Elo-Decay since AFK

[BoretkPanda]

relaiting to: viewtopic.php?f=207&t=10595&start=15

Sers Fellas: Some Weeks ago i talked about Mick and Co. in Discord about the possibilty to implement some feature to punish people who havent played a special number of games in Weeks. How we handle the stuff etc could be checked after but imo we need sth like that

Just an Example: Dodo could have stopped playin after 4 Days of Lihl this Season and would be Still Rank2 with 1300 Elo. This wouldnt represent the League and her Skill at all. Or even Ranz ( not sayn he wont end up r1 when continue playin - but he kinda stopped for 2 weeks now) can just sit and wait for Seasonend. or: Rank 12 - Hug with 20 Games. - Rank 16 ilocos with 7 Games. - i think ur real elo always gets shown after about 50 games.

- Those examples can be made for every positioning in Lihl - which just hurts those who play alot. Maybe we can get an Rule like "u gotta play 20 Games per Month or - 100 Elo" (Just an example to clear my thoughts out. those rule can be handled with less or more weeks - or less or more Elo.
Maybe we even get higher Activitiy then.

sorry for my english btw

[Jamo]

So, why would ranz's elo decay when he has easily 150 more games than most of the people on the ranks behind him?
I am not the biggest fan of this decay thing. I mean, in the end, do you care if you end up on #23 or #21? I guess not. And I don'T see how people approach their "real elo" when there is a decay function over time, where they are not even active. How can that reflect a real elo then? Doesn't make much sense to me. Also 50 games is just a random number to chose, not too high and not too low. Imo by no means showing the real elo already. I think if you wanna address this problem, you will need a different approach. Something like Tom proposed a few weeks back.

Rather don't rank people at all that have less than 20 games or something like that.

[FadingSuns]

This is pure tk idea. Noone should force anyone to play on given days/weeks. Try get ranzs elo so u can sit on it. We already have in place the unvouch due to inactivity, generally mods will review (each 2 season or so) the non active players and they get unvouched. If you are jealous about someone who has high elo and its managing it then get better, get more elo and manage it as well.

I agree there should be a minimum activity required. Maybe 75 games a season. But it should be always done on a season basis and not on a weekly/monthly basis. WTF is this... a work where u need check in/out? the fk is this tk idea srsly...

[Don_Killuminati]

Tinsoldier rushing his true elo actually, 968elo for 82 games..
I even heard from him once this season that he would win ...

[BoretkPanda]

This is pure tk idea. Noone should force anyone to play on given days/weeks. Try get ranzs elo so u can sit on it. We already have in place the unvouch due to inactivity, generally mods will review (each 2 season or so) the non active players and they get unvouched. If you are jealous about someone who has high elo and its managing it then get better, get more elo and manage it as well.

I agree there should be a minimum activity required. Maybe 75 games a season. But it should be always done on a season basis and not on a weekly/monthly basis. WTF is this... a work where u need check in/out? the fk is this tk idea srsly...

feels like u and jamo unable to read:

i even said i dont doubt he would stay that elo
i dont created that thread cause of ranz lol

and nice attitude u have bro the fuck u talk to me


: anyway: the minimum games played stuff sounds good btw: like it was in lol and WoW - just with more than 10 games

[FadingSuns]

Its nothing in particular against u tker, i had the exact same thought when i read the old decay poll topic created by mick years ago (and brought back some days ago). Pure tk senseless idea.

BTW on both topics (this and the old one) the players that are accused of "manage elo" (Beep by that time and ranz now) are the two players who had more games played than 95% of lihl players, so even more tk ur proposal. If he plays 300 games in first two weeks and then sit on his elo for 10 weeks its completely fair. There are a lot of players that wont even make 100 games over a complete season so i really dont get what is this crycry about.

PS: this apply as well as the example u said about dodo. If she stopped at 1300 elo after a week playing, its not ur problem. Go play and get that elo, as easy as that. That about representing the real ELO is pure subjetive. Who has his/her real Elo represented after how many games? I can tell u my personal experience: In every single season i played on lihl i reached 1200 elo and also in every single season i played i reached 800 elo. Then i end seasons with different elo than my peaks and lows. What is my real elo? no a fucking idea, but at the end what counts is what u got when season ends, thats how it is, theres no need of more complexity...

[nukid]

imo the best idea in all those threat was a soft elo reset after every season,
season lengh is fine elosystem also fine,
with a softelo reset, lets say ur elo -50% of the difference between it and 1000 if ur >1000 and other way around if ur >1000...

this would get rid of the problem fate that in early season the teams are totally random and it should over time lead to a much clearer "true elo" blabla...

rest of all those ideas i dont like

[TinSoldier]

Most fun season we had was random teams 15/15 elo every game. There is too much RNG in ltd and lihl players are much too casual for a decay system to be useful.

@don_killuminati no one can expect rankrapp to go super saiyan 13 this season I surrender

[dweiler]

@FadingSuns , the reason I would support this reason is different from the one you mention (since you mention my suggestion as pure tk).

The reason to suggest decay was to promote more playing. In general, if you are satisfied with your Elo now, you are in no way triggered to play more. I think it is only in the interest of the league to think of ways to have players be triggered to play more games, instead of be triggered to sit out if they are satisfied with Elo, because you will most likely only lose by playing more. So now we have a system that promotes playing among lower Elo players, and discourages if you are higher/on your Elo level. Is that the best way to make a league? I know they CAN do that, as you claim, but me (and panda) are questioning, isn't it more fun if we can try to make players (even if they are satisfied with their Elo) play all of the season? I don't know if decay is the best way, but some good way to promote playing instead of sitting out, seems to be in the interest of everyone in the league.

[BoretkPanda]

Its nothing in particular against u tker, i had the exact same thought when i read the old decay poll topic created by mick years ago (and brought back some days ago). Pure tk senseless idea.

BTW on both topics (this and the old one) the players that are accused of "manage elo" (Beep by that time and ranz now) are the two players who had more games played than 95% of lihl players, so even more tk ur proposal. If he plays 300 games in first two weeks and then sit on his elo for 10 weeks its completely fair. There are a lot of players that wont even make 100 games over a complete season so i really dont get what is this crycry about.

PS: this apply as well as the example u said about dodo. If she stopped at 1300 elo after a week playing, its not ur problem. Go play and get that elo, as easy as that. That about representing the real ELO is pure subjetive. Who has his/her real Elo represented after how many games? I can tell u my personal experience: In every single season i played on lihl i reached 1200 elo and also in every single season i played i reached 800 elo. Then i end seasons with different elo than my peaks and lows. What is my real elo? no a fucking idea, but at the end what counts is what u got when season ends, thats how it is, theres no need of more complexity...

i stll think u get my wrong. i dont rly care about my elo in general. i more care about a more fun elo-system or at least a way to have more activity. Or at least lookin for Ideas. For Example the stuff Ranz mentioned with soft-resett i like. Hard for me to talk about Ideas while been bad in english anyway. but anyway we should think if theres any better elo-system.

[supersexyy]

If you're gonna come up with solutions you need to be solving the same problem.

Is the problem that: a) you want to encourage people to play more?
B) the randomness at the start of season?
C) people aren't reaching their true Elo by season end?
D) you don't want people going inactive mid season to secure their elo

All these are different problems which require different solutions. Sounds obvious but if you don't define the problem all discussion is mumbo jumbo

[BoretkPanda]

best would be to find a solution to sove all those problems haha

[nukid]

i dont think u get people who play a low amount of games per season to play more with elofading stuff, because as some1 stated earlier they prolly dont care much if theyre place 21 or 23 right
MAYBE with a set amount of games required per season, maybe. but u have to think of less strict penalties then cuz unvouching people for semi-inactivity will not make the league more active ye?

u could do penalties like: lets say u need 100games per season. for each game missing the player gets -5 or -10 idk elo next season?


in general if u wanna make a game more active it is hard to just do that via changing the elosystem i guess...

[FadingSuns]

dont get me wrong mick, i wont ever be affected by this decay in case its in place, since i never stop playing no matter what my elo is. I dont play for elo, i play to kill free time and to enjoy quality games, ofc i like to have higher elo than lower but not like i care that much to just not play cuz im high elo. I just feel u cannot make all ppl think ur way by ruling this how u propose. U cant force ppl to play each X time by penalizing their elo in case they not play (note that ur one of the guys that will be affected cuz of that decay, u dont even play much and many others too).

Its as easy as we have done in past, unvouch inactive ppl, idk why we need to play with ppl elo, elo that they won fairly. Idk why we need to force ppl to play more when they are part of the most active ppl game played wise (Beep and Ranz case, both with more played games when they started manage than 50% of lihl when season ends). So ur points are not clear, and cant be applied fairly at all.

How to judge when someone no play a given month cuz he is managing or cuz he is at work trip, or cuz he is at hospital for X reason. Makes no sense at all. If you dont like ppl sitting out at half season managing their elo then guys, get better and get high elo since season start to be able to beat them.

The excuse that "is easy to get high elo at season start cuz teams are unbalanced and blabla".... If its that easy... Why not everyone get 1700 elo after 3 weeks? NO sense, they got it fairly thats it.

PS: if u want ppl to be more interested on playing games, i suggest you to find a better way that threat them with penalization. Try to find a formula to encourage them on a positive way, maybe instead of penalize ppl u need to give special "rewards" to most active ppl. The way u propose looks more like a dictator way of doing things (with terror and fire) to my eyes.