Who here is of the perspective that players who do not play for significant amounts of time should start dropping in rank?  Doing so automatically clears the leaderboards of dead players, allowing for active players to take their places.  It also encourages elite players to keep playing, as inactive elite players are quickly removed from the boards and replaces with active but weaker players, who can then be squashed by those elite players who keep playing.

1 Week: Lose 20 ranks

2 Weeks: Lose 40 ranks

3 Weeks: Lose 80 ranks

4 Weeks: Lose 160 ranks

While the losses here might seem high, after the elimination of all the inactive players, I suspect it will be much easier to climb up the ranks again.

make it start after like 3 weeks of inactiveness. 

---

crusaderking:

Tomanater is like a supply elevator. nuff said.

wodan460:

Who here is of the perspective that players who do not play for significant amounts of time should start dropping in rank?  Doing so automatically clears the leaderboards of dead players, allowing for active players to take their places.  It also encourages elite players to keep playing, as inactive elite players are quickly removed from the boards and replaces with active but weaker players, who can then be squashed by those elite players who keep playing.

1 Week: Lose 20 ranks

2 Weeks: Lose 40 ranks

3 Weeks: Lose 80 ranks

4 Weeks: Lose 160 ranks

While the losses here might seem high, after the elimination of all the inactive players, I suspect it will be much easier to climb up the ranks again.

Plain and simple "NO"!

---

2v3 win-http://www.halowars.com/stats/StatsGame.aspx?Id=17921612-9568-5520-6180-000000000000

Unofficial Halo Wars 2 thread http://www.halowars.com/forums/thread/774610.aspx

You nerfed the only thing left with life the ARBITER!

sure why not

but noone will be ranked because its so easy to not play for a week.

orcle:

sure why not

but noone will be ranked because its so easy to not play for a week.

thats why we increase the time in which you cant play before you drop.

---

crusaderking:

Tomanater is like a supply elevator. nuff said.

One word: No. If I stop playing for a month, I'll still be able to destroy anyone below level 25. Blowing up fine gentlemen is only entertaining for so long.

Instead of rank degeneration, I'd rather have rank fading. If you don't play X games per week, relative to leaderboard position, you're removed from the leaderboards. You still have your rank, but you need to play in that playlist to keep it there. No more boosting then never playing in the list again. The number of games scales with your relative position, with 5 games per week needed for everyone, up to 25 games per week for the top player. You must always face a significant variety of opponents in these games. At least 1 different team/player for every 5 games. If you're required to play 10 games and play the same person 10 times, you don't show up on the leaderboards.

This is a win-win. Boosters don't get recognition while it encourages people to play in their high-level lists, and inactive players are taken out of the food chain.

---

Want to perfect your build order? Use the Halo Wars Build Order Organizer:
http://www.halowars.com/forums/thread/820738.aspx

Now version 1.00!

orcle:

but noone will be ranked because its so easy to not play for a week.

Let's say that you are at the rank 100-300 tier.

You can gain about 20 or so ranks by beating a top 100 player, 10 or so ranks from someone in the same tier, and maybe 1d6 ranks from someone below that.

You lose about 20 ranks for just ONE loss against a lower ranked player, which summarizes the majority of games you are likely to play given the current player presence.  It takes winning about 5-7 games to recover from that given the current player presence

However, let's say that you apply my change.  If you are inactive for a week, you lose 20 ranks, equivalent to a loss against a lower ranked player.  However, unlike the current situation, the boosters and other inactive players are NOT present on the leaderboards, meaning that there is a much higher probability of encountering a rank 100-300 or even 1-100 player.

In that situation, it would take winning about 1-4 games to recover from either the rank loss, OR from being defeated by a lower ranked player.  I'd view that as a much more tolerable situation to the current one.

As it stands, you can play 10 games, they ALL end up being against low ranked players, if you lose even 1 of them, you gain no advancement on the leaderboards, and you probably have to use the same tried and true strategies your best at (IE the boring ones) or risk losing rank on the leaderboards instead.

With the change I suggest, you end up playing 10 games, about a third end up against lower ranked players, a third against matching ranks, and a third against higher ranks.    You encounter people or more diverse skill levels, lose significantly less rank on average when defeated, and gain significantly more rank on average upon victory.  That environment makes it easier to advance in skill levels

ExaltedVanguard:

One word: No. If I stop playing for a month, I'll still be able to destroy anyone below level 25. Blowing up fine gentlemen is only entertaining for so long.

It would take about a half dozen games for you to recover you rank, even after not playing for months.  That is better then when you need that many games to recover your rank after ONE loss.

ExaltedVanguard:

Instead of rank degeneration, I'd rather have rank fading. If you don't play X games per week, relative to leaderboard position, you're removed from the leaderboards. You still have your rank, but you need to play in that playlist to keep it there. No more boosting then never playing in the list again. The number of games scales with your relative position, with 5 games per week needed for everyone, up to 25 games per week for the top player. You must always face a significant variety of opponents in these games. At least 1 different team/player for every 5 games. If you're required to play 10 games and play the same person 10 times, you don't show up on the leaderboards.

This is a win-win. Boosters don't get recognition while it encourages people to play in their high-level lists, and inactive players are taken out of the food chain.

I'm having trouble picturing how that would work.  Let's say the top ranked, trueskill 50 player goes inactive and dissappears from the leaderboards.  What happens when they start playing again?  I'd imagine that they play against other top trueskill players, but when would they reappear on the leaderboards?  What would their rank be if they won or lost all the games needed to reactivate?

wodan460:

Who here is of the perspective that players who do not play for significant amounts of time should start dropping in rank?  Doing so automatically clears the leaderboards of dead players, allowing for active players to take their places.  It also encourages elite players to keep playing, as inactive elite players are quickly removed from the boards and replaces with active but weaker players, who can then be squashed by those elite players who keep playing.

1 Week: Lose 20 ranks

2 Weeks: Lose 40 ranks

3 Weeks: Lose 80 ranks

4 Weeks: Lose 160 ranks

While the losses here might seem high, after the elimination of all the inactive players, I suspect it will be much easier to climb up the ranks again.

 

just losing your rank but not TS lvl? that would mess up the leaderboards as a high ts lvl would be lower than an originally lower one. its either lower the TS, have them not show up on the leaderboards, or leave it as is.

they had a decay system in aoe3. it was kinda brutal imo. i think it was 40-50 rank had to play 1 game every like 2 weeks and 25-40 would have to play 1 game every 2 weeks. and it would stop at lvl 25.  i cant remember the exact numbers they had but im close.

i wouldnt mind one if it was at least 3 weeks for everyone. cause 1, even 2 weeks is kinda whack. cause if u like get a new game, have to go out of town, or just get bored of the game and need a break, u will end up losing rank.

---

#1 Dubs team for Halo Wars: Spring Season 09 - GB
TS 45 & 43 in 2v2 Party Teams
TS 47 & 44 in 2v2 UA
Boosting doesn't make u good

White IrishKing:

just losing your rank but not TS lvl?

Trueskill would drop to meet your new rank.

A better way to think about it is that you are considered to have played at least 1 game a week.  If you didn't actually play it, you are counted as having lost it.

wodan460:

ExaltedVanguard:

Instead of rank degeneration, I'd rather have rank fading. If you don't play X games per week, relative to leaderboard position, you're removed from the leaderboards. You still have your rank, but you need to play in that playlist to keep it there. No more boosting then never playing in the list again. The number of games scales with your relative position, with 5 games per week needed for everyone, up to 25 games per week for the top player. You must always face a significant variety of opponents in these games. At least 1 different team/player for every 5 games. If you're required to play 10 games and play the same person 10 times, you don't show up on the leaderboards.

This is a win-win. Boosters don't get recognition while it encourages people to play in their high-level lists, and inactive players are taken out of the food chain.

I'm having trouble picturing how that would work.  Let's say the top ranked, trueskill 50 player goes inactive and dissappears from the leaderboards.  What happens when they start playing again?  I'd imagine that they play against other top trueskill players, but when would they reappear on the leaderboards?  What would their rank be if they won or lost all the games needed to reactivate?

If the top player went inactive, to reappear on the leaderboards he'd still be considered TS 50 for the purposes of matchmaking and could level up/down normally. After winning 25 games (playing against at least 5 different people/teams) he'd reappear on the leaderboards. Assuming he didn't lose any TS, he'd be #1 again.

 This means to be top player you have to be actively proving you're actually the best, not that you were, at some point long ago, the best.

---

Want to perfect your build order? Use the Halo Wars Build Order Organizer:
http://www.halowars.com/forums/thread/820738.aspx

Now version 1.00!

Ah.  I do see the advantage of your system.  I think that 25 games is a bit excessive though.  10 games would probably be sufficient, especially once you've eliminated boosters and the like.

Tomanater00:make it start after like 3 weeks of inactiveness. 

this is a good idea, would stop people being dropped for being red ringed :(

---

Reinforcements: http://www.halowars.com/forums/thread/803859.aspx