at the moment I can have a very good game but still lose and my percentages still go up or stay still, i've seen players win with more misses than second place because they managed to pot the black a couple of times, 2nd place got a better pot success percentage than the winner.

Better use of language there with the SHOULD - but of course, like with the other game types, it won't whilst you are still able to choose your opponents. However should the autostart be brought in (my idea actually ) that would help to eliminate that cherrypicking element. Now if you could do that in ranking games for the other types too you might get a more realistic data sample across the board.

As long as you manage to implement a proper weighting system, being able to pick opponents make no difference.

not hijacking the thread and not posting again on it - but any ranking system where you can reach the top by selecting who you play is not a genuine ranking system

and despite me asking in other threads you have never shown me another game or sport where there is a ranking system in which you can reach the top by choosing who you play.

Edited at 20:12 Mon 14/07/08 (BST)

I agree

What about boxing, dont they get to choose there opponent! Ok they have to fight the best to get to the top so maybe not 100% correct!

I completely agree.

The point is that it is perfectly possible to design a ranking system where the ability to pick your opponents does not give you any advantage at all.

This is already 99% the case for the old game formats as well - with the single problem being players' ability to reset their rank so it no longer correctly reflects their skill level.

If you really understood what a weighted system means and why it is inevitably self-balancing, you would realize that the entire point about it is to negate the impact of who you play.

but everybody agrees it needs changing!

I like nicks idea of bringing it in line with the other games ranking systemwise.

If there's no advantage then how come the player at the top of the 8 ball rankings plays no one ranked higher than 675 at a push - unless they are a newbie (when any loss is obviously limited)

Thats not naming and shaming him - he is completely entitled to play whoever he wants at the moment and good luck to him

The current ranking system is simply a points gathering competition (in all game types) and there are many different ways you can go about gathering those points - a genuine ranking system is something completely different

again - please show me a another game/sport where you can get to the top without beating the best

apologies to everyone else and nick (i am aware of what you said in your post this afternoon about keeping it to the point)

Edited at 23:25 Mon 14/07/08 (BST)

Football (win the league while never beating the "best team")

Snooker (win the World Championship without playing the top seed)

I could go on, but just keeping things in perspective

At the end of the day, all ranking systems have to be based on certain criteria, and will therefore enevitably attract the best strategy to make the most of whatever the system may be.

Personally i think the current risk/reward model, with the newbie adjustment "protecting" against reset players, is excellent. I've yet to see a more effective alternative suggested anyways!

I used to be a heavy campaigner for having all games ranked, in order to give the rank tables more "meaning". However, i realise now how narrow minded that view was, since the tables already have a lot of meaning for the people who work so hard battling it out to take the top spots.

Why should they not then have the chance to knock a few balls about and chat in a friendly after a "heavy" days play...

However, back to the topic! A similar rank system for killer would definitely be desireable.

I did have a vauge idea a while back of a stepped payout system (everyone gets a percentage of the pot except the first out), with a percentage reduction rather than bonus...

Edited at 00:14 Tue 15/07/08 (BST)

thanks spinner but they are competitions - same as tournaments on here if you like - not a ranking system - and in football leagues you win it by being the best of a set of teams who are all competing (and have to compete) against every other team in that league - for the rankings on funkypool you can choose who you play or dont play against

lmao- i wondered if anyone else had noticed.

I would have to agree purely because this would make me the best and it's nice to be number one for a change

Ah, but you said without beating the best, not competing against them, which is the big difference

I think its vital to remember that the rankings on funkypool are a competition too, they are not supposed to be a seeding system of who is best, since the mutiple variables involved (friendlies, tourneys, game types etc) make an "obvious" way of determining who is best by all means impossible.

The simple fact is that people prefer to be able to choose, as has been shown over the years with the popularity of the display of room occupant rank and restriction of entry now in place.

However, i realise now how narrow minded that view was, since the tables already have a lot of meaning for the people who work so hard battling it out to take the top spots.

Why should they not then have the chance to knock a few balls about and chat in a friendly after a "heavy" days play...

couldnt agree more with all that - the 'ranking tables' are another form of competition like the tournaments and those that can gather the most points, using whichever method they want to, can get to the top and deservedly so - but it doesnt make it a ranking table - but then this is funkypool and if theres no genuine way of ranking people by ability then so what

and also the friendlies are quite rightly the time when you should be able to choose your opposition and relax - but they should be the only time and certainly not for a competetive game

and yes any of the options given by people above would be worth a go to see how popular and fair they are

accepted completely

but on here you dont even have to compete against them - ie play them let alone win

Off topic mate. We are discussing killer ranking here, not the old games.

Please realize that killer ranking systems do not have to be based on previous rankings at all, nor does it have to have any of the problems you see in the old rankings.

Again, it is perfectly possible to make a ranking system that does not make it an advantage to be able to pick opponents.

Also, that is the only direction we CAN go in - there is really no way to prevent players from choosing their opponents - unless you are ok with removing the ability to watch other games.

You even find the same thing in sports that HAVE rankings outside the main competition events, like golf, tennis, bowling, darts etc etc.

Those rankings are, much like here on pool, calculated based on who you beat/lose against, and in turn how well those opponents are doing in general.

It is perfectly possible to be ranked #1 in the world in tennis (ATP has their own list) without have ever played all the other opponents at all, let alone the best one. The idea tho is that the player who ARE truly best, will always float to the top of that ranking over time, since he/she will on average have the best results too - regardless of who you play against.

The idea is that as long as who you play against is correctly taken into account when considering how well or how had your result is, it simply does not matter.

Here on funkypool, daily reductions and win % bonuses complicate matters a little, but no one has said we HAVE to do it that way for killer. The problem with not having daily reductions tho, would obvoously be players parking their account when on the top.

All in all, I like the monthly league idea a lot better. It is simple, 100% fair, and gives a fresh incentive to play every month. Forget daily reductions, win bonus %, etc etc. Keep it very simple: It costs 10 points to play, winner takes all. The monthly ranking table is based on either points per game, pot success, safety success, or a combination of all three.

Off topic mate. We are discussing killer ranking here, not the old games.

Not off topic at all - the same way that someone can benefit from cherrypicking opponents in other games will happen in killer too if it isn't brought in properly

Again, it is perfectly possible to make a ranking system that does not make it an advantage to be able to pick opponents.

I hope so and a start would be to remove that ability to pick opponents

You even find the same thing in sports that HAVE rankings outside the main competition events, like golf, tennis, bowling, darts etc etc.

Not true because those rankings INCLUDE the main competition events - you can pick and choose the events you enter but if you don't pit yourself against the top players you won't make it to the top - and that is where your true weighted system works ie golf

It is perfectly possible to be ranked #1 in the world in tennis (ATP has their own list) without have ever played all the other opponents at all, let alone the best one.

Literally true but you would have to regularly win tournaments in which the best players were in the same field - you wouldn't get there by just winning satellite tour events where the highest ranked player apart from you is, for arguments sake, ranked 500th in the world.

Any 'season' type introduction would be good - agree completely with that