Ranking points in Tournaments
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.
Pages: 1
2
05:24 Thu 22 Oct 09 (BST) [Link]
I don't think you have quite read what other people have said.
If you can only gain and never lose, then the ranking system in place will be flawed, and then why would anyone play ranked games when they enter these at the risk of losing nothing but gaining rank?!
i understand what u get at dame, so i dont think this is a good idea
dame said:
junior_ said:
I think the only way that this could work is if when u do play games, that you do not lose any ranking points only gain them, along the lines of what vendetta said.
Edited at 08:40 Thu 22/10/09 (BST)
Edited at 08:40 Thu 22/10/09 (BST)
I don't think you have quite read what other people have said.
If you can only gain and never lose, then the ranking system in place will be flawed, and then why would anyone play ranked games when they enter these at the risk of losing nothing but gaining rank?!
i understand what u get at dame, so i dont think this is a good idea
12:14 Thu 22 Oct 09 (BST) [Link]
As you will see looking back through the forums, I've always been a strong supporter of tournament games being ranked.
The "reward for winning" can never work for the reasons already mentioned, as there are only so many points in the pot, so to speak.
The beauty of ranked tournaments is that, over time, it would help "even out" the rank tables as it removes the ability for players to choose opponents by rank, so we would have players of all ranks playing evenly against each other.
For those thinking there isn't much to win;
Take a normal arcade tourney. 6 rounds, with the last two being to two frames, so that gives 8 wins for the winner. Even an average rank win like 3 points would mean you were 24 points better off at the end of the tourney!
Also, of course, others would be better off depending on how far they get.
Due to the format of ony one frame per game for most rounds, snooker is different to pool in that it would be extremely rare for even a high ranked player to win a tournament but have less rank than they started with.
The "reward for winning" can never work for the reasons already mentioned, as there are only so many points in the pot, so to speak.
The beauty of ranked tournaments is that, over time, it would help "even out" the rank tables as it removes the ability for players to choose opponents by rank, so we would have players of all ranks playing evenly against each other.
For those thinking there isn't much to win;
Take a normal arcade tourney. 6 rounds, with the last two being to two frames, so that gives 8 wins for the winner. Even an average rank win like 3 points would mean you were 24 points better off at the end of the tourney!
Also, of course, others would be better off depending on how far they get.
Due to the format of ony one frame per game for most rounds, snooker is different to pool in that it would be extremely rare for even a high ranked player to win a tournament but have less rank than they started with.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
07:17 Fri 23 Oct 09 (BST) [Link]
Thats very well said, and i think that ranked tourneys should be put into consideration, and as you've stated, snooker tourneys aren't like pool tourneys, and its just based on the luck of the draw/the positionings of the balls i guess. But I think ranked tourneys should definately be considered and hopefully the idea taken forward.
spinner said:
As you will see looking back through the forums, I've always been a strong supporter of tournament games being ranked.
The "reward for winning" can never work for the reasons already mentioned, as there are only so many points in the pot, so to speak.
The beauty of ranked tournaments is that, over time, it would help "even out" the rank tables as it removes the ability for players to choose opponents by rank, so we would have players of all ranks playing evenly against each other.
For those thinking there isn't much to win;
Take a normal arcade tourney. 6 rounds, with the last two being to two frames, so that gives 8 wins for the winner. Even an average rank win like 3 points would mean you were 24 points better off at the end of the tourney!
Also, of course, others would be better off depending on how far they get.
Due to the format of ony one frame per game for most rounds, snooker is different to pool in that it would be extremely rare for even a high ranked player to win a tournament but have less rank than they started with.
The "reward for winning" can never work for the reasons already mentioned, as there are only so many points in the pot, so to speak.
The beauty of ranked tournaments is that, over time, it would help "even out" the rank tables as it removes the ability for players to choose opponents by rank, so we would have players of all ranks playing evenly against each other.
For those thinking there isn't much to win;
Take a normal arcade tourney. 6 rounds, with the last two being to two frames, so that gives 8 wins for the winner. Even an average rank win like 3 points would mean you were 24 points better off at the end of the tourney!
Also, of course, others would be better off depending on how far they get.
Due to the format of ony one frame per game for most rounds, snooker is different to pool in that it would be extremely rare for even a high ranked player to win a tournament but have less rank than they started with.
Thats very well said, and i think that ranked tourneys should be put into consideration, and as you've stated, snooker tourneys aren't like pool tourneys, and its just based on the luck of the draw/the positionings of the balls i guess. But I think ranked tourneys should definately be considered and hopefully the idea taken forward.
Pages: 1
2
| Unable to post | |
|---|---|
| Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
Ranking points in Tournaments
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.