I think the system in place is fine.

830+ to make the top 50 now, and this rises by about 10 points every 4-5 weeks, so players who sit in the table have no choice but to play or drop.

God forbid if you go on an extended holiday!! How on earth could you enjoy those hot sunny beaches and tasty cocktails when in the back of your mind you are fully aware your beloved rank is being punished back home

Edited at 23:42 Fri 17/02/06 (GMT)

problem with squeezy's idea, is that instead of people camping at 850, they'll camp at 825. Not a lot of difference really.

Spose not maybe it should be everyone over 800 gets deductions that way if you dnt play your rank can fall below 800 and you would be back at adept.

k i mite not have explained the whole thing that clearly then...the idea is to stop players camping out in the Top 50. 825 would place them at around 60th place. This means the top 50 would be made up of players who actualy play. Saying they'd camp at 825 is like saying they'd camp at 750...there's not much point.

Camping isn't the problem...its where they're camped. Top 20's where i like to stay...its like havin gypsies on ur lawn

Edited at 23:48 Fri 17/02/06 (GMT)

Yeah, atleast one of the top 50 hasn't played a game in months, and shouldn't really be allowed to stay in the rankings, and thats afey, he hit the top spot and just camped. Squeezy's idea is ideal imo, because as the top get better and improve, the points needed to stay in the top 50 will increase aswell, so the 825 ranking for the decrease to stop would mean you are well behind the top 50 so it basically discregards what nax said

Very nicely put points above! I completely agree that you should get your rating dropped until you are outside of the top scores page.

From my point of view the problem is that there's too few players ranked above 850. While lowering the amount people would "camp at" solves the problem of them being in the top 50, ideally there should be a number of virtuoso's around as well!

A very slight refinement to the ranking system to boost players scores would (in my opinion) be preferential. A possible option is that you play for slightly more rating points (eg 25% more points won in victory or lost in defeat), which will increase the range of the ratings.

Alternatively win bonus could be improved to increase the average of the rankings (take a look on the rankings calculation page to see more info on the win bonus).

Any comment on these potential solutions?

Edited at 09:55 Sat 18/02/06 (GMT)

I think if a user has had a certain period of inactivity their ranking should drop at a more dramatic rate. Ie no game results for 4 weeks, drops 3 pts per day.

i like the idea of more points won in a victory but not of a larger loss. Would be very hard to be virtuoso if you lost more points than we do now.

yep, I reckon the score adjustment could help. It could always be worth a try? If it doesn't help, can just change it back?

This sounds fine to me.

It might give the people who are 'taking a break' the incentive to play more games in the knowledge that the points system has been improved.

I think you will find the 'sitters' might start to play more anyway, regardless of any changes, or be pushed out of the top 50. Players are improving all the time, and the ever increasing userbase can only mean more competition.

Edited at 10:33 Sat 18/02/06 (GMT)

i have several views and ideas to this point ... i feel that it is not fair that people can stay in the top without playing...

so there either should be a more point decrease of 800 plus ... and if people are on holiday they should be able to set an holdiay activation so that they can have 1 - 2 weeks of no reduction while they are on holiday and when that time is up they will be reduced again.

there can also be ... if there is an account that has been sitting for over 7 days then the points willl get reduced.

and i feel that a point increase would do the site good ... more variety of rankings for example ... snooker changes all the time because of the point system there ... if there was more points involved then we would have more virtuosos and a wider range in the top 50

thanks
pag

but isn't this unfair to people with lifes, jobs and people who just generally play for fun?

In my opinion i think the amount of rank points should depend upon the players current rankings and also how many balls the winner wins by. Meaning if you seven ball someone, of simular rank, you should get say + 4.0 and if you win on the black, you should get + 0.8. I personally think the ranking system would work alot better based upon this, but then again, it would be easily cheated.

Edited at 22:08 Sat 18/02/06 (GMT)

I see Gilli's point too, however I work 39 hours a week and get quite a bit of pool in too. On here and down the clubs. If you just make a 10 second ranked game and play a few frames you accumulate rank pretty quickly. Can get about +20 in about half an hour-ish. Pending you don't become sloppy. I think the rank hould be changed but not sure to what. Not sure I agree with Pag about the virtuoso thing though. I think the way it is would be better when only a select few are virtuoso at a time, shows how well they are doing more accurately. Bottom line: rank deductions should be changed, but no idea what to lol. I like to whinge but I suck with idea's, will leave that bit up to you fine people.

I'd like to point out that here we have two pages worth of sensible debate without any petty arguments!

Thats got to be a first or close to it!

I think something needs to be done just to make the top 50 a more accurate representation of the current top 50 regular players on the site.

Gilli's idea is interesting, most cheats are soon found out with game logging and such, so it might be worth looking into that idea as it would reward potters who go for the win rather than those who let their opponent pot with the intention of snookering for two shots!

I know this will probably rile a few here but i think it is a sensible addition to the debate :

Rank the tournaments!

This would make for a lot more movement and since winning a tourney involves winning many games, propel winners well up the rankings.

This, combined with rating reductions, woud keep things much more representative of the current players abilities.

Well?

Yes spinner, it's been sugested before by a few people. I'm up for it too as are most people however it would be too hard to do I think was the answer, not sure though. Have to wait for Nick or a clever person to post

I agree aswell ranked torunaments would be ideal!

There's a few different topics coming up here.

Ranking drops

For active players who play every day the daily drop is neglible; a player loses a maximum of 1 ranking point, and all the players around them will lose the same 1 point.

So, I guess it only really affects players who are away for a prolonged period of time.

As an example lets assume a virtuoso ranked 925 has a 1 week holiday. This player will come bank to lose around 5 points after 1 week, dropping to 920. This change is more significant, but I would suggest when a user hasn't played for 1 week that maybe they are a little bit more rusty, a tiny bit less clinical, and a 5 point drop is a valid estimate in the small decline in their ability.

Boosting the rankings

If the amount played for increases this should create more higher ranked players (even though they lose more in defeat).

Take a look at snooker and the abundance of virtousos created by this change (and the lack of campers at 850 in the top 50). The reason for this is that there's more "energy" in the ranking system, the total range is increased by this gamble increase.

What about the score change though, when playing... Its a bit steep to lose 3 points to only gain 0.6 How is it currently calculated?

When i was a high professional, 825 odd rankings, i did feel the score change was harsh but i think what it's trying to tell us is - if you play a lower player and you lose - you lose that -3 because it shows you do not have the ability to be a high professional? is this the correct way of putting it, or am i completly wrong?

lol anyway - still feel -3 is harsh.

I'm an 780 adept and played a 630 yesterday - i lost - fair play to the guy but i got -3.42 , rather steep, would that have been -4.0 if i was xmava with his rank? lol!

Just feel it should be reduced a little!

The best players are the ones who leave their opponent with one or 2 balls left, snooker them an set themselves up, then clear in one visit. It's unfair to reward them with less points than someone who's just gone all out and perhaps got lucky.

When your at 915.0 with your rating u've gotta win 6:1 vs 750'ers so it does seem a little steep, but if your rated as a virtuoso you shouldn't be losing so i think to current ratio's alright.

Perhaps steeper rating drops could be put into place after a week of inactivity. Players who have been online that day have the standard 1.0 decrease. Players who do not come online have a decrease of 0.5. However after a week, or two weeks, their rating drops by 1.5 for 7 days. Then continues to drop at 0.5 per day untill its reached 850.0 or any new point for the stop in reductions. This allows for a weeks holiday but discourages longer times of sitting there.

Edited at 14:24 Sun 19/02/06 (GMT)