikop demand something that is sometimes impossible to fulfill? Or will Mr. Meikop himself start helping those in need so that if I still come to play, I can also play the mandatory games required by Mr. Meikop? The speeches of one person over the past six months really make me sigh...
[i]posted by Rose[/i] Why such a proposal? Why? There is a working system, it has worked for years, and now suddenly it should be changed? Ratings serve their purpose, the stronger the higher the rating, and the weaker player has a lower rating, which also ensures that he loses less points in the event of a loss. The rating of inactive users is not reflected in any ranking, so who will get these ratings? If the current rating beautifully shows the player's strength in a given game, then what is the purpose of the rating in the future? For example, in checkers tournaments, both novice school students with a rating below 1400 and strong real checkers with a rating well over 2000 meet. Currently, a weaker player does not lose points in the event of a loss, he has a good opportunity to learn by playing with the strong. According to Meikop's new plan, these people may soon meet in a tournament with completely equal ratings, but there is still a very big difference in skills. In addition, this absurd (at least in my eyes) proposal has other problems. There are a lot of game types in Vint that cannot be played even if you are in the game room for several consecutive days, because there are simply no opponents. How can Mr. Meikop demand something that is sometimes impossible to fulfill? Or will Mr. Meikop himself start helping those in need, so that if I still come to play, I can also play the mandatory games demanded by Mr. Meikop? The speeches of one person in the last half year really make me sigh...
Rose, there is nothing to be done, the time is like this. Meikop turned the screw, now he has a lot of figuring out, but it will probably never be the same again.
This topic is closed, there's no point in arguing any further. The public supports Fantunes' idea and we'll do it soon.
But suddenly Fantunes' idea only got 11 pluses because there was a proposed option "If inactive users are not shown in the rating, then I would not bother with their points"? You are accusing other users of slander here, but what are you doing yourself? There are no rules to follow. The Vint rules clearly state "The Vint.ee team will prioritize all errors in the portal and new ideas that have found at least 20 supporters (likes)" Fantunes' idea has 11 votes in favor and we are already locking the topic and doing it. However, as I mentioned before, there is a sentence in it that he would not bother with the rating of inactive users. This causes confusion and several votes in favor may have come precisely because of what was written at the end. If you are an honest person and you are really interested in the public's opinion, then make the survey visible to everyone and then decide on the results. But even then, you can't demand that all games be played if you don't have a guaranteed opportunity to do so at a time that suits the person. (For example, in Brazilian Checkers and Entropy, 1 game is played in about 3 days. In these types of games, you can go a week without being able to play.) First create the conditions and then start demanding. In Vint's case, this is a business enterprise, not a group of friends with their own rules.
I agree with Rose's statements, they are relevant....the other thing is that Meikop wants to compare results at the end of the year...and then force everyone to play so that after the end of the year it's good to have a look at the statistics to see how we develop..one thing is statistics, the other thing is me....you forced us to play here so as not to lose the rank...you can't get players together, there are no players and lowering this rank is still a terrible rush...change things for everyone, how boring it is, fix the 4-person family tournament, finally do what I have been saying for over three months, you haven't changed your score in over a year, you are still sitting at the top of the table with your 2016 points. Vint hasn't developed anything lately. Only Meikop is developing, who thinks up all kinds of nonsense on how to increase their budget..Vind doesn't seem to care, it's especially important to fill your pockets,,,
I also support the new poll. Fantunes could have gotten these pluses for other reasons too. I suggest that Meikop make a new topic and write down Fantunes' idea nicely and we'll see how it goes. I guess I also gave Fantunes a plus, but it was more because 1 point a day seemed reasonable if this nonsense was pushed through, not because I supported it. And the other half, 2 weeks, would make it a minimum of 6 months. My plus could be turned into a minus there if they want to push it through in this form. Thanks. I'm trying not to slam it.
[i]posted by Rose[/i] But suddenly Fantunes' idea only got 11 pluses because there was a proposed option "If inactive users are not shown in the rating, I wouldn't bother with their points"? You're accusing other users of slamming it here, but what are you doing yourself? There are no rules to follow. The Vint rules clearly state "The Vint.ee team will prioritize all bugs in the portal and new ideas that have found at least 20 supporters (likes)." Fantunes' idea has 11 votes in favor and we're already locking the topic and doing it. However, as I mentioned earlier, there is a sentence in there that he should not try to attack the rating of inactive users. This causes confusion and several votes in favor may have come precisely because of what was written at the end. If you are an honest person and you are really interested in the public's opinion, then make the survey visible to everyone and then decide on the results. But even then, you could not demand that all games be played if you are not guaranteed the opportunity to do so at a time convenient for the person. (e.g. in Brazilian Checkers and Entropy, 1 game is played in about 3 days. In these types of games, you can also go a week without being able to play.) Create conditions first and then start demanding. However, in Vint's case, this is a business enterprise, not a group of friends with their own rules.