And since GC has only just begun, I'd hate to think we should wait another 4 months until a reset. In FMI for example, only 1 person in the top 7 is playing while there are some eager players just off the board who are active and would like to see their name displayed for a change. I say hit the reset button very soon, as Terry now suggests. Then consider it again when GC ends.

I can't believe anyone cares about it. Reset it, don't reset it, get rid of it, it's all the same to me.

*gets under cover to wait for the flak*

Sacré bleu! Mon ami!

Is there room under the covers for me please?

Actually it just shows that different things on the site are of interest to some and not to others - which is a good thing, is it not ... evidence of a varied interesting site, blah blah? The Crystal Ball, for instance, bores me rigid - but I respect that many others are engrossed by it.

Great, over a year's worth of work in Piece of Cake is going right down the crapper. I finally got my monthly badge and started around Champion rank #85. After a lot of hours, missed questions, and actually beating ranked playres ahead of me, I have worked my way to Champion rank #14. I don't see the problem.

Take the names of the players who are not active off the list. But don't reset the rankings that most have put a ton of time into. Because a couple of people have complained, we revamp the whole thing? What it really says is, "I'm can't move up the ranks fast enough, so lets change the rules to make it easier to move up said ranks quicker".

I don't play every game (hourly, daily). Some people do, and have way too much personal time to spend on this site. While some may think they can be great in every game, sometimes you just have to specialize in specific games. Like the POC game this thread was founded on.

Please don't reset my progress. I have enjoyed climbing the ranks, regardless of who is playing or who isn't. Sometimes a challenge takes time. Not a quick fix. It seems just fine to me. JohnS...

I've re-read the whole thread to be sure, but I can't find anyone who's saying that. The argument's simply been about whether something needs to be done about top ELO rankings being taken up by people who no longer play. For reasons I made clear in my first post I'm not in favour of resetting right now, but I accept that it's probably the right thing to do from time to time. Good players will always rise up the rankings again.

This thread was "founded" on POC? What does that even mean? Heck, it wasn't even mentioned. I mentioned FMI and I have noticed it more in WTS with a few players only playing a few games a month. I don't play POC enough or at a high enough level of skill to care about it one way or another. Although I am sure there are others who care about it as well. If you are good enough to climb the ranks in any game, a reset will not change that at all. You might even be able to achieve more progress by playing against people who are actively playing as well. As Terry has said, the plan was always to reset the rankings periodically. Well, it has been well over a year and it seemed like time to bring it up. The reset has nothing to do with revamping, rather following the stated original plan.

John, if you have enjoyed moving up in the rankings that much, surely a reset would be great for you, because you can do it again.

And as stated, the good players who play enough will still move up, back to where they were.

Furthermore, there is nothing about making it easier for players to move up the ranking board. Now, the way I understand the ELO game, if you are number 1 in the champs division, you'll move up much quicker than if you were 10th. You'll get the same exact boost you did before the reset. If you are getting second place every time, and moving up at a certain speed... Great. The reset won't change that. You'll still get second place every time and moving up at that same certain speed. What's the big deal of a reset? It won't affect your gameplay, and it won't really even affect your standing. If you are 14th now, you'll be 14th with the new system. The only difference is that inactive players will be taken off; now you'll be in the top 10, not number 14.

Anyway, my point; resetting will not affect HOW you play, so it will not affect your standings, either. Since EVERYONE will be put back to 1500, you won't have to work back up to 2,000, or whatever it is, to be at the top. Everyone will be square, and the best players will get back to the top rather quickly.

And I quote from Terry's post of June 11/10
"...we will periodically reset Champion Division ratings, probably every 6 months or so."

This is not a complaint, this thread was started as a reminder.

And I might add, Alex was being very gracious in suggesting that inactive players such as herself should be taken out of the mix as it stands now. The only way to do that fairly is with a reset.

Correct -- we decided a long time ago that these would be reset "periodically". The intent was to be more than a few months, but less than a few years. I like the idea of doing a reset yearly myself.

Why? To inject new life and new hope periodically. Everyone likes a clean slate now and then, and I think even the player ranked #1 in a game would admit that having more people play and having more vigorous competition is a good thing.

IMO it's better to be ranked lower in something that people are actively competing in than being ranked #1 in something that people long stopped competing in and caring about.

I loved that final statement, Terry. That was one of the wisest statements on this thread, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Being how we're approaching the end of the year, and Terry wants to do this yearly, is the ELO going to be reset after today?

Yes.

Tomorrow.

Or on any of the following 365 days.

Why does it have to be reset completely? What if those on the list haven't played the game for, say, three months...can't they just be bumped off the list while still allowing the other regular players to maintain their rankings? Seems odd to me that there are people on there who no longer play regularly, yet maintain a standing that may be practically unbeatable if they never play. I haven't touched FMI in well over a year yet am 46th on the list. If I want to maintain my spot, or move up, then I should be playing the game to do that.

Why would you object to a reset? That is the cleanest way to remove the non-players, and those who are playing will rise quickly anyway. If only those who don't play were removed then someone starting to play now would have a lot of ground to cover. A clean slate periodically with this type of scoring is healthy.

It's supposed to be done yearly, and a date was supposed to be picked. It's been about 18 months since the last reset. At the beginning of the new year is as good a time as any.

It's not that I object to a reset, I'm more thinking of the players who put their hearts and souls into playing a game consistently. Think of it as a compromise. Or is that irrelevant/impossible in this instance? Does it have to be one or the other or can we stretch ourselves to think of other alternatives?

I think it's more a case of what costs the least programming effort, Barbarini - it would be much easier to wipe the slate clean than to take some people off and not others, especially as not all the data, e.g. about when someone last played, may have been saved. So my guess is that it is one or the other.

I also think it is not just about people that have not played for months. There are a few that play only a few hourly games a week, only in a couple of categories, in order to maintain their top ratings. Newer players will have a hard time ever moving beyond them unless a reset happens. A reset will bring some people back and allow all a fresh start. Sure, many of the top players will jump right back ahead, but they will be doing so based on beating the players that are actually are playing now, not just resting on past laurels.

The non-play effect is at work in the GC too. There are those who have only played a few sets and have bloated the range around the 1500 mark. It's impossible to rise through that logjam. Those of you in the top 200 probably don't notice it but if you happen to fall below 1500 at all, you just can't back on the high side of 1500 because of the non-players with anything from 5 quizzes to 100 quizzes played.

I'm one of those players you are talking about. I don't play often, but it's not to maintain my spot, even though you might think it is. It's because I don't feel like playing all the time like you do. I play when I want, and what categories I want. If you don't want me trying to force my playing standards upon people, then you do the same.

As far as newer players not having the chance to move up, that is not the case for WTS, POC, or Mixed as plenty of people still play. I just got into the Mixed champs division, and in less than a month, I moved up to the top 50. Resetting to give a chance for newer players to move up is a crock. That is not a valid reason as there is room for growth in the main games. Just win.

I think that is the biggest problem with the ELO system. There is nothing to combat the issue of infrequent players gaming the stats or just giving up the game completely early on like in GC. I wish there was a formula that could be applied requiring x amount of games to be played in a timely manner or requiring a certain minimum ranking in the monthly standings to maintain your ELO, but based on feedback that doesn't seem realistic.

Hard as it is to believe, Anton, it is not all about you. In fact, I have played fewer than than 90 games in WTS this month, yet I remain in the top group. Same with FMI where I have played no games. A lot of people have played many more games, and with a better average, yet are unable to pass others because of the system. They are, in fact, winning, yet not making the strides they could with a reset. That shows an issue within the system. Fortunately, I am able to discuss suggestions without feeling the need to simply tell people that it is my way or the highway or to "just win" as if that is a reasonable answer. That is what this forum is for, discussion.

I rarely only think of myself here, Bubbles. If you bothered to pay attention, then you would know that.

Winning is the only solution here. Nobody who routinely finishes in the middle of the pack will ever rise to the top. As I said, and this is fact, there is room for growth in the games where people actually play. The newer players who are better than the ones at the top will be among the leaders one day. The newer players who aren't, won't be there anytime soon. Win and you'll be there. Lose and you won't.

There are at least 500 players playing FMI this month that all have higher averages and number of games played than I do. Yet, none of them have overtaken me in the standings. That is an issue in the system which a reset would solve. All the winning in the world doesn't change that, a reset does.

How many per hour? Not many. If nobody at all plays, then there are no points to be won. The other games still have many players each daytime hour. Much more points to be gained. Don't use FMI as an example because next to nobody plays it.

I win the "top of the pack" a lot. In a lot of different categories. But because the people ahead of me in the ELO don't play the same categories, I don't get the same return. ELO is a crappy indicator of who's good or not. Period. It rewards those who duck competition.

I see no problem with having the ELO reset after a year and a half at the beginning of the year.

You just now realize this?

As I said, there are over 500 people in the FMI monthly standings. That is not "no one" playing. It is not that no one is playing, it is that the top people are not playing which is how the ELO system rewards greater points, by beating people ahead of you. And, if you want to use WTS, use your scores or my scores as an example. I think I am something like 40th in the monthly standings, yet remain towards the top of the leader Board in ELO. I am not sure you are even on the monthly standings, yet there you remain as well on the ELO list. To me, that shows that the ELO is not reflective of who is actually playing the games.

A reset, which was planned to occur much more frequently, will simply bring those numbers back in line. People no longer playing will slip off the board, while I am sure the top players will work their way right back there, but because of their current level of playing not because of games won over a year ago. As a note, didn't you suggest earlier in the thread resetting ELO monthly? So, you are not against a reset, just arguing for the sake of it?