Forum
Why Is The Scoring System So Poorly Implemented?
|
grandgnu wrote
at 6:31 PM, Saturday June 23, 2007 EDT
It's so ridiculous to try and make it to 1800 when you're at 1750 or whatever because if you do happen to get 2nd place you're usually against a bunch of 1500-1650 players and you win something ridiculous like 7 points.
But then if you're bumped out in 6th place you lose 30 points. It's just so freaking frustrating to keep getting close and get smacked down unfairly based on the terrible scoring system. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 51 - 52 of 52
|
pastry wrote
at 8:15 PM, Thursday June 28, 2007 EDT Since Ryan replied, this is mostly for the sake of discussion...
As an average player, I think the 200pt gap made me better because I faced stiffer competition as I went higher. On the 1500 or unranked players, there's more chaos to sift through and less insight gained. People are riskier and that risk ignores future consequences. The really bold moves in the higher tables have a purpose to it. There's no doubt that the company you keep can make you better, and I think that's a good reason against such a large gap since it improves the talent pool on the whole. You can argue that if you're not good then you don't belong higher up, but quality experience can help make you better. I'm one of them. |
|
bcmatteagles wrote
at 9:27 PM, Thursday June 28, 2007 EDT 1st 15% 2nd 21% 3rd 14% = 50% but im top 10 in elo .... maybe im just lucky ??? lol
I think a lot of the players that tank get a little *help* navigating over the hump, and shouldn't be used as much as a reference |
