I'm getting a bit fed up with entering a tournament and find several high ranked players listed. I know it's hard to implement a system where true levels are used but it does defeat the object of a ranked tournament if a player who has lost a lot of games due to various reasons and is temporarily ranked far below what his real level is also included, he just runs away with the wins and what is the point of that? It would help if anyone who is entered in a tourney is ejected if he goes above the maximum rank before the tourney starts.
Yes I know, but it would be a step in the right direction. It does seem daft to me that a palyer ranked regularly at say level 1700+ can stop playing for a while, loose loads of games, get a new rank of under 1200 and enter a 1100 - 1200 tourney. He of course will win it hands down and what is the point of that?
There is a long thread on this in the 'sites and ideas' forum, discussing tournament mods and less manual solutions, take a look. I agree, it is a problem but one with no easy solution.
PS. Did you go to the game yesterday snowman? I thought we were going to get beat to be honest, that's the first goal we've ever scored at your place!
No, unfortunately I couldn't go yesterday and for once I was quite glad I didn't - did you go? By all accounts you deserved the win and played really well and now you're up where I hoped we would be.
If I'm honest, the last time you were at UP you outplayed us as well - if Glen Little had not got injured I reckon you'd have won that one as well.
I've got a horrible feeling that Reading may be well on the way to becoming our bogey team
Originally posted by TheGambit There is a long thread on this in the 'sites and ideas' forum, discussing tournament mods and less manual solutions, take a look. I agree, it is a problem but one with no easy solution.
PS. Did you go to the game yesterday snowman? I thought we were going to get beat to be honest, that's the first goal we've ever scored at your place!
Originally posted by Snowman606 Oh no! Not a Reading fan 😳 😉
No, unfortunately I couldn't go yesterday and for once I was quite glad I didn't - did you go? By all accounts you deserved the win and played really well and now you're up where I hoped we would be.
If I'm honest, the last time you were at UP you outplayed us as well - if Glen Little had not got injured I reckon you'd ...[text shortened]... I've got a horrible feeling that Reading may be well on the way to becoming our bogey team
snowman - I didn't go this time, I was up in London though doing something else unfortunately, would much rather have been out with the lads on one of our London trips and taken on one of the nice 'bars' at Liverpool street. I think we only had one shot on target but it was a cracker, but I don't think you managed to generate any real threat on our goal.
We've had some nice wins against you at our place over the last few years so I wouldn't mind being your bogey team for a while to come!
RE: The thread, this problem does need to be sorted out, it's not going to go away because you can't rely on some people's honesty or spirit of fair play. I could name a couple of people, one especially, who enter tournaments below their ranking time and time again, when they are normally ranked ~ 1900. I think some of the brains on here need to sort out a decent method with Russ. There are a couple of formulas floating about on that thread that I was talking about - think from Ragnorak, Gatecrasher and X NZ.
Originally posted by TheGambit snowman - I didn't go this time, I was up in London though doing something else unfortunately, would much rather have been out with the lads on one of our London trips and taken on one of the nice 'bars' at Liverpool street. I think we only had one shot on target but it was a cracker, but I don't think you managed to generate any real threat on our goal.
...[text shortened]... ut on that thread that I was talking about - think from Ragnorak, Gatecrasher and X NZ.
Yes Gatecrasher, Rag and I have all had stabs at coming up with the right mix of rules and regulations to curb people entering tournaments not suited to them while not limiting players from entering tournaments they are suited for and we've all critiqued each other's solutions. Hopefully we should see something along the lines we were thinking in the near future. Until then the name and shame option is the only thing to do.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ Yes Gatecrasher, Rag and I have all had stabs at coming up with the right mix of rules and regulations to curb people entering tournaments not suited to them while not limiting players from entering tournaments they are suited for and we've all critiqued each other's solutions. Hopefully we should see something along the lines we were thinking in the near future. Until then the name and shame option is the only thing to do.
There's always the option of rating floors. Just prevent established players from falling farther than, say, the xx00 that is at least 200 points below their highest rating. So, an established 1794, for instance, wouldn't be able to fall below 1500. If he hits 1801, he can never fall below 1600.
You can make the floors a lot more flexible (300 or 400 points or more), but the idea is just to stop people from being able to excessively sandbag.
Originally posted by OrangeKing There's always the option of rating floors. Just prevent established players from falling farther than, say, the xx00 that is at least 200 points below their highest rating. So, an established 1794, for instance, wouldn't be able to fall below 1500. If he hits 1801, he can never fall below 1600.
You can make the floors a lot more flexible (300 or 400 points or more), but the idea is just to stop people from being able to excessively sandbag.
With a rating floor you have the problem of rating inflation. If I win against someone at their rating floor (say 1800) I gain rating points and they don't lose any. Therefore rating points have entered the system.
This mechanism would seriously outweigh the effect of the current inflation/deflation mechanisms (people in different K bands playing and provisional players).
Originally posted by XanthosNZ With a rating floor you have the problem of rating inflation. If I win against someone at their rating floor (say 1800) I gain rating points and they don't lose any. Therefore rating points have entered the system.
This mechanism would seriously outweigh the effect of the current inflation/deflation mechanisms (people in different K bands playing and provisional players).
The way to resolve the inflation issue is to have the rating floor used only for eligibility to enter tourneys .
Ringers in tournaments
30 Sep '06 09:35
Back to Top