ranking thresholds
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
11:55 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
Anybody else think that the ranking threeasholds are to spread out?
I mean, 800-1000?? Thats 200 rank there, Surely there should be a 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000
Or even better, be able to choose your own threashold, for example if you really wanted to you could create a 800-825.
To me the threasholds seem a little half hearted, its like ok, let them choose their preferred rank to a degree, but not fully. I mean there is a big difference between 800 and 950, Massive!!!
I mean, 800-1000?? Thats 200 rank there, Surely there should be a 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000
Or even better, be able to choose your own threashold, for example if you really wanted to you could create a 800-825.
To me the threasholds seem a little half hearted, its like ok, let them choose their preferred rank to a degree, but not fully. I mean there is a big difference between 800 and 950, Massive!!!
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
12:06 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
yep i like the custom threshold idea but not much need for others if there is a custom choice
12:58 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
Yeah I like the custom idea, becuase I don't mind playing anybody between 800-900 but when you got these guys joining 920 etc it is just throwing points away and its effort keep creating new games so the same people join
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
15:22 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
i agree as long as the custom values were in large increments so that you couldnt just make it 700-705 or something stupid like that
16:14 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
Yeah maybe min of 20/30 atleast then you get more of a fair game
16:26 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
Nice suggestion, and maybe more easily applicable in the higher end of the scale.
However, what would you call the levels .....?
700-725 Adept1
726-750 Adept2 etc....?
Don't you think that such a ranking procedure would just over-complicate things?
Alternatively, just do away with calling them something altogether ... then you wouldn't need to make up new names (although some of the "virts" might not appreciate this
si123 said:
Yeah maybe min of 20/30 atleast then you get more of a fair game
Nice suggestion, and maybe more easily applicable in the higher end of the scale.
However, what would you call the levels .....?
700-725 Adept1
726-750 Adept2 etc....?
Don't you think that such a ranking procedure would just over-complicate things?
Alternatively, just do away with calling them something altogether ... then you wouldn't need to make up new names (although some of the "virts" might not appreciate this
16:40 Mon 23 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
maybe you don't need to call them anything? Just let you set a threshold
So you go on create game instea dof 800-1000
Type in 700 - 720
800 - 875
So forth?
So you go on create game instea dof 800-1000
Type in 700 - 720
800 - 875
So forth?
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
10:37 Tue 24 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
why would you need to call them adept1? adept2?
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
11:29 Tue 24 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
no not really u can just not play decide not to play instead of giving the admins more work to do
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
09:17 Wed 25 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
As he said, if you do not like an opponents rank you can chose to play or not to play.
As Nick said one of the last times this subject came up, if you are really that desperate to pin down the rank of your opponents, perhaps you're taking a fun online game a little too seriously.
As Nick said one of the last times this subject came up, if you are really that desperate to pin down the rank of your opponents, perhaps you're taking a fun online game a little too seriously.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
11:18 Wed 25 Nov 09 (GMT) [Link]
That is far from the point, it is inconvenient.
Look unexpected, I don't know what you think goes on on this site, but this has nothing to do with Admins, they look after the day to day running of the site, they don't implement changes.
As for taking the game to seriously, I don't understand that point, its not the fear of losing points, its the fact I want a decent game, and the rank 800-1000 is far to broad, its a token gesture of a threshold, its not fun playing somebody who you know your gonna beat 9/10, and if he does win, the guy is going to leave straight away.
I play anybody me anyway, but recently used the ranking threshhold for about the first time, so I can see how useless it is.
Look unexpected, I don't know what you think goes on on this site, but this has nothing to do with Admins, they look after the day to day running of the site, they don't implement changes.
As for taking the game to seriously, I don't understand that point, its not the fear of losing points, its the fact I want a decent game, and the rank 800-1000 is far to broad, its a token gesture of a threshold, its not fun playing somebody who you know your gonna beat 9/10, and if he does win, the guy is going to leave straight away.
I play anybody me anyway, but recently used the ranking threshhold for about the first time, so I can see how useless it is.
Unable to post | |
---|---|
Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
ranking thresholds
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.