OK in the absence of any startlingly original concepts for overhauling the ranking system to try and eliminate or at least reduce the flaws how about this?

Currently you can make a game room and set the parameter for your opponent - anyone not within that parameter cannot join.

Instead of having the ability to set that lets make it automatically set to (and this is just a figure for example) 25 points above or below your current points score and anyone not within that 50 point window will not be able to join the game.

The idea of this is that you will constantly be playing players of similar ability and the better players will win and move up - your 50 point window moving up with you at the same time bringing higher level opposition within your range and with the opposite being true for the person losing.

Edited at 18:31 Wed 16/07/08 (BST)

.........cont

There really is no reason why a virtuoso should want to play a ranked game against someone less than 675 and if they do say for teaching purposes or for social reasons then let them play as a non ranking friendly game.

I really cannot see why anyone would oppose this system although how difficult it would be to introduce technically I don't know.

I have tried to explain it as best I can but like most things they are clear in your head until you try and commit them to writing so any questions or views welcomed.

sounds good, very good idea mate

i'm all for this idea , would save me being booted out of my own game because i choose not to play someone who is 860 for instance because he falls into the 700 ~ 900 range , when i would really like to play someone as close to my ranking as possible

good idea christopher robin x x

what you propose sounds good to me- if it came in everybody would do the same.....but it would be very difficult to get ranked games at certain times

so you play a friendly game instead - whats the difference if you are only after a game against anyone?

but im not one for playing friendlys much- if im online i like to play rank or tournys or offline tournys. Very occassionaly ill sit in a room with you n jo or mich n niall and play a few friendlys but it is rare!

I agree with the sentiment of the idea though, people remaining top for ages based on a couple of wins vs intermediates a day is pointless.....

Its a nice idea, and would effectivly sort out the majority of rank problems (bar resetters) but i wouldnt like to have to play friendly games if noone of my rank was online

I know its a perfectly good idea right but...

2 points...

1. Why change something that really doesnt need changing.

2. If you have a problem with an opponents rank thats your problem not theirs then you should either lower your standards or carry on looking!

The reason you are playing rank games then is to to move up the points table and gain the highest possible score you can achieve (sorry if thats the wrong understanding)

As I have said all along the current system works perfectly in creating an alternative competetition where the aim is to score the most points you can however you can - if thats what people want then thats fine - but if you want to achieve a genuine ranking table then you have to view the points score as irrelevant almost as it is your position in that ranking table compared to everyone else that matters above all.

1. thats been the debate for the last 6 months at least - some people have the view that it could be improved - the debates on the reasons why are very detailed and elsewhere

2. Nothing to do with that at all - its about achieving a genuine ranking ladder if possible and if its what people desire

I don't believe the rankings need to be overhauled just due to this 1 scenario that was described earlier.

First, I'm not sure that the player is ranked incorrectly. It takes significant skill to win that high a percentage. If the player's skillset is adapted to beat lower ranked players then so be it.

Secondly, I, like a fair proportion of members, don't mind the opponent's rank. That doesn't mean I don't like to see how I am rated by this value.

I think what we're seeing is the limit of a ranking system that changes according to a pairing of any 2 players.

This is the part i don't understand.

I can see no reason why people shouldn't just play whoever comes along. If anything the only flaw in the current ranking system is people being able to select opponents of similar rank and therefore avoid playing a range of opponents.

There is only one way to modify what we have not into a truely reflective ranking system - make all games ranked and remove the ability to choose opponents, this lets the ranking system take care of the necessary adjustments and everybodys rank would reflect thier true ability.

However, obviously, this would remove a lot of the fun elements of the game, and keeping it fun for all is most important.

As i mentioned on the killer rank thread, any ranking system based on wins and losses will always be open to interpetation and strategies to find the "optimum" way to get to the top.

A "true" ranking system, which would have the overall best players at the top would have to take account of so much more than just thier ability to win games at that time.

Good breaking ability, ability to build a break, positional play, safety success, potting rate, ability to play under pressure, number of runouts, tourney positions/wins etc are just a few of the elements to be considered when deciding what their "rank" should be.

Would be interesting to see, of course, but rather you than me when it comes to figuring it out

Edited at 21:46 Wed 16/07/08 (BST)

i think just leave it as it is , it adds to the thrill knowing if you fluke a win against a top pro you get rich pickings just as wen you lose to an itermediate your own points dwindle ,a gamble isnt it, i personally try to play slightly higher rank , but not too great a gulf that i might get embarrassed

Nick its not to overhaul because of one scenario - that scenario was simply an extreme example of what is happening. The player maybe a very good and skilful one but unfortunately we wont know cause theyre not tested against players with similar scores.

Spinner I agree with you completely that under the current system people should play whoever comes along, that is the theory of the scoring system, and if everyone did then it would all even out over time however we know that it doesn't happen and no one has offered any ideas on how to try and make it happen.

I also agree with you that all competitive games (not friendlies which should remain as they are) should be ranked. People are more than happy to play anyone in tournament games then will run a mile if the same player tries to play a ranked game! Making all competitive games ranked would again help to even up a ranking table but as you say has been discussed before and wasn't popular.

..........

Anyway was only put out as an idea for discussion and with no real expectation of any agreement either for or against it!!!

It's a good topic for debate.

If we're to go the same way as football (FIFA) world rankings then we could have a league and tournament games all counting towards your rankings. Single ranked games would count towards rankings but with less effect. So, maybe worth opening the subject again after leagues are introduced (but there's some way to go - not even designed yet!).

you're such a tease

It's not quite that simple.

Your idea is in general sound, but suffer from a few but significant problems you don't seem aware of at all.

There are VERY few players in the high rank segment compared to medium/low rank. For low and medium ranks, this would work very well. For high rankers tho, it would very often mean not being able to play ranked games at all from a lack of opponents to play.

If all players played at the rank correctly reflecting their skill level, I would are completely. That is however not the case, so people do their best to avoid players that are better than their rank. Most people seem to think those are found in the low rank segment tho, which is 100% wrong.

Others seem to think the rank weighting doesn't sufficiently offset wins/losses compared to the relative win ratio when a high rank player plays a low ranked one. That is 100% wrong as well.

If a high rank player beats a low rank player enough to average a rank GAIN, that means one of two things: The lowbie is a worse player than his rank and would have given off points to any player he would play, or the high rank one is better than his current rank. In either case, the rank gain is deserved and completely correct.

looking forward to that!