Actually the restrictions should imo switch the ranges. Aka you should be able to invite only 50 above your rating but 150 below your rating. Or even without restriction below your rating. Denying low people is bothersome but if you are willing to risk ELO for nothing but fun, it is your choice to challenge low.
I guess that solves your issue and as an added value, brings more sense into the system.
Who would say that mr Memento Mori, thanks for shedding some light into the problem we were in utter darkness.
I am well aware that there is limit of a high ranked player to challenge low ranked one. But what is precisely the intent of such limitation? I can give reasons for not being able to challenge higher ranked ones (it locks them in challenge they have no intent of accepting as losing vs low ranked player destroyes your ELO yet victory brings very little). But i am afraid you will not find any for the other way around.
You don't need to be sarcastic...
Said by Fraggle, 28/05/07
From now on when you play in ELO mode you will only be allowed to challenge players whose score is within -50 and +150
points of your own. This is intended to prevent players from refusing to fight others of lower level and could be adjusted in the
future if they are too restrictive
Proposal before actual rule, again by Fraggle 24/05/07:
In order to add more fair play (and so.. interrestigness) to the ELO mode, we have read the message boards and an idea
seems very interresting: limit the ability to challenge another ELO player based on both ELO values.
We don't want to penalize refusals in general, because we think it's too much uncomfortable for the honest players.
Thus, a courageous lower than you, player can challenge you but a higher elo player cannot "choose" his opponents in the
lowers players for easy wins. It would also limit some kind of cheat (arranged games).
All is at the staffs forums. And thats the intent of such limitation
I have to agree with Rasco.
Now, granted, I don't play a ton during UR peak times, but I spent 35 minutes waiting for a challenge because there was nobody in the room with a high enough ELO ranking for me to challenge.
I realize that its to prevent lower ranked players from getting stomped on constantly, but don't limit the number of games a high ranked player can play. It makes ELO frustrating, not fun, and I don't think that was the intention of this change at all.
Jaxe wmd:I realize that its to prevent lower ranked players from getting stomped on constantly, but don't limit the number of games a high ranked player can play. It makes ELO frustrating, not fun, and I don't think that was the intention of this change at all.
In fact most people play elo on weekends(i guess because of work or school),but i bet on weekdays you will not find someone who could challenge you its almost rarely and the best players around...So the conclusion is to play elo on weekends or maybe on daily tournaments,there will be a lot of players
People... just read what the staff said... the refusals is the problem. I still think the core of the issue is misunderstanding.
Lower level ELO player has no reason to refuse challenge from higher level ELO. Sure, he can lose a tiny bit of ELO, but he can gain tons of rating if he wins. At the same time high ranking ELO player gets little from winning such match and risks a lot. Besides prearanged matches (a completely different problem and one that can be worked around even under the restrictions) challenging low ELO players is not the way to farm ELO, it is the way to wreck your ELO.
Again. It is higher level ELO who has any reason to refuse challenge. This can get frustrating for both sides but mostly for said high level as he is unable to issue challenge while he has another challenge pending, which he has no intent on accepting.
I do respect the staff for implementing such rule and i think it is a good thing. But i highly suspect there is slight error of what the intent was and how the actual rule was implemented, leading to switching low and high boundary around (probably from perceiving the problem from the point of view of the challenged player - who is the one having issues - and not the one issuing challenge).