Right, I want to have a bit of a moan at them for once.

I have no issue with the system and how it works at all (as it is brilliant) but I do feel the scaling is wrong (especially for carom). Well, actually, for this site it's just carom I have the issue with.

Looking at it currently, there is only 3 people ranked 800 or above. It is near enough impossible to reach virtuoso status (I believe only 3 of us have done it, but that's when it was much easier to win a game)

Now, you can lose much easier on there, and you see no one going close to 900.

I know it wouldn't make much difference, but I do feel the ranking scale for carom should be increased, to make this possible (not to make it very easy, but possible)

Will be putting a similar thread over on pool, as it's even more severe over there, but yeah, that is all!

Damien.



Edited at 21:23 Sun 09/10/11 (BST)

Wouldn't it be more useful if the game length would be increased? That way, less fluky wins would occur.

If you increase the ranking scale, you would also lose a lot more for a fluky loss. Although I agree it would probably raise the average ranking at the top.

I agree with whocares. I think the best solution is to increase the game length, to say first to 10, or at least make this an option.

The problem for making it higher though is that for new users, a game could easily take 45 min to complete and could put them off. And the problem with having options for the amount is first to is that it would need a different ranking system for each different score which is pointless considering the amount of players that play it.

I forget the last thread you addressed this on and it might detract from your idea- but what's the difference with game length options on carom and timer options on snooker?
Different game lengths in carom create variance in flukiness just the same way that different time lengths in snooker create the same thing. We have one ranking system for all arcade games, so why not have one ranking system for all carom games?
Or make a 10-point game worth more in the rankings than a 5-point game? I know you've had objections about this before, but I think those wouldn't be a major problem.

My preferred option is longer games. If that can't be done, then I agree with increasing the scale a bit- at least to the same level as regular- if not killer.

Agree with Seb, Jack. Currently would probably take 15-20 straight tournament wins to get 900+ and even then you'd probably need to be playing very good players also around 750-800 mark.

However we have to account for the varying abilities of players. The last proper Carom session I had was 29 games with Adam, which I think we averaged 4-5 minutes a game. (bear in mind there would have been a good few high scoring games and runs past the 5 points. (and let me tell you, he has a habit of getting a lot of runs against me)

But I have once had over a 10 minute wait for a final game, and this isn't including the time my own semi-final took to be played.

I would die of happiness if longer games were brought in. I have lost count of the number of times I have lost to 3,4,5+ runs of flukes and complete hit and hopes. The longer the game, the more likely it is that the better player will win. If they could also correct the lag rules to stop cheat lags, and correct the rules to match real life ones and allow double kisses then it would be great .

Just to point out, standard real life games are first to 50...

Edit: and yes, at least half of my 900 5+ have probably come against Mooney.

about virt 4 people dest, damien, fuzz and curt