View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
sadistic Alter Hase
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 820 Location: Florida, USA
|
Posted: 03.02.2014 15:07 Post subject: Why isn't Zach ranked for 2014? |
|
|
The ranking oddity of "adequate opponents" is not exactly working, although I cannot imagine that this is the reason Zach is not ranked. He usually plays high ranked players but I just don't see the need to penalize players for playing everybody, which is what I do. As is correct, I don't gain many or any points for beating a low ranked opponent but lopping a player out of the ranking list for "inadequate" opponents, seems like it is going too far.
I think Zach is a perfect example and come to think of it, he probably suffered under this rule because he played fighter many games one day. To hell with the rankings, fighter is a very tough opponent.
Management might want to reconsider this "adequate" opponent rule. It's not working. Secondly, what we should seek out is that all players play one another. With this rule, less skilled/new players will have a tough time getting games against better skilled players. Is this good for the game? I think not. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jensneuij Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 01 Feb 2013 Posts: 90
|
Posted: 03.02.2014 16:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
samuel Alter Hase
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 344 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: 03.02.2014 20:23 Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is that if you take the rule away again, Dozer will run off 50 straight wins against low ranked players like he did before it was introduced, and sit bold as brass atop the rankings because of it. You might not get many points against lower players but Dozer was right up the top as he had won so many in a row, and that's what led to the rule being introduced - subsequently he found himself having to play other players too, and he went back down the rankings. So in that sense it has worked.
Perhaps the answer is to increase the scope so that anyone above a 1600 rating gets an adequate game against anyone 1400 rather than 1500? This massively increases the number of players, and the 1400-1500 rated players are usually quite tough even for the top players. No way Dozer runs off 50 straight against 1400 players. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jensneuij Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 01 Feb 2013 Posts: 90
|
Posted: 03.02.2014 20:41 Post subject: |
|
|
samuel wrote: |
The problem is that if you take the rule away again, Dozer will run off 50 straight wins against low ranked players like he did before it was introduced, and sit bold as brass atop the rankings because of it. You might not get many points against lower players but Dozer was right up the top as he had won so many in a row, and that's what led to the rule being introduced - subsequently he found himself having to play other players too, and he went back down the rankings. So in that sense it has worked.
Perhaps the answer is to increase the scope so that anyone above a 1600 rating gets an adequate game against anyone 1400 rather than 1500? This massively increases the number of players, and the 1400-1500 rated players are usually quite tough even for the top players. No way Dozer runs off 50 straight against 1400 players. |
If Dozer loses against a low ranked player he will lost many points though. The fact that he won so many games in a row is very impressive even if it's against low ranked players.
The ranking system works fine in that manner so why do we need the whole adequate game thingy? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
samuel Alter Hase
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 344 Location: United Kingdom
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ruben87 Gravon Administrator
Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 1220 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: 04.02.2014 17:39 Post subject: |
|
|
samuel wrote: |
http://www.gravon.de/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2132
This thread will help you see why the rule came in - Im not saying its right or wrong, but this is why we have it! |
Nice topic Samuel. Very sharply found.
I support the Adq-non-adq system. It helps to let players play a broader selection of opponents. And with that the rating system is more reliabel than before.
To go further: I think its best to drop the 1500+ rule. Someone ranked 1800 should play 33% players of 1600 and above I belief. Maybe set the 1500+ rule to 1600+ or something cause there should remain enough people to play of course. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stratego Chief-Admin
Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 1123 Location: Germany
|
Posted: 05.02.2014 23:42 Post subject: |
|
|
since we start with the challange ranking we did not saw the cherry pickers anymore.
maybe some do not understand the rule as a whole. its not just the percentage distribution of ada./non ada. players.
all players with 1500+ are adequate. (at the moment ~50% of all ranked players)
also you must play 25 games a quarter.
this leads to a very fair ranking system which is shown in zachs record.
he played only few adequate players in the first month.
to argue, that player a or player b is a tough player (but with a low ranking) and therefore the whole system does not work is not worth an
answere. its just a personal feeling wothout any proof.
stratego |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|