PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion...


Captain.Canada
Nov 12th, 2004, 03:26 AM
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a limit to the amount of tournaments you can play per year?

I think so because it would bring a more realistic spin to the game. A few of us, myself included played 36 tournaments this year and it's not really realistic because no one on the WTA tour plays every week.

With a limit, it would also make it more realistic in that we could actually plan out a schedule and it would bring different people to different tournaments and the best players won't win all the time. It'll give others a shot.

I know some of you are probably thinking, just don't play as much, but when there's a limit, everyone will be at the same level.

Let's get the discussion going...

Hayato
Nov 12th, 2004, 03:43 AM
Yeah, it would be much more realistic so i'm with it :)

Hachiko
Nov 12th, 2004, 03:50 AM
I voted yes because I think it makes it more realistic.

wateva
Nov 12th, 2004, 05:08 AM
nah... how do u limit the number of tournament? one per person? not realistic at all...

kfh_9118
Nov 12th, 2004, 06:02 AM
I agree with the suggestion :D

SpikeyAidanm
Nov 12th, 2004, 06:51 AM
I'm for it :)

geegables
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:04 AM
i voted No because i thought it'd bore me cos i mainly come to the forum to play PAW but then i see ur suggestion and i agree from experience because everyone tends to play Tier 1's and so it would bring more people to the lower Tier's.

Mateo Mathieu
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:08 AM
I'm for it too :)

Chunchun
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Whatever ;) me dun mind

bionic71
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:29 AM
Always been supportive of a limit to the number of events entered.
I remember mentioning it a few times before....
Maybe limiting the number of events to somewhere between 25-30.

It allows you take time away from the game....eg holidays, exams, work commitments etc....
Removes the "pressure" of feeling that you have to play each week if you want to make the top 16....
and allows you to pick a "schedule" and gives more validity to the "commitments" rule because your choices are far more important.

I am also in favour of a ruling where the top 20 players MUST enter at least 2-3 Tier 3 or lower events each year...

Chunchun
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Yeah, it would be much more realistic so i'm with it :)
I voted yes because I think it makes it more realistic.

why??

is WTA also limiting player's amount of tournament they play?? :scratch: :shrug:

Hachiko
Nov 12th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Because there are players playing each week which never happens in the WTA.
I think it makes it more fair to other lower ranked players to improve their ranking.

Mr_Molik
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:30 AM
yea sounds good to me
but i dont want it limited too much

sandg
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:33 AM
i voted No because i thought it'd bore me cos i mainly come to the forum to play PAW but then i see ur suggestion and i agree from experience because everyone tends to play Tier 1's and so it would bring more people to the lower Tier's.

I agree fully to vote "NO"
If limited the amount of tournament, many players will make new account and they can play in every week.
As Organizer, I just want the game's rule is simple, not much controls.

bionic71
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:47 AM
I agree fully.
If limited the amount of tournament, many players will make new account and they can play in every week.
As Organizer, I just want the game's rule is simple, not much controls.
If limiting the number of events is difficult from an organisational point of view then maybe my suggestion of creating a rule that ensures that TOP20 or TOP30 players enter a set number of lower tierd events is a better idea???

I would have no objection to being told that my schedule MUST include a set number of TIER 3s or lower.

SpikeyAidanm
Nov 12th, 2004, 10:52 AM
I would have no objection to being told that my schedule MUST include a set number of TIER 3s or lower.

A lot of top tenners would be uncomfortable with that... and it would make contending for lower tiers even harder which isn't realistic as they should be for the lower ranked players.

P.S - my exams are now over :)

bionic71
Nov 12th, 2004, 11:03 AM
A lot of top tenners would be uncomfortable with that... and it would make contending for lower tiers even harder which isn't realistic as they should be for the lower ranked players.Excelllent news about your exams.....fingers and toes crossed for you.:)

If such changes are difficult from an administration/organisational level as sandg suggesed, then I see the problem and would not want a new rule to make life difficult for the admins of the game....that is simply counter-productive.
And as I am not involved in the weekly collation of results, picks etc then I am happy for the game to remain as is.

I cannot see why anyone from the top 10/20 would be uncomfortable with it....as it is only a game in the end....and if it proves to be a wrong move then it can be altered the following season

If the game is meant to be a reflection or parody of the WTATOUR then I think restrictions on events entered and spreading top player entry around lower tiers is a good way to add to the "realism" of PAW as a year long tour.
It is meant to be a fun game that operates in a similar fashion to the WTATOUR so I think both suggestions would actually be a positive thing.

It all depends on the amount of control admins/managers want to exercise over entry. As I said....I would have no problem if I was told that I must play in Shanghai and Canberra for instance...or wherever. It is then up to each indivdual to be creative with the rest of their schedule (assuming that the entry limit is imposed)...

Whatever is decided I am happy with.....I want what is best for the game and any new rules implimented MUST NOT make life even more difficult for the management team etc.

jrm
Nov 12th, 2004, 11:42 AM
If we would have limited amount of tournaments you can play what is the point of best of 17 (or 18) tournaments going into your final score? It's not like i'm going to be top in every tournament i play or score in every one of them!

In the end it still comes down to the player himself - some are busy with school, job or other activities therefore cannot play every week.

crazillo
Nov 12th, 2004, 02:19 PM
Against it.

ghosts
Nov 12th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Of course that I don't agree... that's ridiculous :o

OMG

WTA gave us the resolution of this problem long ago... Only best 17 tournaments count! The tour it's limited enough now and you see that there are PAW players with 36 tournaments played and still ranked about 40-50.

Captain.Canada
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:50 PM
why??

is WTA also limiting player's amount of tournament they play?? :scratch: :shrug:

Obviously no, but do you see any WTA players playing 36 tournaments a year??

With a limit, it would resemble the WTA a little more because WTA players can't physically play every week.

Captain.Canada
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:51 PM
If limited the amount of tournament, many players will make new account and they can play in every week.

This is going to happen whether or not there are limits.

Captain.Canada
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:52 PM
Always been supportive of a limit to the number of events entered.
I remember mentioning it a few times before....
Maybe limiting the number of events to somewhere between 25-30.

It allows you take time away from the game....eg holidays, exams, work commitments etc....
Removes the "pressure" of feeling that you have to play each week if you want to make the top 16....
and allows you to pick a "schedule" and gives more validity to the "commitments" rule because your choices are far more important.

This is very true! Good points!

Captain.Canada
Nov 12th, 2004, 07:57 PM
WTA gave us the resolution of this problem long ago... Only best 17 tournaments count!

The problem isn't exactly that.
I think that the problem is that the best players are always playing. By limiting the amount of tournaments someone can play, say to about 25 to 30, it would give more opportunities for lower ranked players to do well and also make it more realistic because no one plays every week in the WTA.

Captain.Canada
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:00 PM
I just think it would make the game a lot more intesting.
And from an organizational point of view, I can kinda see problems with making top 10's or top 20's play a certain amount of tier III's or whatever. So I'm not sure if I agree with that.

But for the limit, once you see that a player has reached the limit, in the tournament column, you just don't count their scores anymore.

Hantuchov
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:30 PM
I dont think so :o

The game would lose its fun if it starts to has a limit of tournaments, because the fun is based on coming to the board every day, every week, especially to play PAW.

I think that's not a good idea! :rolleyes:

And I really hope the rules wont change!!!

ghosts
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:54 PM
The problem isn't exactly that.
I think that the problem is that the best players are always playing. By limiting the amount of tournaments someone can play, say to about 25 to 30, it would give more opportunities for lower ranked players to do well and also make it more realistic because no one plays every week in the WTA.
You think 6 tournaments will make the difference???!

I really hope rules won't change... otherwise :o

speedster_
Nov 12th, 2004, 08:56 PM
big NO

Less players will be less interesting.
I hope the organizers won't do it, not good idea. :tape:

Not the reason, PAW players get top rank if play fully 36-37 tournament in a year. Last year, I started to play at April and finished at Top 5, but this year I played in 37 tournament finished at #27 :o . The key is how players can play well consistency.

Someone play in PAW not just catch up the ranking but also to see how good their betting. I feel the different thing if I wait the WTA results just for PAW. :)

andrew_uk
Nov 12th, 2004, 11:37 PM
I think there are very good points for both sides, and when I was reading the posts, it made my opinion keep swinging! But I think I will stay with my instinct, which is against this idea. As Luis said, PAW is great coz you have the freedom to come on any day to make your picks. If a limit rule was introduced, then I think it would only really work if you also implement a rule about which players can play which tournaments according to the rankings and tier levels. I also thought sandgs point was important. For sure anyone could make multiple accounts, but with limits, some people may feel they have more reason to make multiple accounts.

Hachiko
Nov 12th, 2004, 11:52 PM
I think whether or not there are limits people are still going to create new accounts.
There doesnt have to be a huge cut off limit.

SpikeyAidanm
Nov 13th, 2004, 12:25 AM
I'm sort of shifting to saying it should not be implemented.

I think it is fine the way it is.

I'd like the 2-month member rule to stand tho. ;)

millenia
Nov 13th, 2004, 12:37 AM
yes för because too many players playing for every week

:tennis:

Wiggly
Nov 13th, 2004, 01:33 AM
OMG!

Yes: 14 votes
No: 14 votes
I don't know: 2 votes

I voted NO, sorry Nathan but bad players like me need to play many tournaments :devil:

Captain.Canada
Nov 13th, 2004, 03:12 AM
...the fun is based on coming to the board every day, every week, especially to play PAW.

This is a good point!

Captain.Canada
Nov 13th, 2004, 03:14 AM
:lol: don't worry about it Wiggly.
It was just a suggestion to make the game more realistic.
It would take away from those who like to come here every day.

Captain.Canada
Nov 13th, 2004, 03:16 AM
It allows you take time away from the game....eg holidays, exams, work commitments etc....
Removes the "pressure" of feeling that you have to play each week if you want to make the top 16....

This was pretty much the reason for the suggestion!
I want to spend less time on the internet and more time getting homework done and getting in shape!

Pintaled
Nov 13th, 2004, 04:33 AM
against it.

I think the top 16 who made the race are a pretty good indication of the best 16 players this year, even kafelek who didn't play a season finished 10th!

lol my week would be dull without PAW, so please don't limit it. :)

Nochi
Nov 13th, 2004, 04:40 AM
wanna play too maybe next year

bionic71
Nov 13th, 2004, 04:54 AM
For me the reason for participaring in PAW is that is a parody of the WTA TOUR.....as a result the notion of participating every week makes it seem less like a "real" tour and less realistic.

As a counter argument though...it is a game and maybe it shouldn't attempt to mimic a real tour so rigidly...

If restrictions are not imposed on entry I will probably just limit my own schedule to make the game more attractive for myself as a participant.

At the moment I find myself often entering an event without any sort of strategy or goal and just pick for picks sake....and I think this occurs because players do feel a need to enter each week if they want to have any chance of finishing in the final 16 places.

Not participating some weeks would actually make the game more interesting from my perspective. Rest weeks are a normal aspect of a professional tennis players schedule

In addition...If players are are going to be a nuisnace and create fake accounts etc...there is very little that can be done about such pathetic behaviour...they have their own conscience to deal with and usually they grow tired of it anyway (as has been proven many times)

In the end I am happy with whatever decision is made...as long as admins do not have to contend with more work....as the game must be enjoyable for them as well.

Captain.Canada
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:09 AM
Once again, great points bionic.
I agree with everything you say.

Hachiko
Nov 13th, 2004, 06:15 AM
I think all the people voting no are the top ten players.
All the people voting yes are all players from the 100-200 range.
Maybe its just me or is this saying something?

Mateo Mathieu
Nov 13th, 2004, 12:14 PM
Hmm, I changed my mind! I'm against it!

Hachiko
Nov 14th, 2004, 04:19 AM
How do we know all the people voting are PAW players?

K&J fan
Nov 16th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Well, I read through the whole thread, and I saw some interesting stuff, but in the end I tend to be against the idea.

After all it's a virtual game, so the feeling of realism is only an illusion. Trying to take in consideration anything possible to make it more realistic seems not the direction to me this game needs to be going. Unlike irl the factor of physical tiredness of the players doesn't play a role in PAW, so we can say at some point we are more perfect than the real players ;) . In the end, it has to be said not a lot of PAW'ers got injured because they played like 36 tourneys a year :p

Great idea nathan, and always good to think about this game, but I'm saying no. :wavey:

saab95
Nov 16th, 2004, 10:09 AM
I like the bionic's point if view.
Can add we have keep our health too!

But I think we can't make additional problems for Organizers

So have to vote "No"

SpikeyAidanm
Sep 6th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Bump, we really need this rule for next year.

bionic71
Sep 6th, 2005, 10:30 AM
I'm not going to repeat the posts I made last year, or the year before that.......

I am still heavily in favour of limiting tournament entries, just as I have always been.

As long as the rules are easy to follow and implementation is not too much of a nightmare for organisers.

jrm
Sep 6th, 2005, 01:49 PM
It should remain as it is - it's a game and as much as it resembles the real WTA it's still a GAME!

Therefore everyone should have an chance to play this game every week. In the end it really doesn't matter how many tournaments you play per year ... only best 17 (or 18) go in your score!

Different suggestion: we should really reform the scoring system bacuase we have more and more players playing PAW!

~CANUCK~
Sep 6th, 2005, 06:05 PM
Bump, we really need this rule for next year.
why?

416_Man
Sep 6th, 2005, 08:33 PM
If you wish to not play, feel free not to. Don't waste it for the rest of us.

andrew_uk
Sep 6th, 2005, 08:55 PM
I'm fine with 1 tournament per week, if more players play then just revise the ranking points :) :wavey:

Hayato
Sep 6th, 2005, 09:23 PM
I still think that playing 1 tournament per week is pretty unrealistic.

James
Sep 6th, 2005, 09:52 PM
I think it's best to decide on changes at the end of the current season (so that emotions about missed picks in recent tournaments do not affect people's judgement).

Hayato
Sep 6th, 2005, 11:21 PM
I think it's best to decide on changes at the end of the current season (so that emotions about missed picks in recent tournaments do not affect people's judgement).

I hope you're not referring to me :p I've always thought the same thing. When you have 120 players playing a Tier III, i think this rule should take effect ;)

416_Man
Sep 7th, 2005, 02:40 AM
I hope you're not referring to me :p I've always thought the same thing. When you have 120 players playing a Tier III, i think this rule should take effect ;)

What's wrong having 120 PAWers at the event? If you lose and be in 119th place, atleast you'll lose to the best PAWers, rather than winning the Tier III in a field of 4. Where you won simply because other players didn't bother.

A better solution would be to have a challenger during that week (50 and 75k)

Hayato
Sep 7th, 2005, 03:36 AM
What's wrong having 120 PAWers at the event? If you lose and be in 119th place, atleast you'll lose to the best PAWers, rather than winning the Tier III in a field of 4. Where you won simply because other players didn't bother.

A better solution would be to have a challenger during that week (50 and 75k)

umm probably because only half the players will get points. it's bad for those players who have points to defend.

Hachiko
Sep 7th, 2005, 06:00 AM
100's of players = chaos.

James
Sep 7th, 2005, 07:00 AM
I hope you're not referring to me :p I've always thought the same thing. When you have 120 players playing a Tier III, i think this rule should take effect ;)

No, it was a comment in general, so it was not aimed at you. :p

SpikeyAidanm
Sep 7th, 2005, 07:36 AM
I just feel like I'm forced to play tourneys to make the Race, even tho I should take breaks for mental health. Anyway I guess PAW is a love or hate thing.

rrfnpump
Sep 7th, 2005, 02:10 PM
why is it important for you to make the race???

I feel like all players who take PAW really serious vote YES and all others who just take it as a game vote No

Im also fine with playing 1 tourney a week, but I had 3 breaks this year. Everybody can decide on his own. Rankings and Race to the Champs are not so important for me

~CANUCK~
Sep 7th, 2005, 04:14 PM
I just feel like I'm forced to play tourneys to make the Race, even tho I should take breaks for mental health. Anyway I guess PAW is a love or hate thing.

So then change the race points. Only take the best i dunno 20 results or something. This i agree with, because i wouldn't mind taking one or 2 weeks off from the game during the year. But limiting my amount of playing time is a bad way to go about it. If you do this alot of smaller events will die because no one will be playing them.

jrm
Sep 7th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Those who want to play PAW every week - DO IT!

Those who don't want to play every week - MAKE A YEAR'S PLAN!

LUXXXAS
Sep 7th, 2005, 05:53 PM
:eek: strange poll........ totally agree with jrm. As we can see in the ranking-you can be a newcomer and be in top 10 playing less than 20 tournaments in a year and you can be outside of top 100 with 35 tournaments in the ranking. All depends from your play like in a real WTA Tour. Everyone at the start of the tournament has the same chance to win. And if you are talking about realistic-look at the WTA ranking-some players were playing 34 tournaments in a year and we can play 36 tournaments from the beginning of this year till the end and 37 with YEC. It's not a big difference between our game and real WTA Tour...

Slumpsova
Sep 8th, 2005, 02:22 PM
i love playing every week. it must be boring coming into this board without PAWing someone :D