Hello this is an idea... if we win and go through i think we should get a reward and if u win a tournement i think u should get a big reward or sumits and get points for rankings this is just an idea put what u think please ppl.

Its been a whie since this was mentioned, but a fresh debate will be good.

A "lump rank" reward for the winner is not practical though for many reasons.

Personally, i've always wanted to see tournament games ranked. That automatically means the winner will have won several ranked games, so will have gained rank that way. Quarter and Semi-finalists will also have benifited, and it will help even the rank system out a bit because people cant choose who they play.

Dont forget the prize tourney's mentioned in premium as well

The only down side to your idea, spinner, is it might force people not to play tournaments, i think the choice of being able to play who you want will be effectively taken from you.

perhaps tournament seeding.
you get say 5 points for a win 5 taken away if you loose, everybody starts on nil then you build up your points in tornys each time you enter one. then you can be seeded for that torny "eg" say quick_pot, played 30 torny games won 28 would start torny with 140 points, seed placing -1st.then next player down to noobs playing 1st torny abviously starting with nil points, all points won carried on to the next torny hence the seeding position

Ranking shouldn't be based on if it's a tournament or not. I'm not that fussed about what my rank is although pro always looks better than adept.

As far as I can tell, a lot of the higher ranked players only play people in 800 or above games so they don't lose points, which is fair enough given the system but it gives a false ranking because you're refusing to play a lot of good players. In tournaments you can't choose who you play and if you win your match your ranking would go up and if you lose it would go down which is totally fair isn't it?

How about this for an idea - you only gain pro status if your ranking gets above say 830, but once you've got it you stay pro forever?

Ranked games and tournaments are completely different entities.

Football teams don't get league points for winning an F.A. cup match.

Hehe thats exactly the analogy i made many months ago anaconda!

However, i was referring to the winners reward idea being like the winners of the FA cup getting 10 league points. That can never work.

A seperate seeding idea has been mentioned before, done properly, that could work, but then you could be faced with regular semi-finalists (martin - are you there? ) who were higher seeded than people who had won more tournaments than them.

Yes, many semi's is a great achievement - but the people at the top of the table should always be the winners, and thats what we have now.

I'm a great believer in the making of all competitive games ranked, as only then will rank have any real meaning as a judge of ability. I do appreciate your point though 1_eye - some of the people i always refered to as number junkies would be less likely to play.

Surely winning a tournament is reward enough?

Would seeding be based on rank? win %? tournament wins? recent form?....

Edited at 22:30 Tue 22/05/07 (BST)

Seeding would need to be based on positions reached.

However and seeding system done properly would/should basically be multiples of an extension of the tables suggested elsewhere ;

Tournament wins : 20 (2%)
Semi's reached : 40 (8%)
Quarters reached :80 (16%)


I feel expanding the stats like this would be enough. Personally i'm proud of my few tourney wins, and would like to let people see how many times i came close, but dont want to be lost in a hard to understand seeding system!

You have failed to convince me spinner

I am still not sure why we need seedings at all. I don't see a problem with the way it currently is and as you have already hinted at, it would be very difficult to implement

Edited at 23:05 Tue 22/05/07 (BST)

terrible idea. it would stop me entering tournys unless i was on form. at the minute i enter tournys all the time but only play ranked games if im playing well. if i was playing not so well i wouldn't bother entering tournys if it m,eant id lose points. plus if you have to face somebody like coolballs who is an excellent player but doesn't bother with rank you would suffer. he has like 675 rank and 30 tournys so id lose 5 points for each defeat? terrible idea.

i also don't like this idea very much sorry

>Hi, I don't think tournament games should be ranked, because I personally think it would be unfair.
>Since there is a strong demand for ranked tournament games, I think we could compromise a little.
>I think there should be a separate tournaments bit on each of the members profiles, for the ranks scheme, I think there should be a separate 'Tournament rank'...
-If a person wins 2-0 in any round, they should get a fixed rank
-If they win 2-1 they should get half the fixed rank
-If they lose 2-0 they should lose the fixed rank that could be gained if you win 2-0
-And if they lose 2-1 they should lose the rank they would gain for winning 2-1, if the player loses his first game with 0 tournament rank, it should go down into the minuses too. I believe it should be worked like this:
Tournament rank:(Players tourny rank)
Lost Round1-
Lost Round2-
Lost Round3-
Lost Round4-
Quater-finals reached-
Semi-finals reached-
Finals reached-
Finals lost-

Thoughts?

Hey also, above should be a very small addition to the funkypool members profiles on each game.

E.g. The bold bits on my forum post above should be on each game, one on 8 ball US, one on 8 ball UK and one on 9 ball US. I think that should be added on the side of their personal 'achievements'for each game.

PS- "Lost Round1 etc..."Are the total number of times you have been knocked out in the first round and so on...

What are your thoughts on my idea?



http://www.funkypool.com/viewTopic.do?topicid=10343

I think this idea could satisfy all users who want tournament in-depth records.
Please do tell me what you think.


Edited at 22:10 Mon 28/05/07 (BST)

I could not fit everything on those two posts. Last little addition to my suggestion is this...

Just below the: Finals reached
Finals lost

There should be the number of DQ's you have got and the number of BYE's.

E.g.

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Finals reached-
Finals lost-
DQ's-
BYE's-

Not having a go... but wouldnt that create a ridculously over-crowded profile?

Well not really, I thought before I spoke, I said if this suggestion is taken further, that tournament "profile"would be small, and should be on the side of each game, therefore the page will have to be a little wider or everything gets a tiny bit smaller.

Or the page could get longer and that tournament profile could be added beneath all the stats.

Exactly tis going to a ALOT more data to the profile I do like the idea but I think it should be alot simpler than your suggestion.

Now your saying a lot more data? It would be spread out therefore it will not be over crowded, if the profile stretches it will not be over crowded but surely there will be more data.

People wanting tournament in-depth records will always add more data to the stats page.

It's just my suggestion to help out, im just trying my best to help and giving in my thoughts.

I know your helpin just tryin to alter your idea slightly so it could work more.

My point wit the amount of data is your doubling the amount of data on a profile! If not more! Just beacause the writings smaller doesnt mean theres less over crowding! Think I mean maybe its more like information overload rather than over-crowding if this makes more sense?