I feel like, there will be other threads about this issue, but I could not find them.

If I get it right (according to https://www.remi-coulom.fr/Bayesian-Elo/#history), the system of "Bayesian Elo Rating" is made for one tournament in order to calculate the elo changes more accurate.

This means, that the system how it is implemented at the moment, states that all games played for the ladder in the last 5 month are one tournament.

This has extrem impact on the ratings:

All games are counted equal. First this might seem logical, but the skill of a player may change extremly within the 5 month and then this becomes a big problem. Newer games give a more precise impression on the players skill at the moment.

The current rating simply state the average skill level of a player for the last 5 month and I have to confess:
I do not like that, as the skill level of many players does change extemly within 5 month.

So I would ask to change the rating-system.

If there are other threads about these topic, please link them here.

I didnt find any other topics excluding Fizzer's poll from 2011 too. I highly support your advice! But I think we can change one point to make it more "tasty" to Fizzer: The 1v1 Ladder doesn't have to change. We could alternatively include an Elo ranking system in the 1 v 1 real-time auto games. They don't even have to be replaced too - it would be enough to add a 1 v 1 real-time (ranked Auto Game) for the beginning. If the community likes it, we could forward that, but it would be enough to test it.

How do you think about that?

I highly support changing the bayesian elo to another elo type. The MDL (deadmans clot) uses another elo, which supports ladder runs and stalling much less!

Alex your idea in general sounds nice for mediocre players. But for good players, a matchup with a player who's rated much much worse hurts your rating no matter if you win or lose. How to avoid that?

Oh, thanks for the hint mate, I forgot to write how we could avoid that. We could try to manage it like chess.com, distributing all players into categories. For example like this:

0-1199 Beginner
1200-1599 Advanced
1600-1999 Professional
2000+ Elite

Players can match only other players with their category of ranking. If that are too many categories and you have to wait long for a game, we could make one less*, no matter.

Could that work, what do you think?

*One alternative (just an example, others may be better, depends on the number of players in every category):
0-1399 Beginner
1400-1799 Advanced
1800+ Professional

That is how chess.com creates tournaments. There is also an easier way: You can only get enemys which are max. 200 ranking above or behind you, that is the system of the chess.com random games. But this way we would have the problem with the waiting again.

Edited 12/31/2016 14:03:38

But tbh I don't really like that +/-200-system. Imagine my ranking is 2080 and yours is 2300. We would both wait for an enemy and don't get one, but it would be no problem for your ranking to match me, additionally a 2300 player will not be unbeatable for a 2080 player, because the last one is very good too and understands the game excellent aswell.

So we would have to switch +/-200 to at least +/-300, and this would be quite crappy for players with ~1700 ranking, because they would get far too weak enemys (same problem the other way round - it makes no fun for a 1400 player who made his ranking against beginners to fail again and again against players ranked 1700, because others are not online...).

In a system with a category like 1400-1799 Advanced this 1700-players would not remain ranked 1700, ya understand*? They would get that weak opponents instantly and reach 1800+ Professional. Imo this solves that problem. So every player would see a game like for example Advanced 1 v 1 real-time (ranked Auto Game).

*Same thing for weak 1400 players who made the ranking against beginners, they would fall to 0-1399 Beginner again.

Edited 12/31/2016 14:33:47

i like the idea of 3-4 different skill Level games. but honestly i doubt it will happen.

It's the same with me, but this is only one more reason to engage with that! :)