...also, it is amazing how much people whine and complain about a game they play FOR FREE. If it sucks so bad, don't play.

I agree that Ryan has created a great game. Take a look at my overall ranking, I'm in the top 250.

I've seen guys higher in the ranks than I am with scores in the 1500's because of the whacked scoring system (or at least the problem of the divide in the points awarded vs lost as you move up in points)

They should have the following tables to help balance things a bit better:

1500
1700
1900
2100

etc

I agree with grandgnu. The problem is that you must actually get more lucky than be skillful to get to 1800. The odds are just so stacked. Should someone just continue to play until they get that lucky streak to get to 1800?

I feel there's tons of good players down low who are just having a problem hitting the 1800 hump. If you made it to 1800 before the 1700 tables were taken down then you have made it the easy way. This is just not a good competitive balance when you can play someone who is 270 points below you and get a negative dom rating for going against on lower ranked players.

The game's not life or death :), but sitting and leaving and sitting and leaving just to get a table with your peers has just taken a lot of the juice out of the "casual" game for me.

I have an account that I play exclusively on the no limit tables. It took some work, but I was able to get over 1800 - never playing on any higher tables. I am not a top 100 player, and have never come even close to the top 100 (or even top 500), so if you are a decent player, you should be able to get over 1800 with no trouble if you play at the 1500 tables. Some players just aren't good enough and don't deserve to play at the higher tables. Like I said before, it SHOULD be hard to move up to higher tables. There is nothing wrong with the cutoff points. Some people need to face the fact that they just aren't especially skilled players. Not everyone is good at this game just because they play lots of games.

You'll get cut off eventually. What's wrong with adding 1700 tables to allow similarly skilled players play with each other?

The default score is 1500. It's almost no limit as it is.

Scaldis, your arguement is flawed.

Look at my ratings man. I'm around 50% for finishing in the top 3 spots. The 1500, 1700, etc scores mean NOTHING.

They don't accurately reflect skill level or accomplishment at the tables. I've consistantly been ranked in the top 250 players in the game.

The problem here is that if I finish in 6th or 7th place (you know, sometimes you DO get unlucky early in a round with bad starting positions, acting last and finding you're down to one or two territories and you can't expand) then I lose way more points than I could possibly gain by coming in 2nd (i.e. I'll lose 30 points for a 6th place finish but only win 12 points for a 2nd place)

THAT is the problem with the scoring system.

Here's an example of the problem:

grandgnu surrenders and finishes 2nd.
Rank: 239th Rating: +5 1768.
(+7 for 2nd and -2 for dominance)
grandgnu stands up

Dnalor58 finishes 1st.
Rank: 1011th Rating: +45 1674.
(+18 for 1st and +27 for dominance)

I controlled ONE less territory than the 1st place guy and was consistantly in 2nd place throughout the round. I was even 1st at some points as well.

But because my score was higher than others at the table I get a stupid measly 5 points for a 2nd place finish. All it takes is one bad round and a 6th place finish and BAM, I'm down 30 points (which would take me SIX of these stupid 5 point wins to catch back up too!)

Having a ranking in the top 250 doesnt mean you are a great player. With a rating of 17XX and a rank of 240ish it means you play much more than the average player. You've also been up the 1900s, pretty far in, what happened? You got relegated back to the 1500s. Clearly you need to develop your skills a bit more to hang in the 1800s.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Take a look at the percentages man. Around 50% of my placements are in the top 3 spots.

That means I consistantly play well. The problem is the difference in my score compared with others at the table.

Once I hit 1942 in points and I'm up against guys who are 1813 in points, I take significant hits and wasn't able to clear the 2K hurdle.

I can't believe you're trying to say that the 1700 score or whatever means more than your actual rank in the game.

grandgnu,

Sorry, but your numbers just aren't as impressive as you think they are. Apparently, since your complaint is that you can't get to a higher table, you aren't playing against good competition. Against weak competition, you SHOULD be in the top three more than 50% of the time if you claim to be good - but you are just barely there. The distribution of your placement is slightly skewed toward first and second place finishes, but you also have more 4th and 5th place finishes than 3rd place, not impressive. Don't fool yourself about how good you are. I know I'm not especially good, and I get over it. You should too. I learned to play for fun, not scores, and I enjoy the game a whole lot more now.