*snip*

some people play it every day to try and get their rankings as high as they can and for a big chunk of it to go in one game is what some people cant take.

EDIT: My playing patterns are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion - Nick

Edited by forum moderator nick, at 19:22 Wed 01/12/10 (GMT)

I'm almost certain, after re-reading a large percentage of the discussion since this update, that if the player labels (Adept, Professional, Virtuoso) were made permanent, as in if you make it to professional, you retain that label regardless of whether your rank drops below 800, most of the people complaining wouldn't be bothered what their actual rank is!

Those who treated it as an extended friendly were a minority, it meant that those who really cared about their rank would play rank instead, giving those of lower ranks more chances to win the tournaments-as it is now, those who care about rank, play tournaments more as more rank is available.


You will always have people who will worry a lot about their ranking score. But that wasn't what I meant-the site seems to be going in a direction where rankings of is people correct rather than having it as an open choice, as I believe it should be. I certainly don't want to sit in a game and win/lose with ease ranked or not-I'd rather play a tight game that could go either way, as do most. And you may not take away all the choice, but you take away a huge amount of it by implementing Chris' idea.

Good idea, using highest ranking rather than current ranking is a definite possibility. (As it's permanent it will fluctuate less, so there can maybe be extra levels for each 50)

EDIT - If you wish to discuss removed or edited posts take it up via contact us, same as always been - Nick

Edited by forum moderator nick, at 19:27 Wed 01/12/10 (GMT)

can i just comment on this nick, surely if ur edittin peoples opinions then no1 is entitled to one..yet i thought freedom of speech was encouraged unless offensive language is used.

But if posts are changed everytime someone has an opinion they'd like to share, then whats the point in anyone sayin anythin :S

By the way nick, wasnt tryin to offend u or anythin, was just wonderin lol

Edited at 19:49 Wed 01/12/10 (GMT)

Agreed!


I don't like the new update for various reasons that others that don't like it have already mentioned so I won't repeat the reasons why for nicks sake.

If you have highest ranking, there is no point in having Novice at its current ratings-doesn't even work if you use the score when they come out of newbie, with it only being 50 games, there is next to no chance that they will lose 75 points in 50 games with the Newbie modification.

I disagree with Spinner though, I don't think the tag matters, I think it is more the rank-a number of people against the update will just be happy to keep the tag, but I think that the majority won't.

I wasnt saying that I didnt like it, i was just saying he doesnt understand what rank means to some people because hes not on the game 24/7 like other users

There is no "freedom of speech", ultimately the staff have the final word, where we draw the line on what's valid or not is upto our discretion.

This thread is about this batch of changes. Constructive criticism is welcome, and even mentioning you don't like it is fine. Repeating the same again and again is not welcome, nor are ad hominem arguments.

Can we try keeping this on topic, now, please?

To clarify the bit I was talking about - there are a few people arguing against the change in ranking structure. The vast majority of objections was/is to the dropping of the "sitting" point below 800, and it appears the reason for this is almost purely cosmetic - people liked to have "Professional" after their name.

Note, however, that this could also help with a few of the other, illogical but nontheless voiced, concerns. People seem to be annoyed at being beaten by a "lesser" player (based on rank) more than someone they feel had a fair chance.

If labels were made permanent, the maybe those who become enraged at being beaten by a 650 ranked adept, will be less enraged if that 650 ranked person were a virtuoso...

(I know it doesn't make sense, but neither does the idea that losing to a newbie is somehow "worse", or "less acceptable" than losing to a top ranker, logically speaking)

Edited at 20:10 Wed 01/12/10 (GMT)

yeah thats reason i stayed on 800 so i didnt have to play ranked again and still have pro as my tag but i agree with the change, since im on snooker more ill probably let my rank drop to 750 even though im better than that.

My problem is not with this, and to be honest I can't see why others are bothered by it either.

My problem is the tournapoints, if you are going to add to the competitiveness of the game make it so everyone can compete fairly. Those who play at peak times are heavily favored in the tournapoints and therefore they are the only ones who tournapoints means a damn thing too. So if every player has to play in tournaments with tournapoints without a second tournament option make it a fair playing field.

nick tbh i spoke to some mods who werent happy about this decision so dont say it was a staff's decision. Not everybody likes change, people came here for fun on the good old days now clan games are all out seriousness from arguements, and now play friendly tournament are out? I don't mind risking my rank playing them but you got to think of the others who play this site for fun, chatting and doing a tournament for the fun of it. From my 5 years of playing this im slowing drifting away... In conclusion for the future ask what the people want to see, dont give them this new concept without asking their opinnion before enabling it. Like people ask for doubles and other stuff but you tend to ignore it and just do whats on your list. I do feel their was unfairness with bringing this new concept into funkypool, but thats just my 2 cents.

After reading through a small amount of this (not all as the same stuff keeps getting repeated over and over and over again which is a waste of time to read), I think a fairly simply solution for now would be a couple of friendly tournaments just stuck in at peak times (no rank, no tournapoints on offer, no tournament stat) just so people can play for fun. And also could let newbies into it so they can get a feel for playing in tournys.

Can't see the problem really with the odd one now I have thought about it more.

^^ Not a bad idea. Nothing to lose, nothing to win.

I'm not really grasping the "no fun" thing.

Surely before now, tournaments were a bit meaningless to all but the few who won them. Thats certainly how I felt - I didnt enter many because there just didnt seem any point.

Now, with tournapoints making the tournaments more fun for regular tournament players, providing daily, weekly, and monthly goals, and all games being ranked making them fun for us less able players who rarely make the later rounds let alone win, its all good?

I totally agree where ur comin from mate i really do, but eventhough staff have the final word, surely u cant take away peoples opinions and freedom to express them.

But yeah i agree about constructive criticism and so on, was just wonderin anyway

hope the issue gets resolved one way or another

eemad i already had said that on a thread that got capped, let me repeat it, have a friendly tournaments inbetween the ranked ones so ppl who miss the tournament can still play friendly ones for no tournapoints but still a tourny win on their page.

Have to disagree there (otherwise you can see that there is no point in having friendly games)

Was a good way to pass the time, without having to worry about the consequences of losing (like it is in ranked and clan games)

As soon as you lost in them, that was pretty much it, nothing lost

Now you know (except from double DQ) that to avoid losing points at some point, you HAVE to win it, with the lower ranked players more encouraged to join and the higher ranked players less inclined to, the chances of you losing points is significantly higher than if you win (and in games of race to 2 the ranks will never equal out to be a true reflection of the game)

I don't think this would have been a problem if an independent tourny ranking system (with everyone starting on the same) but i think the reasons against this have already been posted

For those not bothered about rank this change is a good thing, but those who are bothered about rank no have to take a significant risk to their rank if they want to try and win a tourny (e.g. a high rank could beat a very low rank 2-1 early on but not recover the rank from it even if they win the tourny)

Ah sorry never saw that.

EDIT:



Edited at 21:02 Wed 01/12/10 (GMT)