Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
Mix up the table limits to allow more scoring mobility
|
Mattynyc wrote
at 9:02 PM, Sunday January 21, 2007 EST
Currently, the table limits are fixed - either open, 1500, 1700 and 1900. This creates some artificial limits on table mobility.
Since the scoring system is based on your score in relation to those you are playing against, these limits make it very hard to move up to the next level when you are near the top of your current level. For example, if you have 1690, you are probably the top rated player at the 1500 table. Unless you win, you will drop, - and if you are playing a large number of 1500's players and get knocked out early, you can fall fast! A solution would be to change up the ranges every week or so - maybe 1500, 1700, 1900 this week, and 1600, 1800, and 2000 next week. This way a 1680 player could be playing against some 1750s players and have a real chance of advancing, even if they only finish 2nd or 3rd! |
Replies 1 - 8 of 8
|
Cyron wrote
at 4:22 AM, Monday January 22, 2007 EST Or let people who have donated create tables, and base the score requirement around their rating?
|
|
no_Wolf wrote
at 9:45 AM, Monday January 22, 2007 EST "For example, if you have 1690, you are probably the top rated player at the 1500 table. Unless you win, you will drop, - and if you are playing a large number of 1500's players and get knocked out early, you can fall fast! "
Pff. 200. You're complaining about a twohundred point gap. I and dozens of others have repeatedly made our way out of tables that were three hundred points apart. |
|
JKD wrote
at 11:18 AM, Monday January 22, 2007 EST I really like Cyron's suggestion, Matty's suggestion is pretty good too. Also, the tables used to be based on top 100/500 et cetera (making those numbers up), can't remember if they still are at all.
|
|
aixo wrote
at 1:17 PM, Monday January 22, 2007 EST I don´t share Mattynyc´s opinion.
But I prefer also the alternating table-limits according to the current rates of the players like in the first weeks... |
|
moonshot wrote
at 1:25 AM, Tuesday January 23, 2007 EST I don't know, I think it adds another element of challenge and accomplishment by having specific targets to reach for. It's harder and riskier when you're at the top of the range, but if you can make it over that hump, you're now at somewhat of an advantage (which also somewhat offsets the disadvantage that you are facing better players).
I can certainly understand adjusting the ranges so that people can find games quickly, but that's a different issue. |
|
THE Z3 wrote
at 5:26 PM, Tuesday January 23, 2007 EST I think there should be smaller gaps in the higher point tables. For instance 1900 2000 and 2100 tables.
|
|
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 7:26 AM, Wednesday January 24, 2007 EST One possibility, although it may be a programming nightmare, would be to have the table limits based on a statistical grouping. Say the 40th, 60th, 80th and 90th percentile of the scores of all players. The groupings would be set on a daily or weekly basis, rounded to the nearest 50 points.
|
|
MadWilly wrote
at 7:52 AM, Wednesday January 24, 2007 EST @Scaldis Noel: I hate to inform you that the system which is actually in place already works a similar way. it doesn't work by percentages but making top250 the gap for highest tables (in round hundrets) and top1000 the one for secound gap (see above) makes perfect sense to me. I see no reason to change it. neither do many of the >1900 players i know.
|
