@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidYou like what ever would be less work for you, most of us are quite aware of your feelings on it already. As you said lets give others a chance to voice their opinions.
Yes, I agree with this. Ratings/actual playing ability should be more closely paired.
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidNot sure how your comments relate to what I wrote.
You like what ever would be less work for you, most of us are quite aware of your feelings on it already. As you said lets give others a chance to voice their opinions.
-VR
I agreed with somebody else's suggestion. The suggestion would not result in 'less work for me.' (Or anyone else).
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidI will re-read what the response was you were responding to from Medullah.
Not sure how your comments relate to what I wrote.
I agreed with somebody else's suggestion. The suggestion would not result in 'less work for me.' (Or anyone else).
I haven't had my morning Coffee yet! 😉
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidI just agreed with:
I will re-read what the response was you were responding to from Medullah.
I haven't had my morning Coffee yet! 😉
-VR
'Ratings/actual playing ability should be more closely paired.'
I'm assuming you also agree with this?!
@The-only-Mr-T saidTrevor,
200
What are you saying by 200?? You would like to keep this or are you just being you? Do you disagree with 50-100 differential in ratings which I can see could cause some issues, as many as we know have a greater Rating than the one they have showing. I been around long enough to know that for a FACT as I've played pretty much everyone exception being new players.
-VR
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 22260
@Very-Rusty saidI have 200 shillings in my pocket, what should I buy?
Trevor,
What are you saying by 200?? You would like to keep this or are you just being you? Do you disagree with 50-100 differential in ratings which I can see could cause some issues, as many as we know have a greater Rating than the one they have showing. I been around long enough to know that for a FACT as I've played pretty much everyone exception being new players.
-VR
@The-only-Mr-T saidWhat does that have to do with what we are talking about Trevor? You always seem to enjoy taking things off the Subject being discussed. Are you just attention seeking?
I have 200 shillings in my pocket, what should I buy?
-VR
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidThen he should have said 200th Post maybe?
You always seem to claim the 200th post. ðŸ˜
In regards to the 50-100 differential in Rating for setting up challenges, I don't know how well this would work with not having a separate rating for Clan Challenges.
I have played people even at 200 differential where I know them to be at least 300 points Plus than the rating showing. It would be harder but not impossible mind you to fix the ratings if they had a separate Clan rating as far as I am concerned.
I use myself as an example I run from 1200'a to 1500's because of my game load and playing in many tournaments. Trust me I try to win every game I play. I think you know that as well as moonbus and Trevor amoung others who are higher rated and more knowledgeable about the game than I am.
I think we should just leave it at 200 differential, but that should be left up to all clans involved to VOTE on and I mean everyone in the Clan not just the Clan Leaders! Many times the Clan leader speaks for everyone but that isn't everyone's opinion. In Breaking Bad we we don't even have everyone who agree on everything, but we are fortunate to agree on most things.
Now Where Medullah (Pete)?? was saying about people holding off on their challenges to take them into the following year. Is there a present rule about not doing so? Also, who is to say which Clan is holding that particular challenge up? I know we had challenges held up by ex-players, nothing we could do about that.
My Clan Leader and I have agreed that we play all challenges out unless they are going to last over 4months. I have finished challenges in less than a week playing fast players on other Clans. I don't expect everyone to do that, as it is almost speed chess, I don't think a Challenge should last longer than a couple of months and we have agreed to let them go 4 months before closing them, win or lose.
This can be considered a message to you as well as Medullah, I am sure you are both looking for ways to improve the Clan Challenges System!!!
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidRatings do indeed fluctuate, which is why I liked Meds suggestion that:
Then he should have said 200th Post maybe?
In regards to the 50-100 differential in Rating for setting up challenges, I don't know how well this would work with not having a separate rating for Clan Challenges.
I have played people even at 200 differential where I know them to be at least 300 points Plus than the rating showing. It would be harder but not impossible ...[text shortened]... as Medullah, I am sure you are both looking for ways to improve the Clan Challenges System!!!
-VR
" instead of 200 points of the rating, make it 50 or a 100 points of a year's average rating; it's more time consuming to fiddle average rating than rating, so should provide fairer more equitable matches, which are not foregone conclusions."
*Note the suggestion relates to 'average' rating over a given year.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
Ratings do indeed fluctuate, which is why I liked Meds suggestion that:
" instead of 200 points of the rating, make it 50 or a 100 points of a year's average rating; it's more time consuming to fiddle average rating than rating, so should provide fairer more equitable matches, which are not foregone conclusions."
*Note the suggestion relates to 'average' rating over a given year.
Again I don't think it would work unless we had just Clan Rating averages not tournaments and Clan Rating. As it stands they are calculated together. I would say it was an excellent idea providing we had the Clan and tournament Ratings Separate. Where they are together and different amounts of games are played it would be very difficult to come to an accurate conclusion.
Let's take Clan challenges as an example I play between 40-60 games concurrently, where you are around 10 or 11 concurrently, Our averages for that alone would be considerably different, and we are not even taking into account tournaments we play in. Of course club ratings are different and don't effect these ratings.
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidYour average rating for the last year is 1388. (Indeed, for the last 5 years it is 1397). That's not far off your current 1436 rating. - So playing clan challenges against opponents with ratings 50-100 either side of your current rating would seem about right.
Let's take Clan challenges as an example I play between 40-60 games concurrently, where you are around 10 or 11 concurrently, Our averages for that alone would be considerably different, and we are not even taking into account tournaments we play in. Of course club ratings are different and don't effect these ratings.
-VR
But if your current rating was 1436 and your average yearly rating was 1824, then clearly it would be fairer for your clan pairings to be 50-100 either side of your 1824 average yearly rating, rather than your current 1436 rating. Right?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said4. Clan leaders shown to be issuing lobsided challenges should have points taken away from them.
@Bish said
As we are having an open discussion - I think we should look at, evaluate, and respect some other ideas. There is no one correct answer.
1. I cannot think of any competition or table where all the participants don't play the same number of games or matches in a season. In our case the season is a calendar year. Not one.
2. It makes is soun ...[text shortened]... red in a given clan. (Which might incentivise small clans to join together and be more competitive).
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
Your average rating for the last year is 1388. (Indeed, for the last 5 years it is 1397). That's not far off your current 1436 rating. - So playing clan challenges against opponents with ratings 50-100 either side of your current rating would seem about right.
But if your current rating was 1436 and your average yearly rating was 1824, then clearly it would be fai ...[text shortened]... 50-100 either side of your 1824 average yearly rating, rather than your current 1436 rating. Right?
We can look at it in different ways, and my average is just that an average not my playing Strength which is a well known fact. This 1436 average you are talking about is including Tournament games where I am playing much higher rated players with little to no chance of winning which in turn is going to lower my average rating.
Again if they were separate ratings the Clan and Tournament Ratings we would get a much more accurate average rating. I have beaten people like yourself, moonbus and other higher rated players, how often does that happen???
You can't combine Clan Challenge games and Tournament Games which people try things in and figure you have an accurate average rating, IMPOSSIBLE, my friend.
It appears you and a few others are trying to come up with new Rules, the hell with what anyone else thinks. I may not be long playing in the clan Challenges if this is not done fairly. Who are you to judge, what should be done and what should not be??? What is your interest all of a sudden? Is it because Breaking Bad is too good for the rest of the field at this point in time? That can change in a heartbeat as you are well aware. Just be cause we put more work into than anyone else doesn't mean we should be penalized for it.
THUMS DOWN doesn't win a debate just shows how many of you want the same things you do, is all it does. Doesn't deter me in the least my friend.
-VR