Premium accounts
are only £9.99 - Upgrade now

New Rank....

Viewing forum thread.
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.

Pages: 156
7
8
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
09:54 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
When are the ranks going to be reseted?
toontomh
toontomh
Posts: 2,988
11:15 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
So people have worked up and down for all this time, and then the part of their statistics that people will look at the most is just going to be gone? I've played this for just about 2 and a half years, have worked my way all the way upto 912 (Which while not being high for that many, was a great achievement for me), and now I'm managing to keep myself in and around 800, but those 30 months of getting my rank to where it has been and where it is now will just be forgotten?

To be honest, after thinking it all back over, I don't even see why the rankings were changed. This website is Funkysnooker and not one person complained about the ranking system compared to pool.

Yet over on Funkypool when one person makes a thread complaining about our ranking system, it gets changed. No consultation to anyone over here to get our feelings on it, just simply a couple of people on pool don't like how the website that a minority of them going uses rankings, so we get things changed despite having not had a problem nor any say as to what was going to happen.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
11:42 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
toontomh said:
So people have worked up and down for all this time, and then the part of their statistics that people will look at the most is just going to be gone? I've played this for just about 2 and a half years, have worked my way all the way upto 912 (Which while not being high for that many, was a great achievement for me), and now I'm managing to keep myself in and around 800, but those 30 months of getting my rank to where it has been and where it is now will just be forgotten?

To be honest, after thinking it all back over, I don't even see why the rankings were changed. This website is Funkysnooker and not one person complained about the ranking system compared to pool.

Yet over on Funkypool when one person makes a thread complaining about our ranking system, it gets changed. No consultation to anyone over here to get our feelings on it, just simply a couple of people on pool don't like how the website that a minority of them going uses rankings, so we get things changed despite having not had a problem nor any say as to what was going to happen.


Absolutely right Tom. I thought that the max rankings were just going to be affected, but if our ranks are getting reset completely, then that is just pathetic. Nick, why are you going to change this when you probably know the majority of people will be against this?
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
11:50 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
The problem is though, the ranks at the moment, some of them have still be affected by the old rank, mabye just leave it a bit longer to let the ranks settle.
dgeneratio
dgeneratio
Moderator
Posts: 54,204
12:01 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
why play ranked then if it is going to be reset anyway?

will all the ranks be reset to 675?
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:03 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
ermmmm I don't understand the point of all this upheavel, will the game be better for us when its all done and everybody has to start from scratch? I dont see a single problem with the old ranking system? Alot of time and effort has gone into achieveing them ranks and it will be lost and that in my opinion wont even contribue to better gameplay!
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:07 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
Nick has already said the ranks wont change, so we need to stop moaning about it. I agree it was too easy to reach virtuoso. I dont think we need to re-set current ranks, but the issue is that those inactive and ranked below 800 will never have their ranks settle as they dont have points taken off, which is why i believe Nick is considering re-setting everyone to 675
nick
nick
Admin
Posts: 1,741
12:10 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
The way people are talking about funkypool is that it's some kind of foreign entity that's trying to take over. It's not, they're sister sites, 90% of the platform is shared and driven by the same goals.

By the way, I changed the rank before I even read the thread on funkypool.

Instead of fully resetting the rankings I could scale the whole lot (maximum and current). This might be the fairest approach. Opinions?

To make things clear, by scale I mean:
975 -> 915 (-60)
925 -> 875 (-50)

Edited at 18:13 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:15 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
Yes scaling would be perfect, if possible with things like edge modification meaning the scaling would be difficult. Just as a reference i believe before i was about a 900 player on balance but now under new rankings im struggling to get much above 840, if that helps with scaling sums
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:16 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
ok i didnt see that edit, seems about right, but remember 500 players need to be scaled up etc
toontomh
toontomh
Posts: 2,988
12:20 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
So in the what? Three years that Snooker has been up, it's just so happened that the ranks changed at the same time that someone pool complained about it without any of the two being connected?

I just don't see how it can all be considered constructive towards this website. There has been one ranking system that has been in use for everyone on here now, and suddenly that's been changed and everyone is going to lose all the work they put towards getting their rank and the highest they've been to.

nick said:
The way people are talking about funkypool is that it's some kind of foreign entity that's trying to take over. It's not, they're sister sites, 90% of the platform is shared and driven by the same goals.


In this case, that's because there was a thread on pool about it with a couple of pool players complaining about the ranking system despite the fact that the main site that they plan on is pool. Then the ranking gets changed to be in conjunction with pool, nothing gets said to anyone over here and no-one gets asked about their feelings about it, it's only people on pool who put their opinion forward along with a couple who were on the pool forums that normally play here.

I understand that you want to get the two websites working in similar ways, but when so long has been spent with the old ranking system, with everyone working up their rank and getting their own highest, and suddenly it all will be forgotten.

I seem to remember an example earlier in this thread saying that the ranks needed to be re-set because it would be like taking a ball off the snooker table and records still standing.

It's like taking a red off the table and saying right, I'm re-setting everyone's maximum break because that's got to be done to make it fair. Everyone who worked towards getting the 147, 107 and their own personal maximum break will lose any record of that because something was needlessly changed.

There was no problem with the ranking system. Yes it may have been easier to get to virtuoso here, but that's just the way it was. While virtuoso may have been where very few people are on pool, that's what 950+ was on here. Couldn't a new status have just been put in for that instead of disrupting everyone's rank?
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:23 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
tom thats what i suggested a few days ago on this thread. It didnt go down well
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:28 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
yea, i agree with scaling, but would it mean max arcade rank of 935.7 would be reduced to around the 870-880 mark? i don't have a problem with this as i was far off getting into the max rank leaderboard i don't think i ever will. However i think i might be able to sqeeze back up to a virtuoso.

EDIT: To make it clear i agree with scaling over reset, i don't want to see ste's or pallosalama's ranks deleted for arcade and original respectively, nor do i wish to see destiny's virtuoso rank on killer gone as they are all great achievements in which they showed a great level on consistancy to reach them.

Edited at 18:32 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)

Edited at 18:33 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:34 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
killer wasnt scaled though was it, so killer ranks will be untouched presumably. I also assume that if scaling takes place the hall of fame idea would survive. I would be quite happy for scaling to take place asap then we can all get on with trying to beat our goals again
nick
nick
Admin
Posts: 1,741
13:49 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
toontomh said:
So in the what? Three years that Snooker has been up, it's just so happened that the ranks changed at the same time that someone pool complained about it without any of the two being connected?


There's more than a thread / week devoted to different aspects of the ranking system.

toontomh said:
I understand that you want to get the two websites working in similar ways, but when so long has been spent with the old ranking system, with everyone working up their rank and getting their own highest, and suddenly it all will be forgotten.


Again, it's nothing to do with funkypool ranking system or how I want them to work together. Funkypool has also had ranking system alterations.

It's to do with the fact that it was much too sensitive for original and arcade games.

toontomh said:

It's like taking a red off the table and saying right, I'm re-setting everyone's maximum break because that's got to be done to make it fair. Everyone who worked towards getting the 147, 107 and their own personal maximum break will lose any record of that because something was needlessly changed.


Scaling the ranking is probably the best solution. In some way the ranking achievements will persist.

toontomh said:
There was no problem with the ranking system. Yes it may have been easier to get to virtuoso here, but that's just the way it was. While virtuoso may have been where very few people are on pool, that's what 950+ was on here. Couldn't a new status have just been put in for that instead of disrupting everyone's rank?


Indeed, it's all relative. When I mentioned it's too easy to become virtuoso it wasn't that I wanted to make it a more difficult target. When you are on 900+ the edge modification kicks in (see http://www.funkysnooker.com/help.do?section=rankings point three). If two players in the 900s play each other a lot of points are lost unnaturally, eg if they drew 2-2 they'd both lose points. This scenario must be minimized.

Edited at 19:51 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
13:56 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
I agree. I think the difference of everybodys rank and max rank from 675 should be multiplied by 0.8 and then added to 675. 0.8 seems about the right figure to do it, rather than ordinally taking a set number of points form everybody. If this is going to be done i would rather it was done soon.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
14:02 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
scaling down seems fine to me - I don't play ranked anyway, but like being called virtuoso as i think that is my rightful tag (just about) so will obviously be forced into playing ranked to get my tag back.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
14:38 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
yes, although the new system would give more significance to the "professional" tag.

I would like to know what Nick thinks about scaling by 0.8 of the difference from 675, i think this is a better method
nick
nick
Admin
Posts: 1,741
15:16 Mon 29 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
pieceofpig said:
I would like to know what Nick thinks about scaling by 0.8 of the difference from 675, i think this is a better method


Yes, seems right to me, 80% of over 675 was the number I used to calculate the samples above.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
12:19 Tue 30 Dec 08 (GMT)  [Link]  
ste_efc said:
youngjeezy said:
And ste i just got to say your last post is outragous! the new point systems fine, but removing your highest rank's not? how can you say that? Is it because no one will ever reach it with the new ranking system? I think so.

Sorry to say mate but your acting a little childish on the "max rank" matter. Especially when a "hall of fame" table could be put in.

I'd be more worried about the direction funkysnooker is going rather then an achievement many people have got and lost in the past. Is it fair that your top of max rank table and lyle is'nt? Ask yourself that and get back to me.


Behave, you're acting as, if it doesn't change back you're life is over...

No matter what you won't win, Nick has made a decision already and believe me he won't change his mind.

Edited at 13:23 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)


Where in my paragraf of typing did i say any thing about my life being over ste??? "No matter what i wont win"? And where's that one coming from. lmao
Pages: 156
7
8
Unable to post
Reason:You must log in before you can post

New Rank....

Back to Top of this Page
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.