Would it not be more constructive to say why?

You forgot the "in my opinion" part, as well as the "because....".

And thats also why polls aren't used here as they give useless information

To cover a few things already mentioned.

Everytime this idea comes up, people say "what about the people who only play friendlies and tournaments"

Well, obviously, having tourney games ranked would make no difference to them since they aren't interested in rank.

Having points "awarded" can never work, as there needs to be a risk element in order to keep the rank system operating correctly. There's only so much rank to go around, so to speak!

However, if you rank all the games normally, and assume an average win gives you only 2 points, then by the time you win a final in a 6 round tourney you will have won at least 24 points.

Not a bad reward i think?

yeah but that would be forcing maybe higher ranked players to play lower ranked and if they lose they would do so heavily.

And when you say theres not as much to go around i understand that because a 900 could go ahead of the peak it wouldnt work but do you mean theres like a 100,000,000 rank points shared out?

To put it more simply - everytime someone wins, someone else must lose.

If we simply have a reward of 10 points for a tourney win, and some players never play anything other than tourneys or friendlies, then their rank would never go down!

And if a high rank player is playing a low ranked player and loses, then they shouldnt have had that high rank in the first place...

One of the biggest advantages of this would be it's effect on evening out the rankings to reflect player ability more accurately.

i aggree with that im not withit personally didnt there once used to be a weekly tournament of which winner took home 5 points?

i think you should just get ten points or more if you win a tourney but you must use some of your points as a buy in.....like a gamble

Edited at 22:15 Thu 10/04/08 (BST)

Edited at 22:15 Thu 10/04/08 (BST)

Playing low ranked players isn't really a problem IF those players are in fact as bad as the rank suggests.

Adding rank to tourny games now tho, while I would definitely want it, would lead to a huge challenge regarding the large number of really good tourny players sitting at 675.0 rank. It would work itself out over time tho, as long as ALL tourny games are made ranked, so playing unranked tournies to maintain a low rank is no longer possible.

Lordpool is a great example of the rank system actually working as intended tho - he plays anyone and everyone, more lowbies than not in fact (which is not surprising as there is so many more of them), and he is steadily among the top 5 ranked 8 ball players.

Somthing like that would work. The entire point is that the total amount of rank points that are in rotation can't be allowed to increase over time (then you get inflation, which this system is obviously not meant to want or support)

Maybe a points cost to enter a tourney then (everyone who enters pays a point) and that is shared round in certain percentages to the final.

Yes, something like that is a good idea (like already suggested, this would be very similar to a poker buy-in)

That would more or less eliminate the challenge around the good tourny players sitting at low ranks too - since rank gaps wouldn't play a role in tourny games.

Oops sorry, didn't read earlier threads.

Just out of curiosity spinner, is the amount of points in the game just 675 x the amount of registered players per game? For example if there was only two players there would be only 1350 points in the game?

Very very much doubt there's anything like that.

Keep in mind, every single day, a LARGE number of players lose rank points from the daily deductions. Likewise, for every single game that is played, a tiny amount of rank is pumped INTO the system (the winner gets slightly more than the loser, remember?)

The point tho, is that these two effects should (and do) more or less balance each other out, maintaining a fairly stable overall average player rank.

The total number of rank points (or the average rank per player for that matter) is not really an interesting issue. The issue is to avoid inflation - any kind of system that allows players to accumulate and grow their ranks until you hit the ceiling)

This is also (still my guess, but it's fairly obvious) the basis for determining how large the daily reductions need to be.

Since the number of players is as large as it is, the number of games each player plays per day will be fairly constant, with very minor fluctuations. If that number were suddenly to drop or increase by a lot tho, the daily reductions would been adjusted accordingly, to maintain a balance between points in/out of the system.

(edited for spelling)

Edited at 00:05 Sat 12/04/08 (BST)

Don't know why I asked to be honest. Was just moaning about daiky reduction and edge modification earlier. **shakes head in disbelief**

look, if we ever get rank points in tournaments, we need an easy system to do this so no newbie gets confused.

I like the idea of entering a tournament costing 1 single rank point.....its nothing much to lose and if you win, you would gain either 5 or 10 points.

that in my view would be the only way to make things fair. if say a 650 came up against an 800, we know who will win most of the time so why make the 650 suffer of losing a couple of rank points per game.

I dont like the idea of points going to runner-ups and that. There is no trophy for coming second in the Champions League or the FA Cup ( i may be wrong lol). But if this was to work, I think that it should be one point to enter and 5 points for winning the tournament..

or....that or maybe it should be for every round you win through, you get one rank point?

so if you win round one, you get your point back and if you win round 2, you get another rank point.....and 3 pts for winning the final.

either of those 2 ideas I can see working.

First one doesn't.

If say 80 people entered at 0.5pts entry thats 40pts in the pot, if only the winner got 5pts thats 35 lost points that just disappear. Should be a set percentage that goes to winner, runner-up and possibly semi-finalists.

At least it would by far be the easiest.

A more "normal" approach to ranked games would also work, but you would have the massive challenge of how to deal with all the tourny-only players who are sitting at a very low rank with very good skills.

A net loss of points in a tourny isn't necessarily a problem. A net gain tho, would be.

And either one can be compensated for by adjusting the daily reductions or the winner-gets-more-than-the-loser-loses factor.

Edited at 16:47 Sat 12/04/08 (BST)