Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
1800 tables
|
XicaDaSilva wrote
at 5:54 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST
Yes I know they automatically appear when 250 players are above 250. However, i believe that due to the ranking changes maybe we can use a lower threshold. Why not try one table just to see if enough games will be played there.
Pro: - already played games where average ELO was above 1800, but this is difficult to happen because a couple of low 1700 are always ready to join. - There is a player over 2000, where is this guy supposed to play? - more of the higher rated accounts are unique players now, inthe pastthis was not the case. - people are more willing to play, so even if less players are above level x, once the table x is available they will play. Conclusion: 250 accounts in the past contained a lot of duplicates, tables available or not players would refuse to play as long as they were in top (they would have rather create new account andbring it to the top 25). New ranking encourages players to play and to play with one account, so demand for tables is higher. |
|
MadWilly wrote
at 6:01 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST go read about the elo system again.
|
|
aixo wrote
at 6:04 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST In one point you´re not right, XicaDaSilva:
Also in the old system unique players had different accounts in the top-100 or top-25. rven from belgium is such a known example. And often the different accounts are not so similar. So I use also to play with complete different accounts, not very similar... |
|
triplehelix wrote
at 7:46 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST thats funny, i just started an idea similiar to this:
http://aplayr.com/kdice/kdice/ideas/require%20less%20players%20at%20a%20specific%20score%20for%20higher%20tables%20to%20appear/ quote: a diminishing curve or whatever the correct term is. my understanding is that 250 players of a certain rank are needed for a specific score table to appear (eg 1700). i'm getting killed having 1800+ and only being able to play on the 1700 tables. i'll get 2nd, dominate well through the game, and only get 10 points, but if i come in say 3rd or lower, i'll get hit hard on negative points. so what i'm suggesting, is something like this: 1600 table needs 250 players to appear 1700 table needs 200 players to appear 1800 table needs 150 players to appear 1900 table needs 100 players to appear ect |
|
_rnd wrote
at 7:47 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST just give us 1 1800 and 1 1900..
:) just one! |
|
Elphaba! wrote
at 7:48 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST Anybody who is 1900+ do not count for the number toward the 1800 tables. That's kinda lame.
|
|
|
MadWilly wrote
at 8:18 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST Kids please do your homework and read about elo again.
|
|
|
XicaDaSilva wrote
at 8:38 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST @MadWilly
Explain your point. Patronizing posts are not appreciated. Thanks. |
|
Star Block! wrote
at 9:38 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST I think he's saying theoretically the guy at 2000 is supposed to play at the 1700 tables or maybe the 1500 tables if they want to.
|
|
|
XicaDaSilva wrote
at 3:45 PM, Monday March 5, 2007 EST One other thing, when the difference between the top players rating and the highest table limit is high, it makes people think twice about playing with the top account. The new ranking system did an extremely good job of descouraging alternate accounts, but now some players may using second accounts while waiting for the 1800 tables.
I also see this scenario, players in high 1800 leaving the seat after the 5th-6th player joins because average ELO is too low. I don't blame them, but this is very annoying for the other players, who might have left a table with 3-4 players to join this one since it looked like the playing field is almost complete. |
|
|
triplehelix wrote
at 7:21 PM, Monday March 5, 2007 EST something has to happen. unless i get first, points are incredibly hard for me to come by, and my rank is moving at a snails pace.
|
