And that's completely understandable imo.

If you think players should not be able to choose who they play (in terms of opponent rank), that implies that you somehow think it matters when it comes to your own chances of gaining/losing rank.

Since this is simply not so, being able to choose the rank of your opponent or not is a perfectly moot point since it makes no difference either way.

Besides, you would have to hide everything about the opponent until you commit - name too, not just the rank (since name = rank for most people who spend a lot of time here on the site).

In terms of knowing who is actually the best player when comparing any two top players, the only way to settle that is to have them play each other - no argument there.

When it comes to a discussion about how "deserved" their ranks are on the other hand, the one having gained rank from playing a lot of lowbies deserve it no less than someone having played a far less number of games vs. higher ranked opponents.

This is the important point to make perfectly clear here:

It is not easier to gain rank from playing low ranked opponents.

Still, so much of these discussions, so many of the arguments made, seem based on that incorrect presumption.

Blimey.

Here's me thinking it was just a game.

Really got to get over yourselves:)

Edited at 17:53 Fri 03/09/10 (BST)

Oh i'm not questioning the fact they don't deserve the rank. Anyone deserves the rank they are unless they do actually cheat which some people believe that playing low ranked players is cheating, which clearly is not cheating in any way and I personally will never say that is cheating.



Just to say on this, it is impossible to get 1000 rank and has been proven. Just to clarify that.

In all fairness al_, when i ever looked at your straight resuts, there was not one user you played about 750, so saying you played any rank seems not true to me. Fair play you got to 970, a great feat. Doesn't matter how you do it, you did it. I did the same on killer on one of my many accounts, played everyone.

Can play the top ranked players on the game, or play the lower ranked players, doesn't matter how you do it as long as you do it.

Playing higher ranked players in theory should get you to the top a lot quicker (68 games for 900 it took me). But with lower ranked players you're more likely to win. Works both ways if you get me.

well i played ranked str8 against bumble, yzf, metterzrocks, carl, alanw, davidmiko, madhatter in recent times before reset in str8. i.e the very high rank str8 players who play a good tactical game. I know eemad asked me for 1 game which I declined as was about to play someone else. Will be happy to play eemad anytime tho. Always happy to learn from the experts. Plus a high number of high ranked pros in tournies which seems to have been forgotten....??

professionals dont become 1st or world no 1 in most sports by playing begginers or novices they play all the other professionals so thats why i think playing low rank to be no 1 is cheating

So doing something in any other way than you think it ought be done is how you define the term cheating?

One thing is to think a certain way of doing things is the best one, but it's a long way from that to calling other ways cheating

yep cheating

Hmm, you might want to check what the word means.

In order to be cheating you need to be breaking some sort of rule or another.

"Something I don't think is right" is not a valid definition of the word

Keep it from being a witch hunt please qpounder or the thread will be removed. You and me have played quite a few times and I think it is about 7-3 to me. I could be wrong - u can check the stats u keep.

As the title of the thread refers to not to rules but etiquette surely it is up to each individual to play as they see fit. We are all different with our own views on what is morally correct etc, this is vastly different to what is within the rules, e.g. deliberate fouls in US8 to free pockets. The only observation I would make is that it is much easier to be "chatty" in a game if you feel you are likely to win, I have played Al many times and not been that chatty as he is a player that needs some concentrating to beat. Sum of all that, each to their own

^^ Excellent post! Nailed it spot on there



I would have thought it would be more like name=skill level. It certainly is for me. And my reason for the above is that I very rarely find skill level and rank to be reflective of one another. I have played many 900+ players who are easily beat by simple tactics, yet equally as may 600ish ranked players who I just couldnt beat without a lot of luck.

The fact is rank is just one of the many things you can choose as a challenge on the sites, its neednt be, and shouldnt be, interpeted as an overall measure of skill, just a note of ability, at any one time, at one aspect of the game.

At the end of the day, as the previous poster said, each to their own, the primary aim of the game is to have fun, so as long as you are, and not bothering anyone, play as you like.

Edited at 21:57 Fri 03/09/10 (BST)

As long as players like Al is reset, then yes that's correct for sure lol

(sorry, couldn't resist the joke - that serve was just too good.




That I quite simply refuse to believe. It does not happen.

Sure, you can luck out and beat a virt now and then, but you won't find a virt that you can beat based on "simple tactics" over time.

You find a lot of players in the low rank segment that is way more skilled than their rank, but that's not because rank and skill isn't related - it's on the contrary, caused by the fact that players are able to detach themselves from the relationship between the two - by resetting their account - voluntary or not.

But yes, you are right, what I meant to say was name=skill. Then again, that's most of the time very closely tied with rank too - and more so the further up the food chain you get (since you have less of the effects after resets up there)

dont forget some of the best players on the site may only play friendlies or tournaments, that doesnt in any way mean that their rank being only 700 or so is "wrong", it just highlights that its a different discipline.

something from Nicks update post on snooker that may be relevant here :

So, that kinda begs the question lol: Define "contestant level" lol

As for "wrong", no one says that is wrong. The same happens every time a new game type is introduced - everyone starts at 675, good players and terrible ones alike.

My point remains tho: The "discrepancies" you see between skill and rank all happen in the lower rank segment - not toward the top of the pyramid - simply because there are no hopeless newbies that somehow start up there... Which would be the inverse effect of top players starting at 675

ok

I have played all types over last 10 days or so from the highest ranked pros to some low ranked 650+ players. Some of the highest ranks refused to play (makes you wonder why they made such a fuss about my rankings) and some of the highest ranks played (thank you). The new warning system means that a low ranking player has an extra pointer not to play if they wish and yet I think only a couple of low ranks declined a game. Some even asked me for a game lol.....Once back in top 5 overall I will start to play tournaments again - haven't played one yet since reset. After the initial grrrr of finding myself reset I have enjoyed the challenge and working back up rankings, albeit quite slowly as I don't actually play that many games each day. To all those people who thought I was treated harshly thank you for your kind and encouraging comments. To all those people and weren't quite as nice - thank you - everyone can have an opinion. To all those people who were just abusive or nasty - please don't expect a game in future. Al

does it really matter? Al has played alot of 750's etc etc, but i know he's a good player before the name change we used to have very close games in UK and i believe we still would now - your forgetting that people come and go to the site with new users etc etc.

You can say oh he played a 770 newbie and won but thats low compared to a 870 who just beat them - but do you know who the newbie was? if you dont then surely you cant argue that it wasn't a well deserved win as you dont know who it was; could've been one of the old time amazing players who just hasnt hit the new standard of playing being produced.

at least perfect play thinks we are evenly matched...

having asked for a few games in any format

"perfect_play: we are evenly matched but my ranks are to high for me to risk all that"

Thank you - I will catch you eventually and this is meant as friendly banter.....Al

And that is why it is currently not a ranking table but simply a high score table

no its ranking chris but it is good to play the number 1