I lost 14 James.

But Chris you lost 5-2 to someone ranked below you (leaving aside any issue of resetting which is nothing directly to do with the scoring system as such).

What outcome do you think there should be? I don't know what the equivalent difference would have been for a ranked game in comparison but I am still sure it would have been hefty (9, 10 or 11 maybe?).

i could think of other game types where you lose ALOT more than what you lost here chris, types which is like 7 points a game for equal your rank or there abouts.

pool is actually quite lucky because you don't lose half as much as you do on snooker (except straight maybe) so personally i cant see the fuss.

i agree with cphaynes it should go back to were it was the game is just boring now and the system just not right the old ways are the best

the new system is exactly how the old one was tournaments wise as you win/lose same amount in tournies now than you won in a ranked game on the old system.

In Original say i played a 700 in a tournie and im 800 i would lose about 11 or 12 ranking points in a tournie (same as old rank) but if it was doubled from the old rank i would have lost 22-24 points.

now really you don't lose as much in normal ranked games so in all fairness i think this system has worked for the best.

disagreeing saying you want old rank back but thing is the new tournaments is the old rank and normal ranked is just halved.

I think it's time for a reset to ranks myself really, introduce a whole new system where pro could be at 775 etc not that it should be but just a whole new system this one is confusing imo because i never used to play for rank and with these tournies for the most part iv shot right up but im not really worthy of being 2nd in 8 us imo. There are way better players out there.

Would also just be better refreshed be more exciting imo.

If it was going to be reset it would have been from Day 1 I think - now its working itself right by itself (but only Nick will know whether he feels it needs tweaking more)

Interested as to why you wouldnt feel worthy of being 2nd. You are playing a fair amount and winning tournament matches and tournaments which would make you eminently worthy of such a placing in my view.

Opinions of who is a good player and should be near the top of the rankings are irrelevant if they arent going to compete to get there themselves.

I am sure Tiger Woods at his best is a better golfer than everyone - doesn't mean that Lee Westwood didnt deserve to get to Number 1.

I agree, keep all the stats and the old highest rankings but reset the actual rank back to 675 for everyone, like they did on snooker I believe when they introduced some new system. Have separate overall/all time tables as well.

Im probably the most sucessful none virt but i believe there are better players about lol well more consistent for sure. And tournapoints could still remain but no need not to keep the rankings now as it would have still been reset back when it started so it can be now.

i dont see the point in resetting the ranks, if you really want to reset the ranks create a seperate rank called Tournaments and leave the others for normal ranked but i cannot see that the big deal is.

Just be something new lol, your idea is also good. Gets a bit boring with the same old rank though.

cheers

about snooker ranks didnt get reset, they only got put right as their was a glitch somewhere.

and only game type at the moment to have stats reset is Power Snooker the day it came out.

its ok for the pros they already got to 800 its well harder for us adapts to get to pro it should be the pro working hard to stay at the top not other way round even playing a normal game nd get 1.4 is shockin now

Oh shut up.... no one cares!

bite me

i still think spreading the tournapoints throughout the rounds would be more incentive for people joining the tournaments, dont really know how the points would be spread i will leave that to the experts lol

I won 9 ball tournament today winning in total 15.4 ranking points, and i lost 2-1 in first round of other 9ball tourney losing in total 10.8 points.

I think that in tourneys we should have fixed rank to win or lose. I am suggesting to be 3 points for won and 3 points for lost. Now teoretically i can win tourney and lose points.

Example if i was playing lads who has around 790 rank and i have rank around 850 in all rounds of tourney.
Frist round: i won 2-1 (3.1+3.1-7.1) i got -0.9
Second round: i won 2-1 (3.1+3.1-7.1) i got -0.9
Quarter final: i won 2-1 (3.1+3.1-7.1) i got -0.9
Semin final: i won 2-1 (3.1+3.1-7.1) i got -0.9
FInal: i won 3-2 (3.1+3.0+3.1-7.1-6.8) i got - 4.7
Congratulations to me who won 3rd 9 ball tournament, but unfortunatelly you wasnt so good in winning it and you lost 8.3 points in total.
This is just an example where rank was exactly 796 and 848 that difference would be bigger, so you can lose more points.

In my way same example would look like this:
Frist round: i won 2-1 (3.0+3.0-3.0) i got 3.0
Second round: i won 2-1 (3.0+3.0-3.0) i got 3.0
Quarter final: i won 2-1 (3.0+3.0-3.0) i got 3.0
Semin final: i won 2-1 (3.0+3.0-3.0) i got 3.0
FInal: i won 3-2 (3.0+3.0+3.0-3.0-3.0) i got 3.0
Congratulations to me who won 3rd 9 ball tournament and total of 15 points.


I dont like this point system, i say it should be fix amount of points awarded for win in every round.

Cheers!

What you're suggesting is 2 things:

1) Removal of rankings comparative rule, so you win and lose the same amount of points regardless of opposition. This basically would have your score proportional to your frame difference, eg someone who won 15-0 would be on (say) 795 points, then someone who had won 80-50 would be on 840 points. This is not the idea of the rankings which only works given it's evaluation of your success percentage.



2) You're also suggesting that only the round victor gains or loses points. This means the ranking change would be the same for 5-0 or a 5-4 win. This is a suggestion that has come up before (and has some merits), but do you really think this should be the case?

I apologise for bringing this up again, but my questions weren't answered. Is it a case of bonus points being impossible to implement, or is it a case of you being against it? And could that percentage 'bonus' not be added in the winning game of the round somehow, or winning a round is worth points-much like each game?