yes thats true Vi but what al_ just did is completely wrong boycotting a final cos hes going to get beat by a lower rank hence not losing much rank. If nick puts in place if you dont go to your tourney game you lose ALL matches it will stop most people entering then looking at their opponents rank then not bothering going to there game.

although... if nick stops being silly and brings back the friendly side to the tournament all problems will be solved.. it was working well with both ranked and non-ranked... completely messed it up now

DOUBLE POST!

u miss the point totally cutting_edge - why I should I play a player whose real ability is at / or better than mine yet his rank is only 750s. You wouldnt give man utd 25 - 30 pts for beating chelsea 5-0 would you - both teams are evenly matched and in this case both players are evenly matched in UK except for current rankings. Huge onus on me not to lose worse than 5-1 or get crucified in ranking terms.

If I was to bet, which I don't, this would be a no brainer

he does have a point edge

put the site back 3 months all was good

YESS YESSS YESSSS

Sooo many football analogies on this thread!

Al, it is easily possible to forget about the legit lower ranked players we have on the site. Alright, what we have here against Fizz is a certain situation where the rule is somewhat justified. But what about if an 800 gets drawn against someone truly ranked in the 600s in 9ball, where it is easily possible to get fluked out. Occasions in the past has seen players choose not to play due to the luck element. With an introduction of one game loss, that should decrease that a fair bit. But there is still a possibility of them choosing not to play, losing one game (which is a hefty amount of points, but is not the same as being fluked 2-0 or 3-0).

Or, a player in an 8uk tournament might draw Onua (someone many who rarely play him perceive as close to unbeatable, solely due to the amount of tournament wins he has-I don't want anyone to say he's easily beatable, he's a good player, but it's the perception of some on the site) and only choose to lose one game by not turning up instead of what they would believe would be a 3-0 thrashing.

Obviously there are other situations that could arise, where they would prefer to lose a 1-game no-show than to play and risk more losses...

In my opinion, if you choose to enter a tournament, you commit yourself to play it through (provided you have time and are able to) until the end, no matter who you come up against.

THIS ISNT FOOTBALL ITS POOL, why do people compare FOOTBALL and POOL on here there completely DIFFERENT games.

you should get punished more than 1 set of points for not turning up and this hopefully would cut out DQs in tourneys. If nick gives the person who as waited the full 3 mins for their opponent to turn up the full win it will stop the player ranked a lot higher boycotting the game so the dont lose 2 or more sets of points at about 7ish a a frame lost.

This will also stop the HIGHER ranked players from entering the tourneys i no but if you are going to enter the tourney and not play what is the point in entering it in the first place?

No no no move with times all is good only rank at end of day I lost 15 points or something like that in the semi of the uk al boycotted its only ranking points tournies are more competitive now leave it as it is more fun :)

Keep it as it is, this is something new.

A lot of players are making out that their ranking is their life (which it clearly isn't).

This site is supposed to be a friendly and fun site for everyone of all ages and that does not mean ONLY friendly games/tournaments are supposed to be fun.

Weather you win or lose, have fun playing the game.

Personally i think leave it as is...makes retaining rank more of a challenge...especially until those good players with low rank inevitably find their correct place. It should be difficult to stay right at the top (or near) otherwise it is a bit of a Phyrric achievement imho. Just see having to beat a player as good as Fizz 5-0/ 5-1 as a nice challenge allbeit rather tricky .
It's only points, not a matter of life and death.

if its not a big deal why not keep the ranking to the ranking and the tournys to the tournys?

Works both ways. You say its fine but i bet you wouldn't choose to go back. Some of the better people have already threatened to leave the site and many to boycott tournys.

The revenue from the site is going to decrease with this option. less and less are even bothered about playing meaning premium members? pfft they'll almost be non existant.

Nick's already said in messages i have sent him, HE CHOOES WHAT HAPPENS and if he's really thinking that more members are enjoying this then he's got alot to see.

He's already refused to hold a poll to see where people stand and tbh he's hardly on and playing tournys anyway! (yes i know he's very busy) but why change the games that you can hardly play yourself? You decide what happens yet you alone are almost too busy to log in at times. Wrong move considering the majority are against.

That's a very sweeping statement considering I am not absolutely sure it's even a majority of the few posting on this thread.

Loveeeeee the update.

Doubles next

Threads like this prove why internet poll's are as much use as chocolate fireguards.

If you read back, more than half the small minority who initially objected to the changes have now changed their minds, which means if they voted on a poll it would have been the opposite of how they now feel.

Also, the amount of people who post on the forums is already very small compared to the active userbase.

The facts are in the numbers, and though I haven't been noting them down, just the occasional glance is enough to show things are busier overall.

It needs to be given a few weeks then compared to numbers before in order to get any real idea of its popularity. You have to remember exactly the same minority of objectors were vocal when the rankings were changed recently - how many now can tell me how they were before?

Also when the US games were introduced, there were objections, then the same objections when the old Us games were removed! People objected to offline messaging, snooker, the removal of the 3 ball rule, automated tournaments etc etc. All of those had "ruined the site", yet the userbase still continues to grow...

/rant. Sorry, had to be said

spinner whats your views on this:

if you dont turn up to your game you should lose all the games that are up for grabs and not one?

i think it will cut out people looking at their opponents rank and not bothering going to the game because they might lose 7(maybe more) points a frame. Then they have to go to the game or they risk losing a lot more than just 7(or how ever many) points that they would lose just conceding the 1 frame for not turning up?

It certainly is logical to forfiet the equivolent of the number of games you would should you lose straight, since that is what is effectively happening in single game rounds, and if means the tactical option is to play even if you know the player is a challenge, in the hope you at least win one or two.

Of course, that also comes down hard on anyone who gets disconnected through no fault of their own. But on balance, disconnections are already very rare, and the chances of it happening just before a final for example, are slim.

I think most competitve players would accept it as a resonable risk to eliminate the possibility of unsporting players pulling out to avoid possible losses.

One thing that strikes me is that someone who refuses to play an opponent in a tournament for fear of losing points because the opponent was too (falsely?) low ranked would have done exactly the same thing before the update when it was just straight ranked games had that same player entered their game room? Yes the points at stake are now double but that feeling of the need for self-preservation of their score I suggest remains the same.

For me that's a big advert for the updated system in the long term, in that the ability to pick and choose opponents will play a lesser role in determining player's rank scores across the board.

To someone else who suggested deliberately losing games to keep your rank low so that you don't risk losing big points in tournaments yourself but can win some big points from others - I think I missed the point of that one. What would you actually achieve yourself by that?

Now I like ranked games and I like tourny games....but which is better?....only 1 way to find out....




FIGHT!!!!