A++ Thread, will read again.

This will be moot I am guessing with the new system I imagine, but I still think this is a good idea.

Last night I received negative points for 2nd place, twice! -2 for 2nd place, and again -1 for 2nd place. The 1st place winner was even over 2200 elo and I still lost points simply because there were a few 2000 elo players at the table. So I couldnt agree more with possibly making some 2200 tables?

I have trouble finding any sympathy for your problem.

If there are enough of you, 2100 tables will automagically appear.

You and those with crazy high elos are victims of your own success.

I have to empathize with the 2200+ players on this. They should have tables for themselves because you should expect positive pointage in the top three spots, on average.

Being a 2K - 2.1K player though, and seeing how difficult it is to get a game together at the 2K tables now, it worries me that if we have these tables many of us 2K players would spend more time in our lower level alt accounts where there are plenty of games going.

I think that even if these tables existed, the 2.2K players would have to spend most of their time on 2K tables just to get a game.

Maybe I’m wrong. Let’s create them and see.

I am a little new to 2k games, but I haven't had trouble getting a game together. In fact, I have had problems getting into a game because there are so many ppl waiting for a 2k game.

I think that in order to keep the game challenging for top players you must create something that keeps them engaged. A 2.2 table would do that.

Once you get to 2k, there is little else to do with this set up. 2.2 tables would allow for another level of challenge -- a goal to get to.

I think it is clear that Ryan did a great job creating this site/game. And the key to its success is developing layers of challenge -- the 1500/1600/1800 tables for example are always full. To say that you shouldn't do a 2200 table because no one would be there isn't a great reason. At first -- they will be sparse, but the game matures the level of play evolves and those tables too will be full. We have direct proof of this.

I think it is important to keep those 'customers' engaged in the product.

As this game progresses, we will have to come up with ways that make this more challenging for the top players and the lower players have things to aspire to. It could be team play or it could be 2200 tables. Either way, it's important that this game does not become static -- Evolution of this game is the key to its success.

For the staying power of the game, I think it is imperative that we think of new ways to engage and challenge -- we're gamers -- live on this. 2200 tables are just the next step in this development.

you elitist bastards.

don't you realize that the only thing 2200 tables will do is further increase the gap between the 'high ranks' and the rest of the players? You will succeed in 'frog jumping' to yet another layer of as-yet-unseen greatness, and will then come back here asking for more of a challenge.. you'll want 2400 tables --- and then, lord forbid, want to do something silly like play team games?

remember, before the big reset this year, the tables (which were once -- based on the current table generating algorithm -- up to 2200) everything eventually 'equaled out' to having only 1500, 1700 and 1900 tables.

Everyone was satisfied with this.

Hmm, seeing as the lack of support from the other side of this argument, I will have to say something.

First off the fact that people have gotten to 2400/2300 without help (as far as I know) is amazing. They got their reward for having such a high ELO and risking it (key point) by being able to jump through the ranks easily with their rank_from_elo. 2200 tables would somewhat take away from this risk.

Also, Sinth at the moment is at 2204 and is ranked at 47th elo. I'd say that there are about 50 2.2kers, and there would very rarely be any games. I think that the 2.2k players coordinating their own games in the 2k tables is the way to go. I remember having to do that back in March/April, and it worked out fine.

What if we did this -- we called the 2200 table something different -- I like rnd's verbage, 'elistist bastards'.

That way people would know what they were getting into.

What do you think?

lol

The people with over 2200 elos are usually the people who play a lot. Aside from Stoude, I think almost everyone one with a 2200 elo plays regularly.

Who sits on an elo that is at the top of game?