A mention of "why make a rank of 1000 impossible" over on snooker got me thinking.

There have always been debates regarding "fake" newbies and the effects they have on the ranking system, for as long as the sites have existed. The reset option was introduced to try to help by identifying those who had reset, and while it has helped for a subset of users who play a certain way, it has had limited effect otherwise.

There is no way to prevent people making new accounts. That is an unavoidable fact. So, I believe we need as many incentives to stick with an account as possible.

So how about increasing the ranking threshold over time, or by games played?

I know there are flaws (how do we avoid alienating new players over time), but maybe we can come to some balance that would make this workable.

Nice idea spinner, maybe could be like another 100 higher for people who have had accounts for like a year? Then maybe possibility of Ranked Tournaments?

Thanks for acknowledging this Dave - and yeah, incentive is the only way to go.




Great idea. Period.

that would be a pain for me as al has been a member longer therefore means its easier for him to obtain ranking points.

not that fair for those that are at the top ranks,

As long as theres still an exponentially difficult (to the point of impossibility) task of getting rank higher then its a good idea!

(would this be a higher ranked virtuoso or a whole ranking higher?)

how about master ranking?

Account age would not matter - time since last reset would

I think it wouldn't be continual increasing the longer the account is - once you get past a certain age (say for example 12 months) i think that would be the limit

and it wouldn't make it easier (edge modification would have to either be moved to the higher rank or 'dilluted') the formulae for the ranking would still work the same - would be harder for a 1000 rank to get points against the same opponent as a 900 rank

Something like that would suffice just fine

Thats an excellent idea. Whats been bothering me with this was how to make it fair in the long run and not seem impossible/pointless for new players to aspire to top the rankings.

This also offers the chance to be fair to those already long term players, by keeping the cap at 1000, but lowering the maximum for new signups to, for example, 940, with the cap increasing by 5 each month until after a year they level out at 1000.

The cap for fresh accounts would need to be a good bit lower than that, more like 850 or so.... Also keep in mind that how hard it is to reach a given rank varies from one game type to the next, so might need to look at the current rank distribution in each game type before setting a sensible "starter cap".

Actually, a good and easy guideline to set a sensible cap might be to simply apply a mindset that the top 50 table for each game type should not be achievable for accounts younger than X months. Not dynamically, but based on today's tables. Then set the starting cap and progression rates based on that.

I think that would provide a sensible starting point in each game type. If top 50 is too harsh, say top 30 or something, but looking at the current rank distribution in each game type is crucial.

Edited at 20:50 Tue 14/09/10 (BST)