Togtdaylttai wrote:A compromise between the two could be to have 1/2 the points given for wins past the h2h margin. But I see that having points for each set won would mean that people would just play all the time to get more points for either of them. Of course a counter to that would again be the limit on points from beating one person.
Togtdaylttai wrote:I have something else to say about the ladder. The points given for beating different ranks on the ladder should be much more staggered. I have beaten lower ranked players numerous times, though I haven't beaten any of the top 3. In spite of this, I am #2 in the race rankings.
Instead of 1 point for low rank and 12 for #1, I believe it should go something like 1,2,4,6,9,12,15,19,23,27,31,36
ahmedcoolio wrote:Swilliamz wrote:
"so I get 120 points while Chiller gets 110...and I go to number 1...doesn't seem quite fair to me. "
ok u said if i was no.1 and u were no.2 ok and u get 120 and i get 110 an tat u wud be no.1 so i think its fair coz u wud then deserve being no.1 becoz u have just beaten the no.1 10 times so u wud definately deserve tat spot. see u r no.1 in ladder rankings u beating a 6th ranked player ,or somethin, is not the same as he beating u? Thats wat i wanted to bring across .
Togtdaylttai wrote:No one really payed attention to my compromise system it seems: Have the head to head margin count for like 2 or 3 times more than the other wins. You still get points for winning each set but the head to head is not meaningless.
S.Williamz wrote:ahmedcoolio wrote:Swilliamz wrote:
But it's not fair, cuz the n.1 player is clearly better than the number 2, yet the number 2 player gets to be number 1, only because he won ten sets...that not something that is fair to me.
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests