Matchmaking

[Jigoku]

If all works as intended, at this point, the player wouldn't know its opponent's name, so it's doubtful.

For the score formula, a defeat does not inflict a -1 on the score (you just score 0 point when defeated).

If all works as intended, at this point, the player wouldn't know its opponent's name, so it's doubtful.

For the score formula, a defeat does not inflict a -1 on the score (you just score 0 point when defeated).

only 0? i never noticed that...do you think it is fair? i always giggle a little when i see top 10 players with more lossess than wins. I really think this game needs tournaments where players with less time can show their skills...

[Bousk]

You get 0 point, but your W/L ratio is obviously decreased, which leads to a diminishing total score.

If all works as intended, at this point, the player wouldn't know its opponent's name, so it's doubtful.

For the score formula, a defeat does not inflict a -1 on the score (you just score 0 point when defeated).

only 0? i never noticed that...do you think it is fair? i always giggle a little when i see top 10 players with more lossess than wins. I really think this game needs tournaments where players with less time can show their skills...

I think the system for rankings is pretty good. The better you are the less games you will have to play to get a high ranking. Deep Blue is right about the top 10 though. It takes many games rather than a great W/L ratio to get the 50 Cyans (note: some top 10 players have both many games played and great W/L ratios). The more people who play this game, the more spots in the rankings will be occupied by people who play the most games.
Maybe something like if you have played a minimum of 20-30 games in a week your position is based purely on your W/L ratio if that would put you higher than your total score. Something like this would mean some of the good players who are time poor could still try and get 20 games in and feel they are able to reasonably compete for the higher rankings.

no complaints here.