The alternative is to play the high ranked opponent where the risks of losing is so much higher but you may win big points or lose smaller amounts.

But the overriding issue is - why should you even have that choice? You dont get to choose your opponents in tournaments. What you are failing to appreciate is if everyone is required to play to the same rules then in the end you will end up with an order of merit where the best players rise to the top - simply because they win - with no questions about how they got there - the chances of being able to cheat to get there are also almost nil because you cannot pick your opponent - ie yourself in another name or a mate who is deliberately losing to you.

Because that is what you are struggling with.

Just because I asked for your suggestion doesn't mean I'm never again gonna talk about what we have now... Guess I could been clearer on which is which tho - my bad.




We do, but for very different reasons. You keep insisting you can beat the system and that's why the list is not valid.

I hold that this idea is blatantly wrong, and that the only real reason why the list isn't perfect is the fact that a lot of players (are allowed to) refuse to use the ranking system.

And you really really need to stop thinking there's risk involved in playing high rank players. At the very least stop contradicting yourself so much. Lets for a moment assume you are right - people CAN edge their way up beyond their ability as a player. In that case, the upper portion of the ladder should be filled with players who are crappier than their rank would reflect. Which is PRECISELY the type of player you want to find and play - not avoid!

The risk of losing games - yes. The risk of losing rank - no.




There are many answers to that, but the most obvious one is that people should be able to choose to play their real life friends (which is what a lot of users use this site for).

Personally I wouldn't mind a forced playing order at all, but that's ME. I respect and understand that others have other motivations for the time on this site. As should you.

One strict requirement for having forced games with forced opponents tho - no resets. No players playing on a "too low" rank of any kind. No idea how you would intend to achieve THAT tho.



And the ranking ladder is no different - since being able to choose opponents does not provide a way to bypass or cheat the system ;)

And that's it for me. I mean it this time. Write as much more of this as you please, but I have said everything I can ever have to say on this matter - I simply can't think of any other more simple way to explain why you are wrong than what I have already done many times over.

There are many answers to that, but the most obvious one is that people should be able to choose to play their real life friends (which is what a lot of users use this site for). - totally agree but that is what friendlies are for - if you are playing ranked games just against your friends how can that even possibly produce a genuine ranking list?

And the ranking ladder is no different - since being able to choose opponents does not provide a way to bypass or cheat the system ;) - it does for the umpteen reasons that I and others have given you

I simply can't think of any other more simple way to explain why you are wrong than what I have already done many times over. - funny how i state when I agree with points you make and yet you never do that - now that either means you totally disagree with what I, and others, say but yet you have not given any coherent argument as to why .....

Edited at 17:50 Tue 6/05/08 (BST)

.... other than the accepted fact that the maths theory behind the weighted scoring system is sound. That is to be fair a slightly conceited approach to other peoples views - not just mine.

Personally I wouldn't mind a forced playing order at all, but that's ME. I respect and understand that others have other motivations for the time on this site. As should you. - i think i have said any number of times its for people to decide what they want from a ranking system thats all - or indeed even if they want a meaningful one!

Still whilst you are not prepared to accept reasoned arguments without dismissing them out of hand then i agree there is no point continuing a debate.

Edited at 18:01 Tue 6/05/08 (BST)

untrue u can build up 2 high accounts then make a third and lose 2 yourself over n over again
you can also pick an opponent in private room and if it a friend there even more points.



and i SWEAR i am not talkin from experience it is just general thinkin

Nice try - however my point is that for a ranked game you cannot pick an opponent so the odds of being randomly drawn against yourself would be minimal - yes obviously still possible - but minimal.

Edited at 19:00 Tue 6/05/08 (BST)

I think the original topic is never going to be more than a personal opinion, however i suggest that as long as people can make new accounts (pretty essential!) then the reset feature can only be a help, as it gives some indication of history and keeps things generally tidier.


But, this post is promted by the really very good idea creeping out here.

I think eliminating the choice of who to play in ranked games is a brilliant idea.

simply replace the username in the game room selection with the room owners rank (something we should try to avoid debating here, as it has been done to the death elsewhere, but you can pick up one of those threads if you like!)

or, offer the chance to join a game room against an opponent of similar (within +/- 30? ) rank.

This would go a long way to eliminating cheating and "manipulation" of rank altogether.

get your flak jacket on spinner - jan will be coming for you

Yep - as long as you can't/won't prevent people from making new accounts, there's absolutely no point in preventing resets either - if anything it should be encouraged over new accounts for sure





Technically I do to. But it's hard to implement without going against what a lot of people want from such a game.




Won't really do too much. It would be fun, but you could still do what bothers arcade - leave after a single game as soon as you think the player is better than his current rank.



Would be nice, but again wouldn't work as an option. It would have to replace the current system of manually making games and choosing opponents.



If you manage to believe that to be a problem in the first place ;) And clearly, for all those who think the current system can be manipulated, any alternative that prevents the choice of opponent would clearly be welcome.

Another huge bonus would be to prevent cheaters from playing eachother (losing deliberately)

Won't really do too much. It would be fun, but you could still do what bothers arcade - leave after a single game as soon as you think the player is better than his current rank. - you need to show me where i ever said that!!!!!!!!

at least i know how to get some agreement off you - become a mod/admin!!

It's MY understanding of what you are all on about on these topics - if that impression is wrong then that's too bad because we are clearly unable to change it lol

As for that last part - I'm not gonna follow you that low, sorry.

Edited at 19:54 Tue 6/05/08 (BST)

offer me and others an explanation for your agreement with spinner then

As with everyone else, I agree with someone when I agree with that person's opinions or suggestions.

The single exception to that would be the gf, in which case I don't even GET an opinion - and agree by default lol

You know perfectly well I tend to disagree (and strongly too) with spinner on most aspects of rank discussions, especially resets, but that doesn't mean I can acknowledge that he makes well thought-through suggestions.

yes the very same suggestion i made earlier in this thread in fact!!

I hope that its because you have suddenly now seen the merit in what i proposed before - even though you never acknowledged it at the time - because the alternative to that thought is not pleasant.

And I agree with the comments about female partners btw

Edited at 20:19 Tue 6/05/08 (BST)

*Head spinning*


You two say it with me - "Whooooooooosawwww!"

I agree with you Katie - you are female after all

That's exactly right!

Don't forget.

Incorrect.

Please read that post again, and without bias. As I clearly state, I do not agree a change is needed at all (since the current system can't be exploited)

That doesn't mean I can't comment and contribute on suggested changes - as I've stated in many of my replies to you as well - *I* would love a random/forced system - nothing new there.

Also note that I commented on the suggestions in terms of what would be required to meet YOUR requirements to the system - not mine. ;)




You simply need to separate horses and carriages here.

I commented on the concrete suggestions spinner made on how a forced ranking system *could* be implemented. I've not debated that topic with you previously AT ALL.

That has nothing to do with whether or not the ranking system has a flaw that could/should be fixed by not letting people choose opponents - you should know where I stand on THAT by now lol

Simply entirely different topics, mate.