Forum
Players should be restricted to their own level table
Grunvagr wrote
at 10:23 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT |
0 people think this is a good idea
Replies 1 - 4 of 4
accountx3 wrote
at 10:25 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT 1600 players can only play at the 1600 tables but no the no minimum tables, etc.
It seems after playing so many games that high score players like to pick on the lower scores ones at the no minimum tables. |
Coffee_Time wrote
at 11:58 PM, Tuesday March 27, 2007 EDT Before I support this can I play devils advocat? Is it possible to learn more about this game when you play better opposition?
|
dug wrote
at 9:54 AM, Wednesday March 28, 2007 EDT true, you do learn more playing good opposition. if this gets the go ahead it should be graded considering online players, so best and worse players will still be able to play someone.
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 11:32 AM, Wednesday March 28, 2007 EDT A higher elo player (say a 1800) sitting at a unrated table risks their rating significantly. I once played (to goof around) while at 2100 at a 1500 table, won first place and dominated all game. +7
+7... if I had gotten 2nd I would probably have lost points and 3rd or worse would have been disastrous, -20 to -40 or more elo rating is risked significantly because higher players sitting at lower tables risk losing *more and gain far *less than if they played vs equally rated opposition. sometimes I like to goof off and play a game at a 1500 table or so just cuz a map looks fun to play - it's not really fair to prevent players from doing that. |