If you want me to understand it (which is a prerequisite to agreeing) then yes it does

I suffer from a condition called Engineer lol

Edited at 22:36 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

.....now if i am that better player and i am trying to accumulate points by edging my way higher i will take on the lower ranked player because the risk of me losing at all is minimal over a few games - additionally if you find the opponent is a little better than you hoped and you get pushed more than you hoped you win and move on to another low ranked player who might be worse - yes you are winning small amounts each time but i repeat again the risk of losing is negligible - but (and i fully agree with you here) if i do lose i lose big! Now alternatively i might choose to play a high ranked player but i know they are much better than me and the chances of me winning an equal number of games against them to gain rank is less. Now my argument is that these choices should be completely removed - therefore everyone is playing to the same rules and your weighted scoring system applies equally to everyone.......

4) And the opposite - which opponents are disadvantageous to play? - you at various times have answered that - as have smithbit and madmiketyson in their posts elsewhere. The fact is you should not have the chance to avoid playing against anyone who might be disadvantageous to you - if you do that in any sport you cant climb to the top - you can here.

Edited at 22:44 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

I think the thesauruses have got to your heads, along with the raspberryade

Edited at 22:50 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

L M A O !!!! SORRY! I had to...

Im sure u all know by know Rank doesnt bother me..and im not entirely sure what it is ur going on about..BUT.. Id say ANYTHING that cannot be decided on, regarding resets/ignore/talk in game/ etc etc shud be optional REGARDLESS!

~Paula~

lmao you should use it sporting , its raspberryade lol

x x

arcade:
You do have one point here that I'll grant you: You do often get a few winning games to judge the opposition before hitting the big loss.

You still base your analysis (thanks for giving one anyway) on a couple incorrect presumptions tho:

- Low rank players are bad. Obviously mostly true, but keep in mind that this is the segment where you also find players on their way up. New players, old snooker players, players from other game types, players back from long breaks, etc etc

- High rank players are always good enough to give you a hard time gaining rank. This is the worst miss here. It's also a self-contradiction. If it is possible to edge your way up like you claim, you would find a lot of bad players in the high rank segment, which would be easy points if you play them. Yes, you may still not win anywhere near 50%, but keep in mind that you don't have to either.

I trust we agree on this simple fact: What you want to play is players playing worse than their rank - regardless of rank.

What you want to avoid is players playing better than their rank - regardless of rank.

You find a lot more of the former in the high rank segment, and run a much higher risk finding the latter in the low rank segment.

And back on topic lol: Resets aren't helping any

Not enough storage space on this entire site to list all the things *I* have got to my head lol... Fortunately when it gets too bad I just poke it in the ground and everything suddenly looks a whole lot better

Unfortunately you still havent given any reason why everyone should not be competing on a level playing field - you are just defending a scoring system which you dont need to - as spinner said we agree on most of that - i am just saying remove the opportunity to take advantage of it (because despite what you say it can be done - i have done it as have smithy and madmike at various times and to varying degrees)

Edited at 23:17 Mon 5/05/08 (BST)

Oh shake hands!

La La Laaaaaaaaaaaa

Reset! No Dnt! Yeah Go On! Leave it! Remove the flipping thing! Its a good feature! Its a bad move! Pointless! Smashing super great!

Getting back to topic answer with a clear YES OR NO please (Get Me!)

Arcade ~ Do you agree with nz_angels idea of getting rid of the reset rank feature?

Jan ~ Do you agree with nz_angels idea of getting rid of the reset rank feature?


*Smiles*

~Paula~

That's because in my experience it already is.




I sure don't need to. I'm just saying that the existing scoring system is a lot better at countering the advantages you claim exist.






So according to you, you gain and maintain rank better if you select low rank players than if you play random opponents of any rank OR choose to play mainly high rank players. Correct?

Glad to be a shining example of the very opposite then. I used to play only high rank opponents and to some extent still have a bias in that direction. These days I do exactly what you say you should: Play everyone regardless of rank. Despite that, virtually all my rank comes from playing high rank opponents - while ironically enough all the rough patches where you drop 50 points is vs. lowbies having a good day.

The real reason why the ranking system is as useless for judging players as it is, is the fact that a lot of players refuse to use it

Yes Ma'am, I do

The idea is good, but sadly futile.

THATS CHEATING! I clearly and i mean CLEARLY stated answer with a YES OR NO! Your not 'spose to post again or say any other word DAMMIT!

100 lines: I must read Paulas posts properly and answer in the requested manner!




~Paula~

Nothing wrong with losing points to lowbies - the very fact being that if everyone was on a level playing field and not protecting their score everyone would risk suffering that fate - the difference being that the best players will always win more, or lose less, and rise to the top - bringing us back to your favourite person Mr Woods

Paula

No - one word lol

Absolutely not, and it's the only way the lowbies can ever get higher - for them to gain, someone has to lose



A wise man once said: "When you meet yourself in the doorway, you better be polite" :)

Make up your mind and answer this one clearly please: By protecting your score, do you mean by avoiding high rank or low rank opponents? One of the two, simple answer - high or low.





That's exactly how it is. The ranking order is never gonna be 100% correct - some players are always gonna be on their way up or down that ladder, both because of new players, form, breaks and so on. But it will always be very close to correct as well - short of the sad fact that it does not include people like yourself at all - which edging or no would certainly fill a top 50 spot with ease.

Too late, sorry



Can I do a hundred "I'm so sorry"ies instead? Because I'm afraid those 100 lines you asked for is well beyond the maximum post size

you do not seem to understand my points and i cant think of another way to put them ...

i clearly said above that ranking has to apply to all competetive games - including tournament games to be meaningful - that way it would include me and i would find my true position in the overall standings - even if i still only continued to play tournament games

You can protect your score by deciding who you want to play and by having control over who you want to play - that can be high or low ranked players or indeed anyone you choose to play - you cant protect your score, other than by winning consistently, if you have to play whoever is put up against you.

I was talking about the current system, not your suggestion.

As for the power of choice... For that choice to help you gain or protect rank, there needs to be something reliable to base your choice of opponents ON.

Why are you arguing about the current system? You cant ask for suggestions for improvement then bring up points that disregard the suggestion made.

We both agree the theory behind the general weighted scoring system is OK and we also agree that there is currently no genuine ranking table as such for each game type that shows a definitive order of merit for players at any particular time. The question always was is that what people want? Do they want a genuine order of merit for players or just a game type variation where you seek to accumulate points?

And for the final time the reliable thing for basing your choice of opponents on is by backing yourself to defeat extremely low ranked players all the time - which despite what you say is a low risk policy - for a rank difference of 200 the odds of losing are basically 8/1 and thats for each and every low ranked opponent you play.