got this idea from snooker.

i think we need to have some tournaments that give you ranking if you win but give you ranking if you lose,

eg, -10 ranking to enter if you lose in any round and if you win the final you go up say 15 points or something like that.
would be good if you had to risk something

Problem with this is, alot of people lose in the rounds not everybody can go to the final and win, -10 ranking is kind of harsh.

Also this will make tournaments more unpopular as people who play tournaments for fun wont play anymore since they will be risking their rank, and also to the people who like to stay at 800 rank would dislike this too.

Inorder for this to work it would have to be a fair amount of points lost depending on which round you lost on, but even that I could see people not joining.

Then you have problems with BYEs ^ if you make it fair amount of points depending on each round (which you would probably have to have anyway)

Then theres people taking things slow - so you would probably have to get rid of the round time limits otherwise playing a deliberately slow player who is playing just to make you get Dq'd and lose points could occur

I think - stick to all tournys being friendly and if you want to play ranked games - played ranked

I believe to have a tournament ranking it has to be completely split from the ranking that currently exists. My idea would be for points to be awarded to all those players that competed in a tournament at the end of that tournament. The points would then be weighted taking into consideration the quality and the number of those that played it. It would also only apply to a rolling period of time so that it was a current 'live time' table. For example points earned from tournaments over six weeks ago (thats just an example) are lost from your score.

Professional golf world rankings would seem the best way to go as they allow for different tours which could almost be read for the different timezones on here.

But whatever way it was done tournament rankings would be good.

If you did it like this then the current ranking system would be flawed at it would be possible to get over the infamous 1000 rank.

maybe have one ranked tournament each day?

I've always been a fan of this, as you can see of you search back.

There would be no need to make all tourneys ranked, as you say one a day as a trial would be fun and if they prove popular, we just adjust the mix 'till a balance is found.

As for how they work, there is no practical way other than to have all games ranked as per normal. This gives a good reward for the average winner without upsettng the balance of the rank system.

]

That's the only viable option in my opinion. Nothing wrong with testing this to see how it goes. If it doesn't work then it doesn't but if it does it can't do much harm to have a couple of ranked a day.

I still see a problem with the -10 if you lose per round, however if you are to have a ranked tournament, I think it may be a good idea for each entrant to the tournament putting 0.5 points into the pot and the winner taking 75% and the runner up taking 25%.

For example 120 entrants would end up with the winner winning 40 points and the runner up taking 20

Percentages are open to discussion obviously but this would reward both players who played well enough to get to the final and would even merit thouse who lost the final to any sort of flukey shots, obviously not merited as much as the winner but they would feel less hard done by if you get me.

That is just 1 option I have thought of off the top of my head.

Problem i see with it just being ranked games is that you could be drawn against low ranks and then they win a frame (a GB for instance)

You would normally have to win about 3 or 4 games in extreme cases but you wont get that option in the tournys

I do like the poker-style idea of Michs

Well the amount of amounts would have to be determined by the amount of players/the ranking of players in the tournament? Or would it be one fixed amount?

Or just as good an idea could be...

Work out the average of the ranks you have beaten, and work out how big your frame difference is and multiply the amount you would win vs the average rank by the frame difference to find out how much you would win.

For example...
Average rank of all entrants could be 800.0

And a 800.0 rank player could win the tournament by 1 rack per round for 4 rounds (including the final) so their frame difference would be +4

Say for example an 800.0 beating an 800.0 earns 3.5 points, then multiply that by the +4 frame difference so that this specific winner would have won 14 points for winning that tournament.

Obviously this system would benefit the lower ranked players but it would in my eyes give everyone a bit more of an incentive to win especially the lower ranks.

And say there is only 1 tournament per fortnight which is run on a ranking basis then should a top player win that the current rank system wouldn't be flawed as the amounts would still be taken off per night would just be like that person beating the average rank in that tournament 4 or 5 times, which is perfectly do-able.

The thing is, nothing other than the current rank system could be used if the current rank is going to be gained or lost, otherwise it makes for an alternative way of gaining/losing rank not in line with normal ranked games.

Of course, high ranked players have to play low ranked players and will occasionally lose, but as the boss said :

I think it wouldn't be flawed because a rank 999.9 playing in the tourny with average rank of 800

1.5 for the difference - i presume edge modification would be 99.9%

would be 0.0015 for each round - with the rounding difference (i think theres a rounding used)

so with the tourny entrants limited to 256 meaning 8 rounds maximum - they could only gain a possible 0.012 and they would need 0.05 to gain that extra 0.1?

Hopefully someone pulls me up if i've made an error in the numbers there

That is true Zak but if you read my post I said Frame difference thoroughout the whole tournament and if it is a marathon tournament with 8 rounds, there is a possibility of +27 (I think - 6x3 = 18 +4+5 = 27)

so 27 x 0.0015 = 0.0405 or something similar.

This would come sickeningly close to that 0.05 needed (not sure how correct this is just taking from your previous post) meaning they would need around 7 or 8 wins in order to break the system as it would be.

Now while that would be really tough and maintaining that rank over time would also be near impossible as they would lose about 1.5 every night I believe they would need to win about 20 times without reply against a decent rank to retain this score. (Again not sure about the numbers just giving rough estimates.)