Was wondering how much the the number of ladder games you play will affect your total score? For example what would the difference be between a 10/1 player's score, and a 100/10 score (if they had played the exact same opponents)? I would think the 100 win player should deserve the better score simply due to the fact that he had done it for longer. However, my chief concern is with the difference (if any) between the two player's scores?

Personally I would like to see only a minimal difference. This is due, in large part, to the fact that I do not want to be constantly pushing myself to compete in the maximum number of games, simply to achieve a high ranking. Especially considering the fact that I am already playing in 15+ other games (most of which are tourny's that I can't get out of). Naturally, it can becomes very hard to keep up with.

On a side note I'd also love to see the maximum number of ladder games lowered back down to 3 :p

no, they won't be the same, because you start 1500.

say you play against and beat an opponent who was at 3000, you would gain a certain amount of points. if you beat ten opponents at 3000 points each, you would add points each time, but a smaller amount each time.

so say the first game gave you (3000-1500)/10=150 points giving you 1650, the next game would give you (3000-1650)/10=135 giving you a total of 1785 and so on

p.s. (these numbers are incorrect obviously, but i think they are a correct representation of what would happen

That's not really true. That's how it would work under a normal ELO system, but with the system we're currently using, I don't think there's a particular difference between being 90 and 10 and 10 and 1. It would likely come down to the strength of those 10 opponents and the strength of those 100 opponents in determining who was higher ranked.

Eagle Blast is describing how a traditional ELO system works, however WarLight's ELO system is a bit different and actually doesn't work like that.

You can set up your own scenarios like this and see the outcomes by following the instructions in this blog post:

http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2011/02/running-your-own-ladder-simulations/

I'd have to run it to be sure, but I would expect that you would see only a minimal difference, but certainly a difference. By your numbers, the first player is 10 for 11, and the second is 100 for 110.

Since you said they're playing the same players, I'm assuming this means that the second player has a ton of duplicates (10 games for each player that the first player faced.) This algorithm does give a benefit for beating the same players twice, but I would expect that it's a smaller benefit than beating two players with the same rating. Again, I'd have to test it to be sure.

that's kinda what I was trying to say, that beating the same opponent a second time gives points to you just like the first time, but less than the first game.

and that because you start at 1500 and not 0, it adds points based on your rank, so it will always add more for a duplicate win