It changes the fact that they are unable to even out the games and win back lost points against that opponent. Granted, in theory they would then have a chance next game-but there is always a chance to get drawn against a much stronger opponent (especially as the rounds progress).




I have to agree with Kirk here-if the ranking is the same rank used for ranked games then it is unfair to only reward the winner of the round and not each frame.

What about having a bonus for the winner of the round, to try to lower the loss if you win 2-1? A certain percentage of what you would win if you won in straight frames? (Not too sure how difficult that would be to implement, but this way you reward a lower player for making the round close but also reward the higher player for winning the round). The percentage could then also increase for the semi/final, to reward those getting far further?

Sounds good to me.

...but then they maybe they would lose again against the weak opponent, but instead they win against a tougher opponent. This is all irrelevant though, they lost to what was considered a weak player and both player's ranks are adjusted because of this.



This has been discussed quite a few times. A requirement for rankings is that each game must have balanced rankings; we cannot just add bonus points.

I have only played a few tournaments but I still fail to see how, for anyone who previously was willing to play absolutely any opponent in a ranked game, this new system is any different to before - other than a small increase in the amount of points won or lost each time.

The only challenge I really see is in balancing those who play either tournaments or mixed tournament/rank games with those who only play ranked games.

The former is potentially subject to a far greater yo-yo effect than the latter but on the other hand the latter can't be unduly penalised for not wishing to take part in tournaments.

If anything, at the moment it is slightly weighted in favour of the player exclusively playing normal ranked games only, in my opinion, but again over time this may even out.

Ranks are based on the percentage of times a player should beat another, therefore probability which is different to possibility. Tournaments do not give the ability to run it out so rely much more on what could happen rather than what should.

I personally still want to see some friendly tournaments brought back.



I don't understand why it can't be introduced though? It also means that entering tournaments appeals more to people as there is more chance to win points.

If it's impossible/you are totally against it, instead of a bonus then, could the standard rank change not include the added percentage in the round?

Post removed by forum moderator

As much as I disagree with the whole 'every tournament being ranked' bit, that is just wrong.

Previously, rank meant nothing because people could choose who they want to play so could get higher ranks through risking more, but winning a lot more. Also so many people stuck on the 800 mark that it made that rank area void-the swing from the good to bad in that range was huge.

With this update it should make rank more of a reflection of what level you are at relative to everyone, not just those you pick and choose, therefore worth more.

Post removed by forum moderator

How about if all normal ranked games were made automatic ie all control over the ability to choose your opponent was removed?

If you create a game room, then someone clicking 'play ranked game' is automatically allocated to your room. Similarly if you click 'play ranked game' you go into the first available game room. As in tournament games if you then leave the room for any reason (dont fancy the opponent etc) its a default loss of ranking.

In theory all games, both ranked and tournament, could then be equally weighted as they are pretty much being played under the same conditions.

If that happens that takes away the point of tournaments, does it not? In theory everything is the same, but you may end up winning something for committing an hour to the site. And the number of people who would be against it would be huge.

If you use a totally new ranking system (either new concept or separate system) for tournaments, then you would not need to worry about getting the weighting equal.

most professionals will now sit on the 750 rank now instead of sitting on the 800 mark

Post removed by forum moderator

A separate tournament ranking is clearly something the site have been against from the start.

Some people like playing tournaments for the competitive knock-out nature of them, others don't like playing them because they cant commit to the hour or so needed.

It should still be possible to accommodate a system where the two types of players can be compared directly.

Exactly

I'm not having this forum and thread overtaken by a handful of over aggrieved users repeating the same points again and again (3 users have made up 40 odd replies on this thread, plus spilled out into other threads).

You've had your say - you don't like it. Unless you have something constructive to say it's enough.

This is a very good idea.

To be honest Nick, people may be repeating themselves because they feel passionately about what it is and you may not 100% understand what they are saying. Some people can find it hard to put their opinions into words, but I think you need to listen to what they have said and perhaps take action, because a lot of people want non-ranked tournaments back. I mean I don't see a problem with having some non-ranked tournaments back in, a lot of people care about their rank and also like to partake in tournaments with a protected rank.

It works on the basis of getting the ranking system correct, but so many people will be against it. Especially if you then remove the ability to then leave that game before it starts. I don't see what turning rank blind, the same way tournaments are could bring to the site. It just turns rank essentially into a tournament, without winning anything afterwards.

My opinion: You have to remember that the site is for enjoyment, not trying to determine who is the best ranked on the site or getting the best ranking system possible. By removing choice of who to play, you will remove a lot of that enjoyment for a lot of people.

Again, people just need to not worry about their rank score and play who is put in front of them.

Tournaments are not an extended friendly that people can drop out half way through, not attend, not to play for run outs, or not to warm up in. Well, you can do this, but not if you're overly concerned with your ranking score. This has changed - and deliberately so.



Exactly. This follows both ways, don't worry so much about your ranking score.



This wouldn't be removed, you could play who you want just not for ranked points. However the balance of points between chosen and unchosen is quite good now.

Out of interest, why would you want to play a ranked game if you weren't trying to improve your own rank in some way?

The ability to play games against friends is never going to be taken away - and if it was that would be me gone