Yes you can, since the weighting means that even if you exclusively play 900 or 650 opponents, the offset in win rate means you end up losing/gaining the rank you deserve. You gain no advantage by exclusively playing a certain level of opponent, just like you gain nothing by playing randomly any other player. In short: IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY.




Nor is it. Being able to choose and pick your opponent gives you no advantage in regards to the ranking system.

In which case why do people refuse to play opponents not of equal rank?

Why are there threads about having rankings on game rooms? Why do newbies find it difficult to play games?

These all stem from the same problem of being able to pick your opponents for what should be competetive games.

Edited at 18:44 Tue 15/04/08 (BST)

Most of the time because they want good play and a challenge. You of all people should know this since you don't play for rank

I still am of the opinion that if you choose to play a ranked game you should play whoever and not be able to vet opponents

seeing as anyone is capable of beating anyone on here (and not just through luck either as tournament results show) there should always be a challenge to any opponent you play

anyway just an opinion and not something that matters to me either way really - however there has to be a flaw in a system where one person can elect to play the same opponent(s) day after day after day in ranked games and beat them (without cheating i might add) to climb to the top of the rankings.

Your opinion. I fail to see any reason to agree with it tho ;)

If you could artificially gain rank by doing so, it would been another matter entirely, but as long as that is not the case, being able to choose who you play and not should be - and IS - a given right for everyone (unless you willingly choose to play Spinner's quick game format of course)

It's not like we're discussing something we don't already have here. People DO have the choice to dictate who they play. The debate is whether to make that choice more supported through game mechanisms, to the benefit of everyone (it benefits all parties involved, including the players you don't want to play)

Edited at 15:17 Wed 16/04/08 (BST)

I wouldn't know, since I've never seen such a system

You still seem to base your opinions on the (incorrect) idea that choosing your opponents gives you some kind of advantage ranking wise. If it did, I would 100% agreed with you. Fortunately tho, it does NOT.

ok - so i play you exclusively and one or other of us is much better, and wins lots more games, than the other - at some point sooner or later - the person winning the most games makes number one in the rankings in that game type - no matter how long it takes

would that make either of us the topped ranked player - of course not

yes its an extreme scenario but it shows why the system is flawed in my opinion - you should not be able to pick opponents for anything other than friendlies - 'in my opinion' -

.....but yes agreed - this is now slightly off the original thread - other than it links into an autostart feature for ranked games

quick game option with autostart would appear a good idea - as a first step

Very very incorrect, and this shows exactly how limited your understanding of the rank system is (no offense)

Here's the deal:

The good player at some point reaches (and possibly passes) the rank that correctly reflects his skill level. At one point (before or after), the bad player reaches his "correct" rank. At that point, the ranks balance out and won't continue moving in either direction.

Another way of explaining this: The only way to gain rank past your "real" skill, is to play opponents who have a better rank than *their* respective player skill. (players on their way down). By playing a single opponent, you are in fact making SURE you can never pass your real skill level, and the only way to never be #1.

so if i understand you correctly you are saying that its possible to win a ranked game and not increase your score by any amount at all - no matter how small?

even if that is the case - and i am not convinced it is reading the 'how rankings are calculated' page but i'm willing to be educated.....

.....why is it that i have seen a lot of players edge their way to the top of the rankings by beating opponents on really low ranks - never once playing anyone else on any comparable score - or by beating anyone above them - or, to use your term, on their way down?

Edited at 22:15 Wed 16/04/08 (BST)

I never said that. The scenario you describe is only possible through cheating. There is no two players who can play with a 100% win rate without being deliberate, which is prohibited. 99% tho is both possible and allowed, but doesn't gain you any rank you don't lose on the final 1%.

As for players playing only low opponents, each to his own. My guess is they do it for win rate, which you CAN manipulate. Rankwise tho, you are safer playing high ranks than low, but it all evens out no matter what you do.

The only way to manipulate your way to the top is by playing an opponent deliberately losing, which is cheating and will get you banned

In addition to all this, at some point the points you earn per game is low enough to be countered by daily reductions as well as the edge limitations kicking in when you reach really high rank. Even if you could legally play a particular opponent with a 100% win rate, there isn't enough seconds in 24 hours to beat the daily reductions.

Besides, if you never ever do a single mistake, never ever foul on a black, chances are that you ARE the best player in this game LOL

OK lets test your theory of needing to beat certain types of players to rise to number 1 with a scenario

a player is on a ranking just below 850 - in 3 days he/she plays the following opponents - their ranking is shown at the point they started playing

1-0 v player a (799)
3-0 v player b (743)
3-0 v player c (728)
6-0 v player d (711)
2-0 v player e (736)
2-1 v player f (768)
1-0 v player g (748)
3-0 v player h (842)
2-0 v player i (675)
2-0 v player j (708)

only one opponent is a 'pro' ranking - in that time the player has risen 27 points to 875 - and in theory can do the same sort of thing for the next 4/5 days and get to number one - never having played anyone above a decent pro level - those opponents could have been vetted with him/her having turned down challenges from other top 5 players - is that player a number 1 ranked player?

This is a long debate, but quite enthralling all the same, keep it up chaps

lol i was gonna say something similar mate - it fascinates me - but then im sad lol - i dont pretend to know how the ranking system could be improved so its perfect - but i know that at the moment it can be misleading in some cases - not yours obviously - and you dont have to cheat either - although that is clearly the quickest and easiest way.

Edited at 14:01 Thu 17/04/08 (BST)

i just read this thread twice and i have no idea what you two are on about

all i know is even with edge modification for being over 900 and playing someone of a low 600 rank i got 0.2 points or so- so 5 wins is a point- perfectly possible to get to number one without playin anyone decent- i should know :O lmao

its true ya know

he knows- cos it was him i played

LMAO

lmao

yes i agree there is a risk to messing up against a really low ranked player but particularly in 8 ball and uk8, with the tactical side, the risk can be almost nil and thanks for agreeing that you can get to number one without playing anyone decent - (i'll pay you later )