Stat improvement.

[mstrdrgn1012]

instead of just a rank, it should keep track of how many wins/losses u have. and maybe even the highest ranking opponent you've beat/played.

and after you've played 100 matches, ur ranking shouldn't be as affected after a loss then it would've after 10 matches. (make it proportional).


just a suggestion.

[Jeffery]

No. The W/L/D was dropped in favor of the chess style ranking for a reason.

And if you nlose after 100 games, it SHOULD be the same as after 10 games. A loss is a loss.

[Kyir]

AH CLOWNS *runs away*

[Krome]

I don't think the W/L/D stats should be brought back. I prefer the fact of a rating, like what we have now. Life Jeff said they were taken off for a reason, I think this reason is a good enough one.

-Krome

[Jeffery]

They were taken off because W/L/D means NOTHING for skill. You can have a 100/0/0 rating by only playing yourself or a bunch of bad players.
Generally, a higher rating menas higher skill. (although anyone can hit 1100 by chance almost)
And yes, people can cheat to get a high rating, but it is rarely unoticed.
If someone sports a 1400 rating, it generally means they are a good player though.

One good point would be to have the players rating, and the average rating of his opponents listed too.

[BoBo The Fool]

stats shouldn't be proportional. If you win 10 games, all against people above 1400, then you deserve a higher rank than someone who's played 10000 games against people no higher that 1200.

[Office_Shredder]

I completely disagree. If you play 1/100th as many games, even if they're against better opponents, at that point you really haven't proven yourself.

[Jeffery]

Yes, but why should how long you've played effect how many points you get for a win???

If you played 100 times more games against yourself and newbs, you haven;t proved yourself either.

[BoBo The Fool]

I completely disagree. If you play 1/100th as many games, even if they're against better opponents, at that point you really haven't proven yourself.


what kind of logic are you using to come up with this? What do you have to do to 'prove yourself'? Play lots and lots of games against newbs who d/c after 2 moves? If you can beat 10 players above 1400 in a row, i'd say you've proved yourself. If you've played 100 times more games against people who are worse, i'd say you haven't proved yourself.

how does number of games enter into it? I'm starting to think you're one of those people who think a high post count means more than actually contributing something with your posts

[Office_Shredder]

I didn't actually state what my logic was in my post (I was leaving for hockey). In fact, that's not even what I mean to say. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, now I'm going to have to explain before I leave for history, but I'll try :)

Imagine if I make a new grey account. I then play someone rated... say... 1300. And win (this isn't impossible). My rating gets jumped up by what, 100 points? To get higher than someone who beats 100 1200- players? And that 1300 player drops by... 100 points? to 1200? How many people must he now beat to get back up to 1300? Seeing how his experience in the game means his wins only count for 1 or two points... he'll have to play 50 games to get back up there.

Why would he even bother continuing playing at that point?

[Megabyte]

actually the limit is 30 pts...but ur point still stands.

[Office_Shredder]

except that if you play a 1400 rated player 10 times, you need to get as many points as someone who played a 1200 rated player 100 times... so you'll need to get about 100 points per game assuming everyone wins everything

[***Duo***]

actually the limit is 30 pts...but ur point still stands.


32 if you want to get technical...
:cool:
(I think...)


-Duo

[Megabyte]

even more technicall...32 max gain, 16 max loss :P (for a +1400 losing to a 750 that is)