Vanished from the ladders after 4 weeks?

With 5 factions, 4 modes per faction, and Arranged Teams on top of all of those (20+ modes), it seems to me that 4 weeks is a little too fast to just vanish somebody from a ladder entirely. Furthermore, there is no way to see what rank a player was before he was sent to the ladder void, which will make it more difficult for us to seed tournaments.

Leaderboards

• After 2 weeks with no games played ranks will begin to decay.
  
• After 4 weeks with no games played players are hidden from the leaderboard view.
  
• Playing a game will return a player to viewable.

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/67-coh-2-changelog?p=201887#post201887


By "playing a game", Relic means more specifically "playing a game in the particular faction and ladder mode." Is this a short-term or long-term solution? Can't we come up with a better system than this?

I would argue that if a player hasn't played a ladder match in 4 weeks, you probably shouldn't be using his ladder position as a seeding mechanic because its no longer representative of his or her skill. (I would play like an noob after 4 weeks of no coh)

Lots of other games have almost the exact same thing and it works extremely well. Also really just one game to get back on a certain ladder is no big deal really.

After 2 weeks with no games played ranks will begin to decay

Hmm. Too fast. 4 weeks...

I would argue that if a player hasn't played a ladder match in 4 weeks, you probably shouldn't be using his ladder position as a seeding mechanic because its no longer representative of his or her skill. (I would play like an noob after 4 weeks of no coh)

this

All they have to do to return to view-able is play a single game though. What's the problem with that?

i think 4 weeks is ok. although now my playercard page is just full of 0s.

while we are on the subject of ladder, can relic please fix 2 AT players searching 3v3 or 4v4 games with 1/2 random teammate still getting stats for 2v2 AT on the ladder?

It's more than just a single game. It's a single game on every single ladder. So if I'm active in 10 ladders (faction and mode) and have 4 or 5 active arranged teams, then I have to play 1 game in each specific mode to stay visible on all of the ladders... that's 15+ games. I should try to do this every 2 weeks to prevent decay? That's a bit much IMO.

Ofc!


True dedication knows no bounds!

That's a good point Ami.

It will be nice to have people who haven't played in 2+ months bounced from top 50 1v1 though for sure.

It's more than just a single game. It's a single game on every single ladder. So if I'm active in 10 ladders (faction and mode) and have 4 or 5 active arranged teams, then I have to play 1 game in each specific mode to stay visible on all of the ladders... that's 15+ games. I should try to do this every 2 weeks to prevent decay? That's a bit much IMO.

Why would you need to know what someone's rank in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 is to seed a 1v1 tournament? Just use whatever data IS available to seed. If the person is entering a 1v1 tournament here and they play one axis faction and one allied faction, seed accordingly. Plus, the scarcity of tournaments as it is, makes the whole thing rather trivial. And if someone is going to enter a 1v1 tournament, you would think they would play something in 1v1 in the past month, to have any kind of chance. If not, they would seed lower...even if they only play 2v2 or 4v4 and are big man on arranged team campus, doesn't necessarily translate to a higher 1v1 seed.

I dont get the problem. Its 4 weeks... Thats a very a long time. Plus it makes people play other factions to.

Well, it just make the less favoured faction continued to be unplayed, that's not a big deal.

Well in my opininon this is very bad idea. It makes ladder available only for ppl who do nothing more than playing coh2. And it couses the ladder to change drasticly making it hard to tell who is a better player.

For most players a month without coh2 is sth they can come back from in one match because they play ocasionally so they dont even rise their skill to dbmbs level. Still it was cool to find yourself in a ladder.

Now, for me, it is like they removed the ladder completly as numbars that I can see there tell nothing as they change so fast and I'am only able to keep up with 'refreshing' the ladder because I'm on holidays. There will be no chance when I come back to work: like zeroes everywhere, what is even the point of the ladder then?

This is dissappointing to an extend that I belive it will totally block new players from climbing up ladder and becoming top players, ofc thats only my opinion, but relic should think about it, especially as their game is adressed to mature ppl who have work and life apart from the game.

If I knew this is going to be as punishing and stupid as it is became I wouldn't buy brits as it looks like I will probably stop playing the game even semi-regularly after OCF. And I'm one of this guys that loved the game no matter how bad ballance was before, now its just not rewarding any more.

If there has to be such system I would rather set values to half a year for zeroing and full year for vanishing instead of current 2/4 weeks.

If I knew this is going to be as punishing and stupid as it is became I wouldn't buy brits as it looks like I will probably stop playing the game even semi-regularly after OCF. And I'm one of this guys that loved the game no matter how bad ballance was before, now its just not rewarding any more.

You will still have your ranks when you play a single game after being removed for a month of inactivity. It isn't like all your history resets when you get temporarily hidden!

Idea might be good, but implementation sux.

First, there are players like me who not playing 1 game mode/faction exclusively and have lots of at teams. Now there is 5 factions in 4 game modes, which is alone 20 brackets for randoms. Lets say i don't want to play 1v1 and 3v3, its a half of modes, still i have to play 10 games in 2 weeks to keep my ranks at same level. Hard? Not that much, but i never play like that. I play huge amount of games with faction i feel i want to play with and then switch to another and do the same. So yeah, bb sweet ranks.

Second, I would unavoidably lose some games if decide to keep my ranks up. For every loss (lets say i got real unlucky and have real bad random teammate in 2v2, which is not that rare considering problems with MM and small player base) to get ranks back i should win from 4 to 6 games. And in all those games i need to play on top of that 10 my chances to lose even more would grow. So, it is not like 10 games per 2 weeks, it can be very well 20 or even more games per 2 weeks. On top of my regular at games which i always prefer over random ranks for obvious reasons.

Third, this system simply favors playing more than playing better. People who can allow themselves to play only coh would have better ranks than people who plays coh better than them but cant afford to invest so much time into it. Skill should mean more than invested time, always.

This ladder decline system makes me to just limit modes/factions/teams i play instead of playing more factions/modes as i did previously, and never play more games on top of games i need to get to 1st rank. It does exact opposite of which competition system should promote and dare i say should be removed until relic can put more thought into fixing it.

You will still have your ranks when you play a single game after being removed for a month of inactivity. It isn't like all your history resets when you get temporarily hidden!

I used to choose to play the faction I have worst rank with in 1v1s. I also used to play other game modes than 1v1 only occasionally, still I always liked to see my rank growing with every random I play. That means I need to know my own rank or elo. Are you telling me that I should note or screenshot them couse relic ladder system won't show it to me?

Also as far I understand the word 'decay' the new system changes your elo when you are not playing.

But why does it have to be 4 weeks? There's no real reason why it shouldn't be longer. It just imposes an unnecessary time limit. An extra length of time isn't going make a difference to 'reducing clutter' on the ladders.

Idea might be good, but implementation sux.
Third, this system simply favors playing more than playing better. People who can allow themselves to play only coh would have better ranks than people who plays coh better than them but cant afford to invest so much time into it. Skill should mean more than invested time, always.

This has always been the case. You can "spam" games and be top50 while barely mantaining a .700 W/L ratio.

People asked for a faster decay instead of a reset on the ladder. The decay always existed and i think it was on the range of the 2-4 weeks. They might have fasten up it.
Regarding hiding your rank after 4 weeks, well, i'll say it could be moved to 6 weeks but i don't see that bad that it hides after 1 month of not playing.

it should be longer than 4 weeks, so all players that dont play the game anymore get filtered out. not everyone has alot of time on there hands let alone play coh2 every weekend. sometimes i like to play other games. its a great idea but feels like the ladder system has become a job