ok hear me out here.

the ranking system has been mentioned many times in the past and im aware as to why / how it works

i just want to point something out tho,

ok im ranked 870 and i play bigbaz999 who was ranked 810

anyway in frames im winning 4-2

however im now on less points ,

i find it hard to work out that you can we winning by a two frame advantage and be on less points.

basically being punished for winning against a player who has the quality to beat most.

does anyone see where im coming from.


Whats your opinions on it.



has the rank system always been the same or has there been any other ways that have been tried.

Regular Ranked - i_am_god (1) 67-17 (0) bigbaz199 (bigbaz199 concedes)
RANKINGS: i_am_god 873.9 (+3.4), bigbaz199 808.4 (-3.3)

Regular Ranked - i_am_god (4) 7-63 (2) bigbaz199 (i_am_god concedes)
RANKINGS: bigbaz199 813.6 (+7.2), i_am_god 869.6 (-6.9)

i agree lee that is very annoying, i think if you beat a pro or lose to a pro i think you shoulld gain a certain amount and they should lose a certain amount (3points). if you lose to and adept then obviously you should lose more.

do you get where im coming from ?

its the same when two virts play each other, if they share 6 games 3-3 they end up lower than when they started

such is the nature of the beast

yes i feel that there is now so many players who are pro's and have ability to clear the table , if you look through arcade players its shocking how many quality players are around 800-820, easily could be more around 880+ and there the players where ranked games and points recieve become inadequate compared to the actual skill the players possess.

out of interest, do you have a solution?

I agree it is hugely flawed, but like dec says, how could we fix it?

The way i see it is fine.

If you don't want to lose points , then don't play people who are not around your ranking, you know if your around 880 and hes around 810 then your going to lose more points if you lose, and he'll gain more if he wins, regardless of how well he plays.

I think if you care about it so much then why not play friendlies or people who are right near you in rank.

i don't quite understand the problem

Theres no problem revenge, like i said i know how and why it works the way it does.

and anyone with half a brain knows the best way to play the rank system in order to maintain position etc,

its just a shame that we have such a massive bracket of players classed as professional yet such major difference in points gained and loss.

i mean me and baz are both professional and that should mean close game however i need to be winning 3 more than him just to maintain my rank if he wins one frame,

and all this because maybe slight loss of form or even he dosnt come online as much so his rank drops,

i was mainly wondering if the rank system had ever worked differently and if so how did it used to work, etc etc ??

Well im sure he's aware he can play friendlies however opts to play ranked to rank up.

The system does seem unfair and i disagree with it aswell. Feels very harsh and i dont like the fact you get these "plastic" newbies or players that are very good but at a low rank...and if you lose you still lose a bit chunk.

Plus why should rank players be forced to play friendlies if we feel slightly cheated?

Tbh it doesnt bother me the rank system, i just feel its very unfair.

And carom omg...How on this planet do you rank up!!

Robbery lol

First of all, the ranking system doesn't care about the "categories" as Professional or Virtuoso, it only cares about the rankings. And you had a difference of 60 points, so your rankings were not really that close.

Remember the following (copied from the help):

As far as I can remember, the ranking system has always been the same, only the ranking scale has been lowered "recently", which means that before that change you were risking even more points in every match.


If your opponent has a too low rank for his skills, it can be because of 2 reasons: he has not been playing for a while, or he's playing inconsistently. The first case is quite rare, the second is totally acceptable, consistency also being a part of skill.


Finally, I personally think that the system is fair and very well thought, and I really don't see any major flaw in it.

Edited at 19:37 Mon 21/12/09 (GMT)

well said martin..and i do remember at one point before the change in the rankings..that if u lost a game.. sometimes the lose of points was anywhere up to 14 points

Oh and I'd also like to add that in your example, you started with 870.5 and finished with 869.6, so let's say your ranking roughly didn't change in these 6 frames.

Now, the fact that on long term your ranking doesn't change when playing a given player; means exactly that your relative rankings are well balanced. So your example actually tends to prove that the ranking system is perfectly correct!




Edited at 20:06 Mon 21/12/09 (GMT)

Regular Ranked - scrapper (1) 32-10 (0) jamie1987 (by default, jamie1987 left the game)
RANKINGS: scrapper 852.4 (+0.9), jamie1987 612.8 (-1.0)


Regular Ranked - craig21 (0) 14-88 (1) scrapper (by default, craig21 left the game)
RANKINGS: scrapper 851.5 (+0.3), craig21 660.7 (-1.3)


How does that figure??

Win more for beating a lower ranked player?

They are both newbies...i just cant figure this one.

Any help>???

different level of newbie

newbie reduction being different

maybe

Its to do with the adverse tangent which is expressed in the virtual compressor molecule - otherwise referred to as discombobulation. Hope this answers the above question satisfactorily

havent the foggiest what you just said but...

I agree

I think he is hammered, look at those words they dont even make sense!

Stop sluring your typing's lol

You're just jealous of my ability to calculate the calculatings

poor grammar decreases your ability to act smart