- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
16 Dec 06
Originally posted by flexmoreYou mean that the rating should be the 'greatest' of the following....
here is my suggestion:
your rating for entering banded tournies is the smallest of;
4 year rating high less 600 points,
and
2 year rating high less 300 points,
and
1 year rating high less 200 points,
and
6 month rating high less 100 points,
and
3 month rating high less 50 points,
and
1 month rating high less 25 points,
and
current rating ...[text shortened]... n a won game.
i guess a practical question is : is this easy for russ and chris to implement?
I think that all these discussions could be a bit academic, Chris stated earlier in this thread that they're working on a new improved method. It'd be good to know what that was. I sent feedback yesterday asking them to post the information, maybe we'll know after the weekend.
16 Dec 06
Originally posted by Kepleryea, I got about 10 points instead of the 40+ for the 2 wins I scored against him. the sweet 1800 was so close...
I notice ItsYouThatIAdore was rated 1949 on 8th December but now, five days later, he/she/it is only 1506! That's quite a fall.
I like the 365 days limit. I may not be allowed to just about any banded tournaments anymore, but I'll take that as a sort of 'graduation'. there's been a lot of massively underrated participants in the banded tournies I've taken part to, so I expect the situation to get better.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 224761
17 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HomerJSimpsonWhat gives you the right to make personal comments about me like this? I never make any attempts to manipulate my rating. I play out games win or lose.
[b]Yeah looking at your graph it does appear your rating wants to go into the 1700's perhaps your intentionally stopping it from going there?
Oh cry on, your obviously around the 1650 range, your rating right now is 1662, which is only 38 points away from 1700, everyone has to deal with the same rating system as you do, dont make yourself out to be a v ...[text shortened
As we are looking at graphs. You appear to be one of those that the new system appears to aimed at. Your curve looks like the alps. Resigning games to reduce your rating I see.
My comments were a factual a statement and a suggestion to improve the current system. Yours are simply childish.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterWhy did you repost this message? You'd already started Thread 58230 in Site Ideas with this message, I replied to it and you then said that you were happy to wait now since it was a temporary solution.
Whilst I can appreciate that something had to be done about the losers that deliberately reduce their rating to enter banded tourni's I have to say that the new system is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut!!!
Using this method i'm now restricted to tourni's over 1701. I hit this high for 1 day after two timeouts in the clan league v a player r ...[text shortened]... irer as this would also smooth out rating spikes and stop the losers as well.
Thank you
Have you changed your mind about being happy to wait now?
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 224761
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by iraxAs you said in the other thread this one was already discussing the subject, even though it is difficult to tell due to the completely unrelated title. 🙂 I wanted others opinions on my idea re. the tourni rating calculation.
Why did you repost this message? You'd already started Thread 58230 in Site Ideas with this message, I replied to it and you then said that you were happy to wait now since it was a temporary solution.
Have you changed your mind about being happy to wait now?
And yes I'm very happy to wait. It will stop the deliberate rating reduction people from gaining from the practice.
cheers
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterIm not complaining about it so I would appreciate if my graph was left out of this discussion, but your graph looks like you could hit 1700 easy, it doesnt look like it was because two 2100's timed out, anyway the level of difficulty in the 1700's is going to go down do to the new rule so until you actually play in one of these new tournaments, I would wait to make an oppinion.
What gives you the right to make personal comments about me like this? I never make any attempts to manipulate my rating. I play out games win or lose.
As we are looking at graphs. You appear to be one of those that the new system appears to aimed at. Your curve looks like the alps. Resigning games to reduce your rating I see.
My comments ...[text shortened]... factual a statement and a suggestion to improve the current system. Yours are simply childish.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 224761
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by HomerJSimpsonIf you don't like others commenting on your graph then don't do so to others. If you had read my post you would see that I had already said that I hope to soon be in the 1700's. maybe if you thought before making juvenile comments about others then you would not get in this situation.
Im not complaining about it so I would appreciate if my graph was left out of this discussion, but your graph looks like you could hit 1700 easy, it doesnt look like it was because two 2100's timed out, anyway the level of difficulty in the 1700's is going to go down do to the new rule so until you actually play in one of these new tournaments, I would wait to make an oppinion.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by David Tebblifetime?? not bad but have in count that even grand masters low they rating , that's the way it is you go up and down.
I don't see the point of limiting the time scale to 180 days or a year, or any other arbritary amount. A player who has been highly rated at some time in the past (and it's irrelevant whether that was last month or last decade) should never be able to enter banded tournaments designed for low rated players.
Let's take the example of Dustnrogers. Dusti ...[text shortened]... y for banded tournaments based on a player's highest rating should apply for their lifetime.
18 Dec 06
I've noticed that the last 365 day rating includes provisional rating.
User 311042
this guy has a highest ever of 1565, i guess the rating is taken after 5 games.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundA clear flaw in the plan!
I've noticed that the last 365 day rating includes provisional rating.
User 311042
this guy has a highest ever of 1565, i guess the rating is taken after 5 games.
Even though the whole 365 day thing is a temporary solution it would be nice to have this fixed.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtActually, thats partially what I attribute my high (for me) rating too.
Also one's rating depends on the rest of the community, which has increased by 5000 people since I joined the site - I suspect I'm going to find myself with a lower average rating as a result.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
18 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoTo bitch about this from another angle:
Actually, thats partially what I attribute my high (for me) rating too.
Those of you who have been above your current rating will play people who were also above their current rating. Most likely the same people, but without those who have dropped rating due to timeouts. Seems like a better situation, provided that there are more bands above 1700.
People like me, who are currently at their maximum rating in the last year, will end up playing weaker players, as the only ones able to enter the band will be the people with ratings below it.
I don't object to playing weaker players, and am playing in a couple of open tournaments, but now I have no way to play against a group of people at my own grade - banded tournaments at my grade are going to be filled with people whose rating has spiked.
Gezza
ps. I don't actually care too much, but the whinging in the forums is getting on my nerves!
19 Dec 06
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundLooks like that has changed now...
I've noticed that the last 365 day rating includes provisional rating.
User 311042
this guy has a highest ever of 1565, i guess the rating is taken after 5 games.