Hi there, Pokerth is a wonderful game and I hope it's getting more and more supporters but there is one thing. I have to express now my indignation about having an activity malus which demands at least 10 games per week (or you get a penalty in your ranking of 5% per game).

A minimum of ten games per week is a very high value for people who work or have an intensive social life (outside house of course). Imagine if you play 40min in average per game (yes it happens!), you spend almost 7 hours per week playing for ranking (all weeks).

Can you please reduce this to 6 games per week? Or even 5 games per week if you want. So there is equality between people who has more than 7 hours per week to play and people who doesn't. It's not a personal request, it's for all the people who are in this situation or identify with this.

You can also do a different thing, instead of a weekly basis you can set a monthly activity limit that is comfortable for all the players.

I'm only keeping your attention and I'm just giving ideas for you.

Keep up the good work, cheers!

Hello Pete,

thank you for your response.

Many people play ranking games and a lot of them play 20 games and more / week.

So 10, i think, is a value which has to be played, to keep a ladder alive. Everybody may decide, if he has enough time to play ladder. That is the basic decision everybody has to make.

Otherwise you have these guys like Checkraiser, playing 20 games, be No. 1 and then go offline... Next autumn No.1 again... (btw, this guy is me )

I think it will always be hard to find a balance between hardcore gamers and those which play from time to time. But one thing is clear: a ladder loves activity.

And become No. 1 should be hard. Stay as No.1 should be harder.
As long as we don´t have a good working skill based algorythm, we need to work with the one we have.

What the others think about 10 games / week?
Too much, not too much, or a good number?

Hi,

I don't have a clear opinion about the correct number per week, but the suggestion of Pete to put the same value on a month sounds reasonable IMHO, and wouldn't lead to the situation you mentionned (which implies to put the minimal number per year if I understood correctly...)

I agree that 10 games/week seems reasonable, although a more reasonable approach would be something along 15 games/week.

15 games/week equals almost 2 games per day which seems a basic (yet low) number of games for a competition. A competition means dedication and 2 games (=1 hour) before (or after) sleep is barely dedication.

Also it will give incentive to some good players sitting in the top of the rank to play more games thus improving the level/experience/fun of the average game.

I agree with mr. Griffin, 10 games a week is quite demanding, imho.

One game a day its more reasonable, given a single game may well exceed the 40 minutes mark.

Anyway, something had to be done. For example, 'Win me' ranking position is striking. He has an amazing 26% of wins and 12,64 average points after 200+ games, but he is currently 32nd. Only 3 of the players ahead him have more than 50 games played.

I hope the system will equalize such things in the future. Currently, its very difficult to recover in the ranking if you have a bad start, because a bunch of 20_games_played people will always get in the way.

yo wrote:
Actually this kinf of phenomenon is supposed to be taken care of in the original proposal over at "Ranking System" by recalculating the minimum number of games played required to be eligible for rank.

In the top-50 there are numerous players that have played as low as 18 games (6 games per week). By not adjusting the minimum games played or by not introducing an activity malus (as the one proposed) this system can clearly give out false or inaccurate information.

I modify my proposal to 12 games/week which gives a more accurate result judging by the current top-50 and taken into account the average_placement_points of the players.