Two questions worth answering about the new rating system

[gentleben]

Both Ace and Samuel have expressed opinions that the new system is too strict and needs to be 1 out of 4 games against adequate players instead of 1/3 because finding adequate players for people with high rankings is hard to do. Above 1700 leaves only 1500+ players as adequate opponents and there are only 24 players currently above 1500. Ace has also said there are players who refuse to play him.

There are only 2 other players with the same problem as Ace (ranking over 1700), that is NoChance and myself. I do not have a problem with the way the ranking system is. I also do not have a problem finding adequate players for myself and apparently neither does NC.

So here are my two questions:
1. Why is Ace the only one having a problem with this?
2. Why would anyone refuse to play Ace?

[samuel]

I don't think thats the point though GB, as it could happen to others in the future. The point I made was that the 1:4 ratio brought in dealt with the problem at hand, but making it 1:3 means it is now not working effectively, as its punishing people who aren't cheating the system. It doesn't matter who Ace can or can't play, with his ratio of opponents there is no question as to whether he is a legitimate player or not. The fact is the system is now taking people out who shouldn't be, therefore it isn't working properly.

[nochance]

As you may remember: I was not the biggest fan of the new system.

-Players, who refuse to play somebody:
Well, i think, there also some players, who doesn't like to play me, but I can't imagine one of the 1500-above-club do. Maybe it's different by AR.

Normally it should not be a problem to play against me, gentleben, zach21 and psychicwarrior..., they are all playing much.
Anyway: Ace and I got different times, when we use to play at gravon. Maybe its also a time-problem?

-

[gentleben]

I agree the new system is eliminating a very good player. But he is the only one affected by it and it would not be very hard for him to get back in. NC and myself do not have a problem finding enough adequate players, so why is he? The new system was made to solve the Dozer problem and it has done that. But, I agree with NC, the new system was also made to promote more big fights, which I believe it will do.

It is possible the new system will affect some others but until it does I say leave it the way it is. And if it does affect anyone else the problem can be solved by playing more adequate players. They are not that hard to find. Looking at the ratios I am the next closest to having a problem but I am still 88 games ahead of it.

[unbiasbob]

Yeah this new system is fun fun fun. I say keep it going. If Ace needs to get into the rankings, he can get the job done by playing enough proper games. Unbias votes for the system the way it is, at least for now.

[acerimmer]

Another one bites the dust!

Now NoChance loses his ranking!

[nochance]

... and Im not very happy about it.


I think, I played too much games against Skilgannon.
He is at 1500 points now, so it seems that the ad. people start by 1501
_________________
DontMissTheChance

[acerimmer]

Yes....and in the same instance my games needed for ranking jumped from 2 games needed to 11.

This happened to me last week also.......one minute I had a ranking.....and one of my opponents went below 1500 which meant I lost my ranking.
So basically I lost my ranking based on my opponents ranking going down.

I definately think the limit needs reducing from 34% to a nore stable 25%!

25% DOES EVERYTHING you need it to do.....34% is artificially far too high (FOR ANYONE WITH A RANKING OF 1700 or more)

[stratego]

hi,

hmm, i like it

not the fact that we lost ace or nochance for the moment, but i think it works well.

lets test it for some time, but i think we will not lower the ratio.

what we could do, lower the 1500 to 1450 - this would give all 40 players
instead of 25 and looking at the people, these quys are good enough for
a challenge.

but its to early for a final version.
maybe ace and nochance must play some games against low players without ranking.

going down to 25% would mean, that ace just needs his 2 games in 3 months and is 1
till the rest of year. these games could be done against anyone. so ace
has no challange
for the rest of the year.
beside a ration less then 0.5 is to low for a no. 1

but time will tell...

greets
stratego

[samuel]

I still disagree - the challenge for Ace would be to keep winning! At his level, a 3 or 4 game losing run would cripple his rating and he'd slide down the rankings, so although he might be playing lower ranks, he can't afford to lose focus. I sometimes get beaten by really low ranked players because I overlook them and don't take them seriously enough, so it can happen.

[gentleben]

Samuel, what? A 3 or 4 game losing streak hurts anyone.

The point is: Ace and NC need to play more adequate players. It is that simple.

And yes it was interesting to see how Skilgannon's fall from the 1500 mark affected us all. I went from being 88 games ahead to only 59. But guys, this is not that hard. Play more high ranked players.

[unbiasbob]

Yeah, I say keep the system going as is. If it fails after 2010 because too many people get affected by it then change it. I think it's awesome so far. GB should be having huge problems as he plays mainly during the quietest times but I dont see him complaining. Keep it rolling and see how it pans out

[acerimmer]

Ben: That's BS mate!

Both myself and NC play plenty of high ranked players........so for you to say that "we need to play more high ranked players" is friggin BS!
TOTAL AND UTTER BS!

What is happening is that we are NO LONGER ALLOWED TO PLAY RANKED GAMES AGAINST ANYONE UNDER OR CLOSE TO 1500.

At the time of day I am on......there are few players on.......so I play whoever is there.
The only high ranking players usually on are zach, ed and yourself......whoopyfukingdooooo. So in effect I have to play 34% of games against you 3 players? GET FUKIN REAL!
I play 500 games a year.....so I have to play 170 games MAINLY against you 3???????
OH JOY!

Well personally that is no fun what so ever.
There really is NO point playing here if that is how it is!


You seem very keen to be #1 by removing all opposition.

That is very sad mate!


As for "Stratego's comments"......... quote "hmm, i like it "
I am this close to fuking Gravon off permantly.........so I am glad you like it. Thanks a lot!

You also talk about challenges......but at the end of the day the only real challenge I need is some more decent players playing on here regularly.

We had a problem......but instead of being sensible and giving a solution that fixes the problem......you go OVERBOARD with 34% which creates more problems than we originally had to begin with? FFS!

[stratego]

hi ace,

yes i like the challenge system and i think it works well.

this is not an anti-dozer ranking and i really cannot understand, why you are so agressiv.
reading your post it looks like all is just about to be no.1 - no matter if the
system is fair or not.
and you never talk about the facts or arguments.

the system is new and needs some time. also we posted that this is not the final
version. but if we change the rules every month, we never get the information
which we need.

for the moment i see three ways:
lower the ratio or lower the 1500 for high ranked players.
going back to the old system with dozer as no.1

but as long as we have just two players out of the ranking, i (and a lot more)
want to wait and see how the story goes on.

we know each other for several years now and i think there should be a
little more coolness from your side.
also i double my point of view: a no1 with a ratio under 0.5 is a fact i do not like.
maybe others do not agree, but its not about to be everybodys darling.

stratego

[acerimmer]