Decrease ranking each day.

[Cappie]

ELO rating is to say how good you are at the game, not how frequently you play.

If you want to increase your rating then get better at winning. Not surprisingly this is EXACTLY what all the people above you in ELO have done.
You can still play active players and gain ELO rating points.

If you don't play frequently (within the last 2 months) then you become unranked. There is nothing broken here, everything works as it should.

+1

[CB Droege]

Also, you might try to remember (it seems I am reminding people of this weekly, at least): ELO is a not a competition. The point of ELO is to measure your skill in the game, to make sure you can be matched with others of similar skill. Your goal should not be a high ELO, it should be an accurate one.

It's neat to know who the top players are, and some people like to see themselves on that board, but it's not a ladder. It's not really a good judge of "who is the best player". That's not what it's for. It's for matchmaking, and it's pretty good at that job.

[PlayFastOrByeBye]

OK so forget my request. I really thought that when you have a game with winners and loosers, some ranking system, it was called a competition... My bad.
If elo is to show how good u ou are at the game, so it should decrease automatically just because players improve their skill and are may be stronger than you were when you reach that level.
If you want to show how good you are at a game, it's the medals you got that show this not elo.
You can close the topic

[6element]

ELO on BGA is used for competition. It could've been win rate or highest average score or something else, but here and now it is ELO rating, like it or not.

And no, it shouldn't decrease because somebody hasn't been playing for a day or a week. People get sick, they deal with issues in their lives, have deadlines, etc. It would be unfair and evil to punish players for it.

So sorry, it doesn't seem the proposed change will improve anything, on the other hand it will clearly make things worse. So why do it?

[PlayFastOrByeBye]

In the entire world competition works like this. Others don't have to follow your rhythm. If your are a tennis player, if you get sick you will miss competition and loose ranking... That is normal.

What is not normal is to say that this is not a competition ranking while it is, to say that this is not important but refuse to decrease it like if it was you bank account and loose few points a day on fast games or fews points a week for long game without playing is a very big deal. To denie the fact that some players avoid playing once they reach the top. When you are a beginner, this top is like a goal, a line to achieve but if the line seems to far and the people who are on it absent, they won't play. If they don't play = less players. If less players = less competition and top unreachable. So how can it go worse?

[Cappie]

If elo is to show how good u ou are at the game, so it should decrease automatically just because players improve their skill and are may be stronger than you were when you reach that level.

Please read your own text.
They may be stronger than you when you reach that level. Yes. They might. Or maybe not. No way to tell is there? You maybe weaker when you reach that level. So how do you propose on correcting for that?

[Cappie]

When you are a beginner, this top is like a goal, a line to achieve but if the line seems to far and the people who are on it absent, they won't play. If they don't play = less players. If less players = less competition and top unreachable. So how can it go worse?

The top is the goal. But wouldnt you rather get there by playing as much games as the ones who have reached the top already? It all seems to be some frustration because there are some people on the top that once have played very good and don't play that often anymore and you want to be above them.
You can. Just play more and win more. If you do that, then you will really get there. It is going to be hard. Like it should be.

[PlayFastOrByeBye]

If elo is to show how good u ou are at the game, so it should decrease automatically just because players improve their skill and are may be stronger than you were when you reach that level.

Please read your own text.
They may be stronger than you when you reach that level. Yes. They might. Or maybe not. No way to tell is there? You maybe weaker when you reach that level. So how do you propose on correcting for that?

Simple, make them play. there are lot of player who deserv the top more than absent players.

[PlayFastOrByeBye]

When you are a beginner, this top is like a goal, a line to achieve but if the line seems to far and the people who are on it absent, they won't play. If they don't play = less players. If less players = less competition and top unreachable. So how can it go worse?

The top is the goal. But wouldnt you rather get there by playing as much games as the ones who have reached the top already? It all seems to be some frustration because there are some people on the top that once have played very good and don't play that often anymore and you want to be above them.
You can. Just play more and win more. If you do that, then you will really get there. It is going to be hard. Like it should be.

The frustration is an non argument to avoid to see the problem. Competition should work like that, that's why it is like this everywhere. Of course i like to challenge stronger players, who doesn't ? and of course i'm frustrated to see players getting top the top while only challenging beginners or not even playing anymore. BUT on game where there are few players if you want to attract more, you need to make the top reachable if you get better not if you play turtle.

As i said before, if you want to show what you did, there is a stats system, there are medals of what you reach that's enough. Rank ELO has to be something that live, force players to compete.

[Cappie]

If elo is to show how good u ou are at the game, so it should decrease automatically just because players improve their skill and are may be stronger than you were when you reach that level.

Please read your own text.
They may be stronger than you when you reach that level. Yes. They might. Or maybe not. No way to tell is there? You maybe weaker when you reach that level. So how do you propose on correcting for that?

Simple, make them play. there are lot of player who deserv the top more than absent players.

Your argument is that you may be stronger than them when you reach that level. But you don't know for sure. Not even when you play them now. How could you know if you are stronger when they played a few months or years ago?

And if you really deserve the top more than any absent player. Just play more. You should keep winning if you are strong and have no problem to get more points.