Was in virt when tourny system changed..at round 913. Got to 940 as a result of playing ranked tournys and have since gone back to wherever I am at mo, this is also due to increased daily drop and I am in that patch of time where straight tournys rotate out of my time zone. Have got hammered a few times as well which don't help . Point is that without tourny points I would not have made 940.

PS. I am Henrique today

Two comments having read the last couple of pages...

First up. The ranking system has to be one that tries to allow direct comparison between players that play and don't play tournaments. Therefore it follows that if you played a normal ranked game against someone, beat them, but lost points overall then the same thing must happen in tournament games. The only slight difference is the rewards and losses are weighted more in the tournament games as they are considered, rightly, to be the more telling indication.

Second up. The actual rank score itself is totally irrelevant other than as a means to differentiate between players positions in the ranking tables. The scores now cannot be compared in any way to what went before as they have been achieved using a different scoring system. If the average high ranking has dropped, or the average low ranking has increased then so what. If anything I suspect that will bear a truer reflection of the differing abilities of players and reduce the instances of large gains, or more importantly (because these are what seem to cause all the moaning on here), the large losses from single matches.

Bringing it down to individual player aims and achievements, I would guess most set themselves a target of a title - 'professional', 'virtuoso' etc. It's the threshold figures for these titles that may possibly in the long term need realigning slightly to give realistic and achievable goals for the majority of the player base.

Only about 12 virts across the board now, there used to be about 10 in just 9 ball so they have dropped significantly


I think this system is just bringing the lower ranks higher and the higher ranks lower

I used to have trouble at times finding a similar ranked opponent currently playing, now i only have more trouble

means i either have to risk playing a tourny and hope i dont get fluked and having to play until im out or have won, or risk the lower ranks in normal and be relatively safer with freedom to choose opponents, to back out whenever and with lower points on stake

Tourny system doesn't work while people can still reset rank

but even if you take reset away they can still make new accounts.

would still stop a lot of the inaccurate ranks (and a crack down on multi-users)

looking at every post on this thread, it seems to me that the solution would be to rank the match rather than each frame

therefore you would gain/lose the same amount of points whether you won 2-1, or 2-0

i can see the point of some posts when you do get to the final - your opponent is on fire and you lose 5-0 maybe losing 40 - 50 ranking points in the process rather than 8 or 9.

Emily

xoxo

Yes Emily - that would be ideal - winner takes all. However different tournies should reflect the difficulty of winning. Much harder to win a marathon than a normal tournie and much harder to win a normal tournie than a random or speed. 1 frame matches should have less rank differential than marathon matches. The xception is str8 matches which are always one off games - I think 1.5 x rank rather than double would be ideal. A good example is bumble this morning who lost the final having won the three previous rounds - the final cost him 10 ranked pts whereas the previous rounds gained him 3 pts. So in that scenario as a high ranked player he will only gain if he wins the final......unless perhaps str8 finals were best of 3..............

My fault for losing

Ranking the match would penalise the loser unreasonably in for example a 5-4 game.

Ranking the match is how world pool and snooker rankings work. You wouldnt get 5 x your ranked pts tho. Use a multiplier to reflect difficulty of tournie.

Suggest 1.5 for speed, random, str8
suggest 2x for normal tournie
and between 2 and 3 x for marathon matches

al_is quite right,if the world no1 at snooker beat someone rankerd 64, 5_3 he wouldnt climb up the rankings.if man utd beat west ham 3_2,man utd wouldnt get minus points.people say dont be so serious its meant to be fun but the hard core players on here are deadly serious.

That is a terrible example. That example should be compared to tournapoints as you can not lose points (like you can't in the football league). How you have compared that to the ranking system it's self I don't know as the examples are mutually exclusive.

There still seems this confusion in linking tournament progress with rank, when the two are not linked at all.

Rank is an indication of form across all games.

Someone who reaches the final without a loss is logically on better form than someone who just scrapes through each round by one frame.

Therefore, though both progress equally in the tournament, one gains more rank than the other based on their performance.

ok that was a bad example,but the snooker rankings i mentioned wasnt.its a fact.

That only works when the games are of a much higher number, realistically first to 2, i could completely dominate but win 2-1 or i could get hammered but win 2-0

Form can't really be quantified, as there are too many variables to consider (for example opponent)

good form doesn't mean that a player isn't going to win

good teams sometimes play badly and still win and that happens to players. Your example Spinner (as quoted by Zan) takes no account of who the opponent is in each round. There are many examples on here where players have much easier routes to a final.

when i play in tournies the usual applies...

play well early rounds, and poor in semis and final
play poor early rounds and well in semis and final

dont know why it happens though

im exactly the same

Once again, the suggestions being proposed here would be fine IF there was a separate tournament ranking. However the aim has been to provide one single ranking system that can accommodate the three types of players, those playing tournaments, those playing ranked and those playing both.

You simply cannot have a scenario where for example al_ beats me 5-4 in a Marathon Final and wins rank and then another player of the exact same rank as al_ immediately afterwards beats me 5-4 in normal ranked games and loses rank big time. There would clearly not be parity.

The only possible way around that, that I can see, would be to completely remove the recalculation of the rank score change for either player until after the match finishes in both tournament AND normal ranked games treating the match as a whole for calculation purposes rather than each individual rack. In other words its not just the rank difference that decides what each player wins and loses, but also the margin of the win and loss. The winner gains no matter what (on a sliding scale based on the score and rank of the opponent) and conversely the loser loses no matter what.

Of course the likely scenario would then be the lower rank player opting for single rack matches I guess - hit and run!! - so not sure it would still solve the complaints.

Again of course, the ideal, but unpopular solution would be to remove the ability to select normal ranked opponents so that everyone is competing under exactly the same playing conditions.

I still think what we have now, looking at the tables and the results, is not a million miles off being right - especially bearing in mind its only three weeks or so in.

Edited at 19:21 Mon 13/12/10 (GMT)

maybe have the opportunity to play 1, 3, 5 etc games so the rank could be calculated on length of match and if a player leaves early then they default and the winner recieves maximum amount of points?

one thing that i dont understand is that if i beat someone 3-0 me ranking will improve 3 times - however if someone fails to turn up for a match i only get the equivalent of winning 1-0

i dont know if its the same if you are 0-0 and someone leaves the match - which is an automatic 3-0 scoreline

if you are to gain / lose ranking points in tournaments then surely a DQ should be awarded as 3-0 with the relevant ranking points being awarded

Thanks

Emily