Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 92732" data-attributes="member: 633">More: if really people are going away because they find advancing too difficult (and only a poll can reveal this), the solution doesn't need to be so drastic as making loss impossible and advancement certain. There are compromises. Requiring two losses for a rank-down could be one. If that isn't enough (though to me it seems already too much), we can require two consecutive losses. Warning: the following statement wasn't verified. And I failed my Statistics exam this semester <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.The latter choice would (statistically, on a huge number of fights) have about the same effect as your proposal.edit: hmm, let's see. If you lose with two consecutive losses, on 2 fights (after a win) you have 25% of losing, 50% of going up once, and 25% of going up twice. On 2 fights (after a loss) you have 25% of losing, 25% of staying, 25% of going up once, 25% of going up twice.With no losses, on 2 fights you always have 25% of staying, 50% of going up once, 25% of going up twice.Ok, the previous statement is officially screwed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification