It doesn't seem right that all the "best" topics are several months old...

I understand that the longer a topic is around the more upvotes it can accumulate just because of it's duration. However, that doesn't mean that topic is necessarily better than one that's only three hours old. And with the current appearance, that three hour old topic may never get its chance to be the "best" because nobody ever sees it by default.

A great example of the issue with having topics that are months and months old as the "best" is in the "Gameplay & Strategy" community. I'm sure we can all agree that the game has changed quite a lot in the past five months. Yet when I meandered over there... multiple topics on the front page were five months old. How are topics on gameplay and strategy that are so outdated considered to be the best? Live Balance and esports also seem to have an issue of older topics frequently being the best - whether or not they're still relevant. The number one topic in esports? How do people think Cloud 9 will do in the S3 worlds.

It'd be nice if there was some sort of ratio of upvotes compared to time since the thread was created to allow older topics to fall down the list of "best" and newer topics to rise to the top.

This does fall in a similar pattern as the threads which point out the difficulty of garnering visibility if you are late to a discussion as well - but is more expansive to the overall relevancy of the original post. And it could potentially stagnate the community as the casual browser will always see the same old topics and presume the official "forums" are dead. (That was my initial thought on those sub-communities.)