Leaderboard and Ratings

Discussion in 'Simulator Suggestions' started by Eternal, May 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eternal

    Eternal こんにちは。

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    Okay, there seems to be a huge controversy behind the how the leaderboard and rating system works. I will point out very logical arguments conveying that the current leaderboard is indecisive.

    One argument I'd like to make is how ratings do not go down as a player doesn't battle for a long period of time. For example, the user "maverick" has a rating on 1578. That rating has been up for a couple of days because that user hasn't battled once to decrease his rating. Why is this bad?

    This Leaderboard system is used in Arcade games. Pokemon is NOT an arcade game. There are many factors in the game that effects a person's win. A game like Chess involves strategy. Chess is completely strategy. There are no luck involved in Chess. While in Pokemon, luck is everywhere. What is so different about this?

    Well, since there is no such thing as luck in Chess, you can easily configure the best player with this Leaderboard system because the winner would obviously be better since he has won with nothing but strategy. But, in Pokemon, strategy is NOT 100%. Anyone can win and lose. No one can always win with strategy. Luck is involved. Thus, when lets say the top ten users in the Leaderboard have a rating ranging in the 1600s. The best isn't determined by the highest rating. The highest rating here would only portray that that user is just lucky between the other 9 players because he wasn't luck haxed or anything.

    While things change. The user "maverick" might've obtained a rating of 1578 when there were hardly any people on Pokemon Online (as now). But, this will change as time goes on. Metagame changes. As metagame changes, it doesn't reflect the top person as STILL being the best in the current metagame. The game changes as time passes. We're not playing the exact same game because of that. And because of that the person at the top of the leaderboard shouldn't be at the top, because his rating doesn't reflect the best battler in the current time.

    While winning at a consistent rate is very important. If a player is able to win 10 in a row, then his rating should increase at a faster rate because he is consistent in his wins. While defeating someone of a higher rating shouldn't increase your rating higher. Why? Because lets say I made a new account on Pokemon Online. I might be an experienced battler, but my rating of "1000" doesn't reflect that because I haven't started battling. So I battle someone with a 1500 rating. I defeat that person and my rating skyrockets. While the person with the 1500 rating loses a huge amount of rating. This isn't fair at all because how in the world is the 1500 rating person supposed to know if that player with 1000 or something rating is experienced? While even if that battler isn't great, no one can be the "best" and never. Thus, a low rating player can win at any time by luck hax, decreasing the high rated player drastically. While your rating should go up drastically because you've defeated someone of a higher rating. What if you got lucky? What if your team counter-teamed the person of higher rating? There are so many non-strategic factors in this game that determines who wins (and not just strategy).

    All ratings should increase at the same rate as you win and decrease at the same rate as you lose. While if you're winning consistently, meaning you're on a role getting 20 wins in a row, then your rating should go up faster because the chances of winning 20 games in a row is very difficult. And if you're good, then you should be able to obtain it. While if you are winning a a consistent rate, then you shouldn't have a problem increasing your rating to something like 1600 because you're good. While if the rating decreases because of your inactivity, then you shouldn't have a problem getting it back up if your consistent and up to date with the current metagame.

    I would also like to mention the problem of letting users have rated battles just by challenging. This doesn't make sense to me. Why should we allow people to choose who to battle in order to increase their rating. Rating should be determined by how well you do against everyone on the server. NOT how well you do against SPECIFIC people. Not only that, anyone can just cheat by having a friend battling you in a rated battle and having him to let you win. I mean you can't say it's against the rules when it's a player free will to let another player take the win without even trying? What if I battle and let one of my friends win every battle just so he can get his rating higher? Cheating by this system is SO EASY. It's not hard getting two computers with different IP and ranking up yourself in rating.

    Lets all be reasonable and professional in this discussion. Use logic to prove your point if you're going to debate against me. Think hard before you post. You will need to understand what kind of person the leaderboard should award high rankings to. And how it can be viable to all users at all time.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  2. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    2 things I just want to say (I'll say more later)

    A player with 1500 should never battle a player with 1000, because then he wouldn't win any points even if he won. If he use "Find Battle" and put a range of 200 then he'll only fight 1300~1700. And the maximum amount of points lost is 32.

    And shouldn't the rating of the payer with 1000 go high if he wins against a 1500?

    Anyway I'll read more later, gtg now.
     
  3. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Alright.

    Now that I have read everything, let me first say what I disagree on:

    Imagine you battle someone 100 under you. He haxed you. You lose precisely 20 rating points.
    Now you win twice against that guy. You win 11 + 11 = 22 points.

    Even against lower opponents, one unlucky loss can be fixed by 2 wins. For people 200 points under you, you need 3 wins to compensate a loss. Assuming you only play a range of 200 and are not haxed to death 1 battle out of 4, then you should get to your rating quietly. On the long term luck doesn't help you here.


    No way. I know I can beat anyone with 1050 or under 95% of the time (even if I get haxed). That's a no-go ~~

    I already said the thing about rating losses: they are capped at 32. (Not my doing, just the mathematical formula)

    Alright, now that I've said that, I agree on one point: The thing is easy to cheat. Only allowing rated battles on the ladder disturbs me too, that needs to be discussed with other people as for me it removes a bit of the fun.

    I think I could add something that at the start of the battle that shows you the number of points you risk to win/lose, so people are really more aware of the rating system. For cheating, I don't really know what a good system would be, like a battle against teh same person is not rated if they were in the last 5 IP you battled to a rated match?
     
  4. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    I like it the way it is. If someone makes it to a high rating, they shouldn't lose it just because they are inactive. I also don't agree about rating increasing/decreasing according to how many times you win or lose (deviation like Shoddy?).

    As for cheating the system, preventing rated battles against players of same IP should definitely be on. As for facing the same person over and over, restricting against rated battles of 5 previously battled IPs is probably the most effective way of doing it albeit being a little restrictive. I don't see any way around that though, and it is necessary.

    Pokemon Online is open source, so if someone wanted to alter how it works on their server then they are free to do so if they don't agree with how it works now. As coyotte comment suggests, he's pretty much happy with it as it is too.
     
  5. Quacks

    Quacks Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to strongly agree with that. I haven't ever seen Maverick on, yet his score is remarkable. But, since he's not around, how can we know he's still the best? Leaderboard is a leaderboard by definition, not a high score screen. While I feel players shouldn't be punished for inactivity, leaderboard score should reflect the fact they're not around. We've had a really long discussion about that in main chat with Sigga and Xavier. Xavier is apparently unable to play for long amounts of time while he's in hospital. The point I was trying to make at the time is that there's no reason for him to be punished because he was unable to play, but leaderboard score should reflect the fact he wasn't around - and therefore it's impossible to determine if he's still as good as his rating suggests - As an example: this is what I mean - score stays same the same for a week, then slowly starts to decrese - after a month of inactivity user would lose 58 points, which they're theoretically able to recover within four matches against people with simmilar rating. If someone gets to #1 on leaderboard then leaves for three months or so, they shouldn't be still #1 three months later - they're not the best as they're not around anymore.

    This is a debatable issue as at some point you'll reach the score where default 1000 accounts will give you only two or a point per win - your friend would need to have fair share of patience. However, someone having a PC and laptop with different IP's and really a lot of free time at their disposal could potentially abuse it - on this I have to agree on.

    EDIT: The last 5 fought IP's rule seems to be fair overall to me. Most people are looking for rated matches with Find Ladder anyway, and if you're battling someone multiple times in a row, battle shouldn't be rated as it reflects who remembers opponent's team better and prediction becomes coin tosses rather than anything else.

    I believe the point of Eternal's post is that someone trying to get decent score on ladder, and who is on winning streak can get his rating absolutely demolished by a single loss to low-rated battler. This is especailly common on PO, where new battlers migrate to everyday. The problem there is that PO isn't too large as of now and there's more people with rather low scores, so theoretical 1500er would have to keep on battling same 3-4 people who are on at the same time. This causes many people to turn off the range option so they can find matches within shorter amount of time.

    That means they end up fighting against many lower-ranked users, and they get one point per win, but if they (I'm assuming we're talking about someone in 1400's) run into a low-1000er who has a HP ground/Ice Beam/Dragon Dance/Iron Head Tyranitar which is a terrible set overall but dismantles their team or a decent battler who barely just started using PO or simply get haxed, they'd would lose 32 points - and since they still have high score in general, they'd need an awfully long winning streak to get those points back. The fact there's a lot of high-rated dead accounts whose scores are not dropping means highly rated user can lose 20 positions and still have troubles finding active opponents with simmilar rating.

    I really can't say I see good solution to the problem though. Adding estimates isn't something I'm going to support as I see it as incredibly hurtful to the battler who's improving. Someone who spend a month having average win:lose ratio is put into an "average" drawer by giving them low estimate, and said account is going to be extremely hard to get to decent rating. In that case, it's best for the already improved battler to make a new account. The fact the fastest way to ladder on - for example - smogon's shoddy battle server is to make an alt account then keep an awfully long winning streak proves that well. This is something I really like about PO's rating system, as account never holds the user back. However, current system doesn't seem to be working out perfectly, as not even half of current leaderboard's first page battlers are still remotely active.

    Either way, just my troughts, underlined main points.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  6. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, I like the idea of a slow decrease in points exactly like you suggested. It doesn't penalize for short periods of inactivity which all of us may be prone to at times but still keeps the top spots fairly fresh.

    Let's hope that's the last wall of text that I have to read in this thread. :)
     
  7. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    High Score board vs Leaderboard.

    Yeah, I feel that the rating should decrease steadily over time. That way, you have to actually battle to maintain your placing on the leaderboard.
     
  8. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    The problems with decreasing ratings is that then the overall rating will steadily decrease over time.
     
  9. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well if it is slow, like Quacks' suggestion, then it will only affect players who aren't playing. Most high ranked players will stay active unless they just want to sit on the rank. So a player who isn't playing (maverick/rose come to mind here) aren't distributing their rating or affecting anybody else's anyway.
     
  10. Eternal

    Eternal こんにちは。

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well that is the point...

    If an user accomplished 1578 rating last month and still is on top of the leaderboard. This user has never shown up again on PO and still has rating on the top. While the metagame changes. More people are on Pokemon Online. There is a more competitive environment because of that. Pokemon is a game that changes through time. Maverick might have been the best at that time, but why should he still be on top at this time?

    While if we neglect users from having rated battles through challenges, then they will use the "Find Battle" tab more in order to obtain challenges. Why is this important? Because users more reluctantly challenge other users rather than "Find Battle." This allows the users to specifically challenge whomever they want in order to increase their rating. This should not be allowed.

    As I've stated, even if you implement the "battle against teh same person is not rated if they were in the last 5 IP you battled to a rated match" feature it is STILL abusable. Ratings is a BIG thing for people that want to rank up on the leaderboard. I wouldn't be happy if there's an user that obtained 1700 rating by illegal means. This would discourage me from even caring about the leaderboard.

    What's wrong with just using "Find Battle" tab to battle and increase rating? All challenges are provided to your randomly. So when you're clicking the "Find Battle" tab, you are asking for a battling against everyone on the server. How well you do against everyone on the server should reflect your rating. Not who you specifically challenge.

    Anyways, those are my opinions on this. I'm just trying to help out by strengthening our leaderboard and rating system system, so it doesn't get abused or discourage players from ranking up. I know this doesn't seem to a major problem at this time, but it will in the future.
     
  11. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    X-Act, who is possibly the best mathematician recently involved with competitive Pokemon, devised a rating system that was to be implemented in SB2. Here is the thread detailing it. It should deal with most of the concerns in this thread, other than one important one. That is allowing rated challenges, which imo is a bad idea. Especially with so many people not having their team hidden. You can easily select players with not horrible ratings who have teams you can comfortably beat, and increase your own rating must faster than if you played random players. This means that the rating is not just measuring Pokemon playing ability, but also "the ability to select the right opponents", which is quite clearly not what we want.
     
  12. Quacks

    Quacks Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    The active players will not lose points, while the accounts which aren't used at all will indeed lose score. But dead accounts are not providing anyone with points either way, so while overall rating will decrease, the rating of people who are still somewhat active won't suffer.

    Very good points there - in a case where someone sees a battler with default 1000 score and exposed team of Solrock/Ambipom/Abomasnow/Swalot/Some other two completely random pokemon, even an average battler is nearly granted a win. Staying away from Find Battle which might pair you up against good opponent and targeting low-skilled players can potentially be relieable method of getting excellent rating.

    That way, one could get very good rating which wouldn't reflect their true abilities, while not breaking nor even abusing the rules at all.

    I have to admit GLIXARE seems much more fair than Glicko-2 does.
     
  13. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    oh, i forgot to mention my other idea which may help with "Only allowing rated battles on the ladder disturbs me too, that needs to be discussed with other people as for me it removes a bit of the fun.". How about having a tier-independent rating, which includes all battles you've ever had. It would be treated as simply a "fun" thing since things like CC and other competitively strange metagames would be included, but keep track of your non ladder battles in some way. This overall rating should be clearly specified as not very important, to be given no more value than a win/loss statistic, and could even use a different much more basic formula.
     
  14. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    At first glance, GLIXARE looks good but I'm no mathematician. I still want the rating decay as suggested by Quacks if we end up switching to it.
     
  15. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    1
    Deviation rises as time goes on, so the displayed rating (GLIXARE) will drop with time, but R in the formula (Rating) will stay constant, so you don't get the kind of overall decay coyotte is worried about. Ladder scores and the like should be based off GLIXARE rating, but Deviation and Rating could be displayed as extras somehow.
     
  16. Eternal

    Eternal こんにちは。

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    While I also believe that if your rating does not decline through time, people will stop battling. Why? Because if a player believes that 1500 rating was a very tough goal for him to achieve. He wouldn't want to risk it and lose that position because he'd believe he's reached a considerable rating. This would discourage many users to battle rated battles. Probably why you never see those battlers in the top of the leaderboard play anymore. Because they don't want to risk losing their rating.
     
  17. pikaachi

    pikaachi Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kind of off topic but what if someone on the 2nd rank, wanting to beat the 1st rank, creates a new account with 1000 ladder points. He then challenges and beats the 1st ranker, the first ranker would go down by a lot, making him him the new 1st rank!
     
  18. Eternal

    Eternal こんにちは。

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    That goes for anyone. Anyone can do that with the right resource. That's why I don't like the challenge feature to go towards ratings. Read the whole discussion.
     
  19. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    pikaachi: the one on first rank would lose 32 points. The one with 1000 points would gain... 200 points (as it's his first battle).
     
  20. pikaachi

    pikaachi Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I just read the discussion, right after I made the post. I agree that you shouldn't be able to pick your opponent when it comes to ladder mode.
     
  21. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's why you shouldn't be accepting challenges from players with 1000 rating if you are high. Any person who is actively leaderboarding won't do it.

    The only suggestions I agree with in this thread are Quacks' rating decay and the possible switch to GLIXARE.
     
  22. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    the big problem i have with glicko is the simple fact that you can make an alt and easily climb the ladder. much like THIS as shown in X-Act's thread.

    another problem i have with this "degeneration of ladder points over time" is the simple fact that yes, this is not an arcade game.

    however neither is:

    - starcraft
    - command and coonquer games
    - counter strike
    - unreal tournament
    - warcraft 3
    - chess
    - halo 2
    - halo 3
    - call of duty
    - and many other games with ranking systems and leaderboards

    what would happen if the chess masters (as we are using ELO aka the chess rating system) were to have their ratings lowered simply because they didn't play tournament chess over a certain time, it would make no sense. would the best chess player in the world be considered a standard player simply because they didn't play for 10 years? no, because thats fucking retarded.

    a ladder is to show who achieved the highest score over a period of time, not who CURRENTLY has the highest score.

    i also dont get this mention of making alts, this isn't shoddy, getting alts higher on a leaderboard (which if this server had more than 200~ users this statement would be even more solidified) it would be retarded to make an alt on an ELO-rating system as it doesn't matter if you're a user who just started or played for 5 months or played for 2 years.

    I wouldn't mind "GLIXARE" as much as i would something retarded and flawed like GLICKO, but in my opinion ELO is still the best rating system. period.
     
  23. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    Alright. Let's try then making challenge unrated when challenging directly (at least when you're under 1300) and clear ratings once that's implemented.
     
  24. Quacks

    Quacks Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pokemon is none of those. Metagame changes a lot, we're not playing same game as we did in the past. Ten years ago we were in gen2 which was radically different, but even year ago Latias was still tiered as uber. Hell, even three monts ago Scarftar was nowhere to be seen, and it now is its most popular set. Someone who's great in RSE times doesn't have to be great in current gen. Someone who was good in early Pt didn't had to be good in late Pt, etc etc.

    Ladder should show who is the best player. But if they're not here, they're not the best. They were the best, but they aren't around anymore.

    This is the current situation with Maverick - he was undoubtably the best at some point. But now PO has more good battlers, who have trouble reaching his score, as simply there's now more of them. There's no guarantee Maverick could stand up to all of them, but since he's not around, it's impossible to determine that. If he was still active, his score could've possibly sunk fast. He might actually be still active, but on an alt account - on which he's unable to reach remotely this good score - while his old account still lists him as the best player on PO. That's unlikely, but shows a possibility and flaw of current rating system.
     
  25. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    I didn't understand that post coyote, can you explain?
     
  26. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    168
    edited

    Also with more people coming ratings should expand and his score should be reached.
     
  27. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    That kinda sucks, unless you fix Find Battle then it won't be a problem not challenging directly. That should force more usage of the Find Battle button, so if the algorithm to avoid repeat opponents is in then that idea doesn't seem bad at all.

    I still think it's not the best idea (where was it suggested?) because once ratings are reset, Find Battle will be basically the only way to get rated opponents and that can be very limiting. You don't gain much from beating up on lower opponents anyway so I honestly don't see the use for that restriction...

    Edit: Pokemon Online seems to be all about user friendliness, accessibility, and reconfigurability and that idea pretty much goes against those in one way or the other. People should be able to challenge for rated battles anytime they want. To restrict 'boosting', you could implement the IP restriction idea, as well as unrated between same IPs.

    Edit2: Another important thing worth noting is that on the lesser popular ladders such as UU, NU, and Ubers, manually challenging people is oftentimes the only way to get a match as not many are playing that ladder at any given time and may not be using the Find Battle button so it could be extremely problematic finding rated matches. And of course, those ladders will inevitably force a lot of repeat opponents with Find Battle due to the lower number of users, even if there is a system in place to deter rematches.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2010
  28. Quacks

    Quacks Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's not much of user friendliness in allowing decent-but-not-great players to have sky-high ratings by farming on new players who don't really know much about PO or competitive battling.

    This is indeed annoying, there are situations where there are simply only two people on one ladder After five or so matches, the matches doesn't have much do to with laddering, as opponents know each others way too well. That system preventing fighting same people multiple times in a row would be very useful.
     
  29. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    Once you get to around 1250, you don't gain enough from doing that to risk the losses and anybody who tries is going to get burned eventually. Also, with the increase of players and activity the average rating level is increasing so that will become even less effective in the future, as leaderboarders start to get up there. 1300+ isn't going to gain anything from sub 1000 players so honestly that argument isn't very good at all.

    The IP restriction mentioned in another thread will prevent from repeatedly challenging the same person rated and with what I stated above, it'll do just fine. Anyone above a 1300 who tries to 'farm' that way won't gain enough points to get a significant rating and will lose megatons if they take a loss.

    Edit: Forgot to add this but I wanted to say that I wouldn't be opposed to this restriction on the OU ladder only. The other ladders are honestly just not active enough for it.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2010
  30. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    As people discover strategies in games over time (ex: halo 2 before x-button glitch discovered, halo 2 after x-button glitch discovered. different strategies form in RTS'S) the metagame changes. Pokemon applies here too.



    My refute to this is sometimes people take breaks, then come back, and still dominate.

    Or his score could've possibly risen? Playing what-ifs can go lots of ways.

    And if someone can't reach his score, then the person either has had some bad luck or just isn't good enough as Maverick at that time where he got his score of whatever it is. It's not like his score has an effect on the scores of other users, unless he is battling.

    Basically I'm saying it's pointless to change it, ELO IS the best rating system. (IMO of course, but apparently in the opinions of lots of gaming companies.)

    And please don't say "luck is a factor therefore it should not be ELO rating" because TONS of games that use ELO rating have LOTS of other factors that are much worse than luck. (LAG)
     
  31. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    Maverick's current alt is also in the top ten, just so you know.
     
  32. Jules

    Jules i make you MANGRY

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    1
    i told coyotte a long time ago like back in the alpha a way to solve this sort of stuff, oak.

    but yeah alts shoulud be to 1 person |:
     
  33. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's a whole another ballgame in itself. I'm not sure how I feel about alts laddering but wouldn't it suck if you wanted to use another one and couldn't? I got a couple of bad losses on zeroality so I got tired of it and started uber laddering on an alt, but it does suck to have the 'good' players stuff up the top ranks. IPL used to take 1-3/4/5 on Smogon OU leaderboard regularly.

    Anyway, maybe if there were a way to 'unregister' your name from the ladder so you could use a new one? Probably more trouble than it's worth though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.