| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stratego
Chief-Admin
Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: 03.06.2010 16:00 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Zitat:
- is it fair that a no.1 of the ranking (or lets say the top 3) must look a little harder for opponents?
You want to descriminate against certain parts of the Gravon community? One rule for one and one for another? That's how Na zi Germany started mate! |
ace,
i think you really have not the least inkling about german history.
its an important question in the hole discussion and i see no reason, to offend me with nazi stuff.
its easy to understand that a mid ranked player can play a lot low ranked and of course
he can also play all high ranked. but beeing a top 3 player there is noone above you and its harder to fit the ratio.
so what is wrong if i ask if this is fair or not?
youself are much closer to the real reasons: ....so really the only people you should be asking is 1700+ players.
just a hint: it all started, because some people thought that they were an elite!
do you think only top players have the right to answere?
beside its really no fun reading this.
maybe i spend my time with the wrong topics. you were one of people, who post a lot against dozer and for sure you all were right.
but again: we do not want an anti-dozer ranking we want a fair ranking for all!
and if things do not go the way you like, there is no - absolut no - reason to post this bullshit.
this is the second posting, which is totally beyond any respectful behaviour.
for me it looks like, that you do not argue within the hole system, you just try to get
the best system for you.
i really have to think it over, if i spend any more time within this topic.
i thought we could help the players and bring some more fair challange to all. its not for me - its for you.
I'm so damn pissed
stratego |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
acerimmer
Alter Hase
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England
|
| Posted: 03.06.2010 16:49 Post subject: |
|
|
ok, I will answer both replies with 2 replies also.
Your first reply first of course.
You asked what is a challenge ranking.....and literally it can be whatever you want it to be as there is no answer.......but I did state that all we want if a fair ranking. Oh and on the subject of ranking it should NOT be restrictive.
Too many restrictions eliminates players and noone wants to have any players eliminated from the rankings.
I was in favour of 20% of games against adequate opps. This would easily give Dozer a chance to make it into the rankings. I never wanted to eliminate him from the rankings.......just merely see him play at least a few high ranking players from time to time.
| Quote: |
hmm i explained it 2 times and i think its quite easy to understand:
the ratio% is no. of games against adq. players dividet through no. of game sagainst non adq. players
for the current ratio% its 0,5151~ (total 100 - adq: 34 / non adq. 66) |
Yes, I understand but your terminology really annoys me.
You quote current ratio% its 0,5151. I have no idea what that symbol "," means. Can we just use 34% as a definition or maybe 0.34 ?
I do not think I am alone on this. Maybe say 34% of games must be played adequate players?
| Quote: |
hmm...NO
we want to ask all - and we have good reasons for it.
gravon is a community and we did a lot in all the years that there is no reason for distrust.
its not that everybody must understand all little facts, its just that you have a good feeling
playing here.
and if a low ranked player has anything to say - we have open ears.
best example is hermann himself, one of the best math-thinking man i know, but with a rating of 1200.
|
Sure everyone has a say and I understand this........but this really has no effect on lower players. The lower you are the more unlikely it will be that you could EVER come into a situation where you do not play enough adequate players.
Here are a few examples to prove this point:
A 1700 player has 30 players available to play out of 112 players.
This means he has 26% of the Gravon community available to play as an adequate game.
A 1600 player has 53 players available to play out of 112 players.
This means he has 47% of the Gravon community available to play as an adequate game.
A 1500 player has 75 players available to play out of 112 players.
This means he has 67% of the Gravon community available to play as an adequate game.
A 1400 player has 93 players available to play out of 112 players.
This means he has 83% of the Gravon community available to play as an adequate game.
A 1300 player has 107 players available to play out of 112 players.
This means he has 96% of the Gravon community available to play as an adequate game.
The lower you are in the rankings the more likely you will have a higher adequate ratio.
Assuming a player plays everyone an equal amount of times......Then a 1700 player should have a ratio of 26% adequate games to unadequate ones.
A 1600 player should have a ratio of 47% adequate games to unadequate ones.
A 1500 player should have a ratio of 67% etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psychicwarrior
Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: 03.06.2010 17:00 Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Stratego"]
| Quote: |
Zitat:
- is it fair that a no.1 of the ranking (or lets say the top 3) must look a little harder for opponents?
You want to descriminate against certain parts of the Gravon community? One rule for one and one for another? That's how Na zi Germany started mate! |
Ace, I generally agree with most of what you said about ranking fairness and the limited availability of ADQ players for the top rankers buttttttttt
.... that is just really really dumb and says you know no more about history than what you read on the side of a milk carton many years ago, which I can't believe is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acerimmer
Alter Hase
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England
|
| Posted: 03.06.2010 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
ace,
i think you really have not the least inkling about german history.
its an important question in the hole discussion and i see no reason, to offend me with nazi stuff. |
Actually I do have an understanding of what happened between WWI & WWII as I did this in History. I got a really good score in History as I found it a very interesting subject!
Sure...... maybe this is not quite the whole truth as History is always written by the victors.
Anyway I did not mean to offend you. It was actually meant as a joke but I guess that's English humour. 
OK, I apologised for the joke.....but still I feel that it would still be unfair to make the top 3 or maybe just the #1 play a higher % of 1500+ opponents.
You should have a level playing field. One rule for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acerimmer
Alter Hase
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England
|
| Posted: 03.06.2010 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Just in case I offended you in my last post .....I will apologise for it in advance.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acerimmer
Alter Hase
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England
|
| Posted: 03.06.2010 18:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| just a hint: it all started, because some people thought that they were an elite! |
Whatever their idealoligy the results were many different peoples were descriminated against and much worse. Hence the point of my joke.
Anyways......let us leave this topic for another thread.
| Quote: |
do you think only top players have the right to answere?
|
Anyone has the right to answer but THOSE who are effected the most should have the loudest voice.
If you bring a rule that effects low players much more than any other player.......THEN should it not be fair that the low players get a bigger voice than players who it has little or no effect upon?
| Quote: |
for me it looks like, that you do not argue within the hole system, you just try to get
the best system for you.
|
It is not about me......and yet I am singled out and removed from the rankings even though I do nothing wrong?
The whole point was that people were ducking away from playing decent opposition. Your system is too high. 34% @ 1500 is too much.
If you expect me not to be happy about this (being innocently removed from the rankings)......then you are mistaken.
If you expect me to be quiet and not defend myself when you choose this system which removes me from the rankings when I do not duck anyone........then AGAIN you are mistaken.
| Quote: |
| this is the second posting, which is totally beyond any respectful behaviour. |
OK the first one was harsh, but the 2nd one was a damn joke.
Time to get a sense of humour! Don't you guys ever joke about the War?
Is that allowed in Germany?
 (jk) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: 03.06.2010 21:26 Post subject: |
|
|
I can see why you are so pissed at this Stratego: a lot of words going in circles saying the same things over and over with a few jabs thrown in.
Plain and simple: I do not see any harsh effects from the new system as to who gets to play who. THE NEW SYSTEM HAS NOT AFFECTED ME AT ALL. I can play whoever I want anytime I want and I have not had to seek out adequate players nor have I refused a game against low rankers and still I am 84 games ahead of the ratio. And the number of 1500+ players is increasing slightly. And the Dozer problem is solved. I like it.
Ace, just play more adequate players. You are the only one negatively affected by this. You can't possibly have too many to play. Then get a cushion ahead and you can play whoever you please after that. You'll be on top at the end of the year in no time. I don't think the low rankers are missing you.
And Ed, start a new thread with your ideas. They are interesting but off topic and this one is getting really long. I like point 4 but I think your numbers are too high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unbiasbob
Alter Hase
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 04.06.2010 07:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| This new system really does kick butt. For me personally, I have a higher ranking because I feel pressure to play better players. GB, you are indeed a perfect example of how a high ranker can deal with this system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unbiasbob
Alter Hase
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 04.06.2010 09:58 Post subject: |
|
|
I wish Zach was around, I havent seen him in almost a year but I know he would think this system is at minimum correct if not too lenient. Zach! where r u dude? weigh in man. Zach is but 57 points from that 1700 mark and I think his input is crucial here. and furthermore, gentleben should be going ballistic if this system is so unfair to the ultra high rankers. GB defends this new system with his heart and soul and he plays during the slowest times on gravon by far; Europe is sleeping when GB comes online from 6 or 7pm eastern USA time to 10-11 pm, that translates to beddy bye time for Europe. The UK and Europe are close in time zones so there should be zero probs finding adequates during their waking hours
My vote for #1 is a 50-50 split btw GB and NC. These dudes fear no games no matter is it's 5 in a row vs the same guy. My vote for #2 is Zach. My vote for #3 is rapunzel, geenstijl, gpet, andi, psychonaut and Fouch. Next level is edfx, fleiger, big rob, bom and brass. I have left out those with under 100 games (no offence). anyone who want to break into this top crowd needs to prove there worth within the new system I say. And I am unbias. LOL
I didnt mean to leave out skilgannon, samuel, jvg and fighter. they lead the #5 group. stellar players thhe are as they prove game after game, year after year. I salute all of you and know that guys like Panther will be there after passing 100 games played |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
art
Alter Hase
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 325
Location: USA
|
| Posted: 16.12.2012 05:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| these are the posts that dug into Ace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
