What you with all due respect continually fail to take into account is what this does to whoever a reset player is playing against.

By doing just what you described above, while being fun for the one doing the climbing, massively hurts the rank of whoever they happen to end up playing.

In short, players playing on a rank that is lower than their real skill level is unfair to everyone else on the ladder. It has to be that way for new players, but the entire idea behind the balance of the rank system is for players to as quickly as possibly reach the equilibrium where their real skill and their rank meet.

In very much the same way as Tiger Woods would not been allowed to claim any golf handicap either. Sure, it might be interesting to see how fast he could get it down to scratch, but he would be winning a lot of matches he shouldn't have as a direct result of playing on a false hcp/rank.

Edited at 23:21 Sun 4/05/08 (BST)

And with respect to you too, what you fail to appreciate is that ranking is not a true order of merit for the reasons we have discussed in depth elsewhere. Until that changes it is simply a high score table and a points gathering exercise which is why its perfectly OK for people to play in the manner spinner describes. Now if it was a true ranking table of the sort Mr Woods has lead with distinction for so many years then I might agree with you.

Your opinion.

Lets not start the rank definition discussion again, and in particular not in this thread.

What you should consider and appreciate tho, regardless of your views and opinions on the ranking system, is that Nick has gone to great lengths to produce a good balance in the way rank is scored (and lost). Resets entirely ruins that effort.

It is based entirely on having players as much as possible play at whatever rank correctly reflects their skill. Any major offset to that assumption makes the weighting system fail entirely.

Edited at 23:39 Sun 4/05/08 (BST)

....completely relevant to this thread because it justifies why people can reset - and i agree the theory of the ranking system is excellent.

If it was used in a different way it would be completely meaningful - and show what i think we would all like to see.

To put this down a hopefully more constructive path, how would your idea of a good ranking system work?

And please keep it realistic - everyone playing all others is out of the question with thousands of users.

never been anything but realistic - unlike a few comments i have read!!

Firstly you have to decide what you want from the game - if its a variation to tournament game play where players seek to accumulate as many points as they can, and then protect them, then the current system is good. And to be fair the ranked games are very popular with people - particularly those who understandably dont wish to, or can't, commit time to play long tournaments.

However if your aim is to come up with a system which somehow provides a listing in order of players by ability at any given time then, as has been posted elsewhere many times, every competetive game you play must be 'ranked' including tournament games. In addition you cannot have a choice over who you play in a competetive game. That either means that all opponents are selected completely randomly or alternatively it works on some sort of 'ladder' basis where you are paired (randomly) with opponents of similar rank or higher....

....
Given time, and with every player competing to the same set of rules, you will find that you should ultimately come up with an order of players that truly reflects their ability and form - and will include also players that only choose to play tournament games currently.

However this is funkypool - theres nothing at stake at all - and its only played for fun - so its a case of what system best meets those ideals really!!

Edited at 18:38 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

how about limit the reset or delete button to once very 3 mnths or summat per user, problem solved and maybe have in brackets at the side of there name for instance _matty_1981_(reset) untill they have played their 100 games again or
_matty_1981_(deleted)??

That is precisely what rank should (and in my opinion for the most part already is) all about, yes.




Technically not, since you don't really have any control over when you are on form and not. Even if you play only say 50% of your games as ranked, those 50% should still accurately reflect your true skill. As would the remaining 50% as well. But I agree that having all games ranked would been great, but for other reasons.





This is where we completely disagree and where you (in my opinion and no offense intended) completely fail to grasp the effect of a weighted scoring system that correctly takes the current rank difference into account.

The entire idea is that it doesn't matter who you play - you get rewarded or punished as much as you deserve - regardless of playing low or high opponents.

Why is the inability to choose your opponent a requirement as long as doing so does not affect your ability to gain or lose ranking points?

And if you still hold on to the idea that choosing your opponents DOES give you some kind of advantage, I really must implore you to delibare your reasoning that leads you to that conclusion.

Some people make it a point to hide their stats by continually doing resets. Personally I find that lame, but that's an opinion I can appreciate people not sharing. When it comes to tourny stats it holds no consequence anyway, but for rank it sadly does.

And any player who has reset stats should be tagged as such in one way or another - permanently.

There really is no point discussing anything further!! You seem to be totally obsessed with the mathematical beauty of the thing and disregard facts and the views of players - including those who play the system to their advantage.

I am simply advocating that every competitive game is ranked. You would still have the option of playing friendlies against anyone you wish. Of course you dont have any control over 'form' and that is exactly why if you are off form then you lose out and it threatens your position in the overall ranking table as opposed to saying 'I am off form therefore I will only play tournament games cause it doesnt matter if I lose.' By doing that it simply means that at that time you are artificially placed higher than you should be.

You say that the weighted scoring system means that it doesnt matter who you play. Firstly I agree totally with you that it doesnt matter who you play as long as you perform as expected in relation to the other player.

Edited at 20:18 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

In that case then nobody needs control over who they play at all. Everyone is then competing to the same rules and on a level playing field. However where it does matter is with players that specially choose opponents of lesser ability to play against to edge their way to the top of the current ranking tables. They are backing their ability against poor opposition and viewing the risk of losing big points as minimal. At the same time they are doing this they could be losing easily to any decent or better player consistently in tournaments. In terms of a 'real rank' they would be punching far above their real weight and yet still appear to be a top 10 player. Now the fact is that this does happen regularly and you cannot argue against that. Top ranked players have posted to the effect that they will generally only play extremely low ranked players or those around them because again the risks are minimal and self preservation of your score is paramount.

Also to avoid a 24 hour point reduction players will play one game against a vetted very low ranked player because again they back their ability. All totally understandable under the present system but again this will never give you a true indication of who the best players are at any given time. The best examples where the ranking system is not producing a genuine list by ability is in respect of some of the mindless bickering that goes on/has gone on amongst UK8 players where different approaches are used to climb to the top - you need to read back on previous threads to see that.

But I agree that having all games ranked would been great, but for other reasons. - what other reasons?

And if you still hold on to the idea that choosing your opponents DOES give you some kind of advantage, I really must implore you to delibare your reasoning that leads you to that conclusion - for the reasons above and elsewhere

This is where we completely disagree and where you (in my opinion and no offense intended) completely fail to grasp the effect of a weighted scoring system that correctly takes the current rank difference into account. - With all due respect sometimes you have to look beyond the stats and the maths.

I think if you take a step back, you'll realise you're both saying the same things

The ranking system, specifically the newbie adjustment, means reset player have very little effect on whomever they may play.

And this right here is the core of where we disagree.

You will lose big points exactly as often as it takes to counter the points you gained.

There is no segment of opponent ranks that lets you gain ranking beyond your own ability - regardless of which end you play, the weighting sees to that.

If you are psychic and able to know which potential opponents are currently playing worse than their current rank, then yes you could in theory cheat the system. I know very few people who are tho And ironically enough, that category of opponent are rarely found on low ranks - since that rank segment contains a lot of new players on their way up.

Another small correction: If I read you correctly, you think the daily reduction only takes place if you play no games. It takes place regardless, every single day as long as you are over 800.

And that concludes this discussion for my part - we are not gonna agree on this until your understanding of the ranking system changes and that's not looking likely lol. No worries, lets agree to disagree - the world would be a boring place if we didn't.

Edited at 21:51 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

We're basically disagreeing on whether or not it is possible to gain a rank advantage through narrative selection of opponents.



The newbie adjustment helps avoid the problem to some extent, but the adjustment quickly wears off, and depending on the rank of the opponents the reset player has been playing, he's typically still going to be playing at too low rank by the time the adjustment is gone. But yes, it helps.

Ironically enough, the only real way to beat the system hasn't even been mentioned here: Play a LOT. (the win bonus gets bigger vs. the daily reduction)

No we wont agree while you singularly fail to show any thinking beyond the black and white. My understanding of the ranking system is fine thank you very much - and i have actually agreed with you that the weighted scoring system is fair in its own right - but its your complete disregard for how it can be used to advantage that is the problem despite a number of people pointing this out.

Still maybe we are all wrong - matter closed

Then do what I've asked you for several times: Elaborate how you can do this (on a detailed technical level).

Here's a few control questions to guide you towards the aspects I need you to cover:

- Precisely which opponents is it that you consider advantageous to play (please separate between real ability vs. rank)

- And the opposite - which opponents are disadvantageous to play?

- And most importantly: Why?


My current impression of where you stand on this is that you think the rank weighting doesn't compensate "quite enough" when a high rank player plays a low rank opponent. I hope that impression is wrong.


And try to keep emotions out of this I know (all too well) how frustrating it is to not get your points across, but try anyways - it's the only way the debate can continue to be meaningful

1) My current impression of where you stand on this is that you think the rank weighting doesn't compensate "quite enough" when a high rank player plays a low rank opponent. I hope that impression is wrong. - dont have a clue where that came from - are you reading the posts that offer contrasting views? oj

2) Then do what I've asked you for several times: Elaborate how you can do this (on a detailed technical level). - have done this lots of times already - doesnt need to be on a technical level

3) - Precisely which opponents is it that you consider advantageous to play (please separate between real ability vs. rank) - explained many times already - but here goes again - the weighting system between a high ranked and low ranked player states that for example if they play, lets say 8 games, the better play will win 7 and lose 1 (not exact figures so dont throw those back at me)......