Defending the Blitz Ladder System

[McIvan]

I think the ELO question is rapidly becoming the CM equivalent of the perennial CS halftrack debate!

Arpad Elo developed a system (for chess) where everyone starts from a given rating (in our case 2000) and gets more or less points from a game depending on the difference between their ELO score and their opponents. The ELO rating will go up or down as you win or lose, with the degree of change dependent on the strength of your opponent.

Example: I'm on 1900, you're on 2200. You should win, so if you do you get a few points added to your ELO score. But if we draw or (heaven forbid) I win, then I get a heap of points added.

The more you win, the higher your score, and the less points lower ranked players lose to you.

Flaws: CM has a lot more variables than chess, particularly in scenario balance. Players who concentrate on scenarios or who play interesting but unbalanced Qb paramaters can find themselves unjustly hit. Works best with balanced QBs, but I suppose everything should balance out over time. A second flaw is that new players, on 2,000, are attractive targets for strong players looking to increase their ELO. It takes time for a new but weak player to settle on their proper lower score. I suspect this newbie hunting would only work to a certain point tho, once you're high enough I bet there's not much diff between the results from a victory against a 1900 ELO vs a 2000 ELO.

It gives a general idea of strength and does help encourage stronger players to play other reasonably strong players. It promotes a system where a new player can rank their progress and see some chance of a good position. The normal Blitz ladder has a massive score mountain to climb, especially for a new player who has limited time for games in an evening.