Keep your Numbers Off of Me: Why Tournaments Support Better Communities than Ladders
www.gamedeveloper.com
It is exhilarating playing in an event for a game you like and seeing how far you can make it. But players can get that without being put on a list.

Richard Garfield blogs about the differences between a ranked ladder and tournaments for competitive play.

Recently I started playing a digital game. There was a tournament announced for the top players. Although I wasn’t a top player – the game was new enough and there was enough luck in the play that I thought maybe I could qualify, and so I started paying attention to my ranking.

Quickly I noticed that I was having less fun because I was no longer experimenting and trying new things – I was focusing on what I knew worked. I began to lean more heavily on what other people said was correct rather than finding my own way. Losses were setbacks rather than learning experiences. When I rose to a level that corresponded to my actual skill, I stalled. Then the games became more samey, with the players mostly playing similar styles. I noticed that I felt like a mediocre player even though I was in the top 10%.

The experience brought into focus and made personal some of the misgivings I have had about extensive player rankings in games. […]

  • MikeOPM
    6•21 days ago

    Matching players with evenly matched players is one of the main reasons for ladder play. This is not without its merits, but it also isn’t a strictly good thing. If you match people precisely then there is no sense of progress because players will win about half their games regardless of how good they get.

    I think this is definitely frustrating, basically everyone always just wins about half of their games. I understand why the ladder exists in games and especially Arena, but I think it just got to a point for me where its not fun anymore. You’re only ever playing people at your exact ability level. The variety of opponents makes it more fun I think.