Well let's see ... based on win percentage is unrepresentative because it doesn't take into account number of games won, based on games won is unrepresentative because it is purely cumulative (more a length of service statistic than a gauge of skill) and a combination of the two is difficult to imagine how that could possibly be calculated (especially as one is derived from the other). In any case the methods fail to take into account the difficulty of the matches involved.

What is needed is some method by which the respective abilities of the players are taken into account .... oh wait a minute isn't that what we've got already and is working perfectly fine.

Although I haven't actually starred in the new tournaments or even a ranked tournament itself, I think its a fabtastic and fresh implementation!

Like many others similar to me on this site, I don't feel the urge to play ranked games or to rank up as I feel rank has become boring and can be relatively meaningless, it now adds a new perspective using the idea TournaPoints.

It will definately get users playing and it might get the big guns entering tournaments again. Seeing as all these Tom, Diick and Harry's are winning easy and meaningless tournaments nowadays.

Will be interesting and exciting. Shame I actually have to work these days! 6 months ago I was gobbling tournaments like they were going out of fashion!

Bring it owwwwnnn'

buddy you legend

Its very true BTB. Although I said in my post rank can be very meaningless, it is the best method by a mile.

Win % just wouldn't work. Rank is calculated on the ability (although it may not always be a true reflection of the opponents ability) of your opponent. If you were to play higher ranked players then you could win less games but come out better off on rank points, whereas on win % you would be far worse off.

Also I very rarely play people that I don't actually know the ability of and most of the players I play are of a very high standard. As opposed to a large % of this site who just play a game for a sure win or a player that they would regulary beat.

There will always be ranked players that are better than there 700 rank say, due to newbies, resetting or bans, but what isn't mentioned is that a massive % of the people on 900's these days are easily beatable aswell. Might sound cocky, but its completely true...im sure people would agree

Edit - I'll elaborate on the easily beatable 900's. Players such as Destiny & Whocares8x8. They are so easy

Edited at 23:04 Tue 23/11/10 (GMT)

i agree with buddy and derry. i dont see the rank system messed up by this at all. i've always played any non-newbie that cares to join my table. nothing's changed for me...

buddy has always been a legend and always will be

completly agree with you with the rank system

i don't normally get involved in such discussions but, for once, I feel compelled to throw in my tuppence worth...

i really can't see what all the fuss is about. Sure, recently I've been winning 2/3 tournaments a week and now, with this new system, I haven't won one yet!! But, so what? Yes, again, I agree that the higher ranked players are entering more tournaments but again, so what? Why shouldn't they? The tournaments should be the pinnacle of the game and shouldn't come easy. In terms of ranking points, if you win a couple of rounds and then get put out, the likelihood is you will still have a higher rank than when you entered tourny. Plus, use your head - if you don't think you have a chance and don't want to enter tourny, leave before it starts!!

Finally, a big thank you to Nick who clearly has the expertise and desire to be innovative and continually look to ways of improving and increasing the challenge of the game we all love!

Rant over

shut up linny

why should tournaments be the pinnacle? Funky is meant to be fun for all players. If i were a clan member id be bored of playing the same people in tournaments as you do in clan games,clan members win the majority,not giving lesser players any chance. You should include a non clan tournament.

Playing a tournament is identical to playing a number of ranked games in a row, yeah? If you only play friendlies because you didn't used to play ranked, why do you care what your rank is gonna be now? If you always played ranked to try and get the highest score, its a new challenge for you because you can't choose your opponents.

Greatest, are you saying that the best players shouldn't win a tournament? If they are the best players, they've done something to be the best whether its playing a hell of a lot or just having good judgement and knowing the angles.

So you have to do something to qualify for a tournament now, so what? Should Sheff United be entered into the final of the Champions League because its not fair that the best teams always enter? No, because they haven't earned a place there. Tournaments should be the pinnacle because they are the only things on the site that test a players consistency, determination and skill. Getting a high rank elsewhere just means you have the patience to sit through 2000 games against someone ranked below 600.

you do chat some rubbish lmao, what has clans got to do with tourneys?

this new tourny system is very nice, but after a couple of days it is clear that it is only fun for the happy few (pros, virtuosos)

Wouldnt it be a great idea to do some tournys, besides the general tournies depending on the level of points ?

fe a tourny only for people with scores between 700 and 800, some tournies only for 800-900 and so...

for the lower ranked tournies we could lower the points to be gained, maybe devided by 10.

That way also lower ranked people can win some tournypoints.

Caus now there is no use in entering a tourny, because there is no way that i can get to the semi finals if people like kaison and whocares enter :-)

Just a thought

clan members should have a seperate tournament,im sure everybody who arent in a clan must be bored of the same people winning. Simple enough for you?

kaison isnt in a clan, i bet he isnt bored

using the same logic that you have applied in other threads, why are you commenting if you don't play tourneys?

on radic's post (one that i can actually take seriously), i think tourneys for certain rank ranges isn't a terrible idea, although i can see a problem with the number of people entering them.


it's not like good players are only entering tourneys now for these new points. kaison has over 300 tourney wins!!

I agree with this,restricting tournament entry to non tournament winners would also be good,no newbies allowed though to stop resettors. That way the multiple tournament winners can only play themselves unless nicks adds an open tournament for all.

maybe 1 tournament a day, could do it at teatime for below 800s only but with half the tournapoints at stake, it would be ranked as normal.

basing it on non-tournament wins isn't a good idea imo below 800s seem a good idea but only if you have 1 tournament a day where it is like this.

wat about people who just play tournaments below 800 that just sit on there rank and have won?

Just one of the reasons why this will probably not happen. Every player is beatable. 900's lose to 700's more often than people might think.
Since the point of this is to add prestige to tournaments, creating tournaments where no pro or above can enter is counterproductive.

I am very happy if the top players are entering more; the tournaments should be a toughest challenge.

I agree it might put you off if it's too tough though - but I think we need to wait a few weeks to see how things pan out. I would hope the top players are beatable by other players over a single frame - surprise result could occur.

Having points proportional to tournament numbers potentially allow us to have more tournaments, though. So if this becomes a serious problem that is one avenue that can be considered.