PDA

View Full Version : Cut off for PAW commitment!


Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 07:55 AM
HI guys ;)

I would like to rise the issue about Cut off the commitment

As The Game based on WTA Tour, maybe we can also follow their rule

For me seems a little bit hard for everyone to compete IF so many ppl in one event (Like This week 50+ Doha & 50+ Acapulco)

For ppl who doesn't make the cut or they even don't commit can't play the Main Draw, and they can play for the Qualifying Round, The TOP 10 PAW players on each Qualy Round will get their place into The Main Draw.

For me, it's a little bit UNFAIR If someone suddenly ask for play/WC without commit themself, it would ruin someone chances to play.

Please, we have to discuss this!

Thanks

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 5th, 2004, 08:56 AM
For ppl who doesn't make the cut or they even don't commit can't play the Main Draw, and they can play for the Qualifying Round, The TOP 10 PAW players on each Qualy Round will get their place into The Main Draw.

Well "PAW Qualifying" is actually a separate game, so if we were to introduce a qualifying PAW, it would be a confusing fiasco.

kj-
Mar 5th, 2004, 09:07 AM
agree.. :)

kj-
Mar 5th, 2004, 09:07 AM
.. at both.. confused.. :o

matthias
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:04 AM
maybe make a limit of played Tournaments per year
this would mean the top players would play more the tier 1 and tier 2 events.
and the lower tier events are for the lower ranked players, like on real tour.

maybe
13 tournaments per year, + 4 Grand Slams = 17 tournaments

this would mean, the players have to make her schedule more carefull, because a bad result will count for sure.
and to make a smart Schedule would bring a new dimension into the game.

just a idea

matthias
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:05 AM
sure, it will be hard to start with the limit of tournaments in the middle of the season.
but maybe you can find a way :wavey:

matthias
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:08 AM
maybe there is a chance to combinate cut-off with limit off tournaments
but without qualifiyng

make a limit for players per tournament (maybe 50 @ Tier 2 like Doha this week)
and then look at the entries and just the top50 entered players can play.
the other have to play the lower event in this week, or have to wait til the next week.

players need to add a 1st choice and 2nd choice behind her commitments in the commitment thread. like on real WTA-Tour too.

ghosts
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:21 AM
17 tournaments per year is absurd... ppl will forget when to play... :rolleyes:

I think the current way of running the game is ok... :yeah:

Maybe when we have 32 players draw, no more than 64 should play PAW
64 players draw --> 128 PAW players
Grand Slams --> all PAW players

that means that the lower ranked players will have to wait for a bigger tournament and perform well in order to gain better ranking...

matthias
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:27 AM
i think the main question is

has the guy/girl who make the point-table and the scores, problems with more then 50 players or even more then 75 players in a PAW Tier 2 tournament ?

if not, then it could stay like it is, because it is no problem if just the top32 or top64 get points. because noone can expect to get points for a poor performence.

sandg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:31 AM
I'm agree with current way

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:34 AM
The PAW Qualy I meant is not the same like the other PAW Qualifying ;)

What I mean was :

* Cut off the commitment

Example :
Grand Slams -----> All players can participate
Tier I (with 128 / 64 Draw)----> All Players can participate
Tier I (with 32 Draw)----> 32 MD the rest can be at QD
Tier II (with 64 Draw)----> 64 MD the rest can be at QD
Tier II (with 32 Draw)-----> 32 MD 32 QD
and so on.....

Note:
QD (Qualy Draw) it's NOT the Qualifying Round at WTA real events, THEY STILL Pick the matches from the real MD, ONLY points proportion is different ... so basically it's just like different grouping, REMEMBER they still competing/Pick Main Draw matches!

Example:
Tier I (32 Draw)
TOP 32 PAW players who commit before the deadline will automatically at MD
Rank below 32, can be play as the QD

GROUP I - Main Draw players (Rank 1-32) will still use:
Ranking Points for Doha

1st --- 195
2nd --- 137
3rd --- 101
4th ---- 80
5th ---- 65
6th ---- 57
7th ---- 49

GROUP II - QD (Player Rank below 32)

1th-------120
2nd-------90
3rd--------75
4th--------55
5th--------40

zorgzamesnip
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:36 AM
This has been discussed at the end of last year, and the result was to leave it like it is now...
If we were to change it, I think everybody should be able to play when they want to, so restricting the number of players of every tournament is not a good idea.
Maybe we can limit the number of players in the biggest tournament of the week. Lower ranked players will have to play smaller tournaments, but can still play every week. Players who commit to the biggest tournament, should all post second choice tournaments, so when they don't make the cut, they will be automaticly entered in the second tournament of their choice.

Another thing is that there should be a penalty for commiting and not making a single pick. If someone does that, he/she takes a spot from someone else who really wanted to play, but couldn't because of his/her poor ranking. I propose that when you commit, but don't play, you will be considerd as NR for the following tournament you commited (and so face a big possibility of not been able to participate). This is off course only for the tournaments where the number of players is restricted.

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:38 AM
* My suggestion also Help lower rank player who really need to catch up or perform even better than TOP players

* Because of the grouping and points system above (post #11) so lower rank player can gain pts as well :)

* Also, I don't really like people playing without commit themself and suddenly ask for a WC if they feel like want to play :(

ghosts
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Maybe we can limit the number of players in the biggest tournament of the week. Lower ranked players will have to play smaller tournaments, but can still play every week. Players who commit to the biggest tournament, should all post second choice tournaments, so when they don't make the cut, they will be automaticly entered in the second tournament of their choice.
I agree, that's the best idea... :yeah:

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:40 AM
Guys...:)

I didn't meant that all lower rank players can NOT play PAW, what I meant is just a grouping system which is help them to rise from the bottom of the ladder...to make this game more competitive.

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Oh well...I'm sure some of them are agree with my idea ;)

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:43 AM
The other think is....for me it doesn't make any sense IF ONLY Tier II event, and more than 60 ppl play PAW in the same group!

zorgzamesnip
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Your idea is not bad, however, i think there are some problems with working in 2 groups:
What when something like this happens:
Group 1(MD):
player1: 150p
player2: 148p
.....

Group 2 (qualifiers):
player1: 200p
player2: 194p
player3: 170p
...

I know it is a bid unrealistic, but still, players in the second group have no chance of winning the tournament. I think everybody who enters a tournament, should have a chance of winning.

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:49 AM
All the league table also grouping...so the QD group players can't gain the pts from The MD group ;)

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Even player 1 (from QD group) has a 200 pts and Player 2 (from MD Group) has 50 pts, they can't be in the same league...as they have to be at their own grouping league table :)

zorgzamesnip
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:54 AM
That's not fair I think, the person who won the most points should be the winner of the tournament. It's not because they just aren't ranked high enough to be in the MD-group that they don't deserve to win.

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:58 AM
Well ... pls tell me, IF they compete with other 60+ ppl in the same event (say Tier II)...I know they have chances to win, but hell 1:60

Isn't better they have their own grouping, they still have to compete with 32 player (the odd to win 1:32) with a little bit pts different as the MD grouping

Which one r u prefer?

ghosts
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:01 AM
The only possible thingis that top ranked players play the top event of the week and the weaker players play the weaker tournament...

For example 48 players enter Doha this week
and all other play Acapulco (of course top players still can choose to play the weaker tournament)

Next week when we have only Indian Wells, all players will play it, of course... That will be chance for the lower-ranked to win big points...

:)

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:03 AM
Let's say as an example :

Tier II Doha

MD Group to WIN 195 pts (with 60+ players to compete)
Remember ONLY 1st - 48th Place get the pts, the other get BIG 0

QD Group to WIN 175 pts (with 32 players to compete)
At least the last place (32nd) still get a pts

zorgzamesnip
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:03 AM
This is actually a difficult thing to decide upon: At first it looks alright, because you try and help the lower ranked players. But if you think this trough, you will see that by giving the lower ranked players a seperate league table (and seperate lower ranking points), you also give the higher ranked players an easier acces to higher ranking points... So in the end the lower ranked players will have it even harder to catch up, I think.

1 league table: every player 1/60 chance of wining 195 points

2 league tables: top 30 players 1/30 chance of wining 195 points
lower ranked players: 1/30 chance of wining 120 points

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:08 AM
This is actually a difficult thing to decide upon: At first it looks alright, because you try and help the lower ranked players. But if you think this trough, you will see that by giving the lower ranked players a seperate league table (and seperate lower ranking points), you also give the higher ranked players an easier acces to higher ranking points... So in the end the lower ranked players will have it even harder to catch up, I think.

1 league table: every player 1/60 chance of wining 195 points

2 league tables: top 30 players 1/30 chance of wining 195 points
lower ranked players: 1/30 chance of wining 120 points
I try to help lower rank player without ignoring the higher rank player ;)

OR other wise IF we think all about the lower rank and forgetting about the higher, it won't be a fairgo

zorgzamesnip
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:14 AM
The question is: do we have to think about the lower ranked players that much? I mean, if we let them play tournaments and they are good, they will end high, gain ranking points, and climb in the rankings. If they don't play good, nomatter what system you use, they will not gain points, and stay ranked low. I think that as long as we can find a way to let the lower ranked players to play in the tournaments, we don't have to try and find a special treatment for them. If we decide to limit the number of entries into a tournament, we just have to make sure they can play somewhere else.

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:14 AM
and this grouping is NOT apply to GS/Tier I (128)

Buitenzorg
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:17 AM
The question is: do we have to think about the lower ranked players that much? I mean, if we let them play tournaments and they are good, they will end high, gain ranking points, and climb in the rankings. If they don't play good, nomatter what system you use, they will not gain points, and stay ranked low. I think that as long as we can find a way to let the lower ranked players to play in the tournaments, we don't have to try and find a special treatment for them. If we decide to limit the number of entries into a tournament, we just have to make sure they can play somewhere else.
it's not only that ;)

For me it's just so many ppl in Tier II (example) like 60+ or maybe even 70 to competing for ONLY 195 pts

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:42 AM
Put it this way:

PAW is not going to introduce qualifying. That is out of the question with another simultaneous game running as well.

I have no idea why you don't like the current system, I mean there are 41 players in Acapulco and 62 players in Doha, that's about as good as it gets :shrug:

I had already introduced a rule last year that there must be at least 12 players in a tournament (instead of 6), for it to go ahead, and you are always guarenteed more, so that dealt with the varying tournament sizes IMO. We have seen a greater distribution of players in all tournaments this year, than ever.

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:44 AM
If new changes were to be implemented, they won't take effect this year.

The entry system if proposed will be extremely complex and discussions will take months.

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:53 AM
In the off-season, me and sandg were doing lots of work on a new rankign system that would coutneract this whole commitment idea and in fact make up for it, the rankign distribution is greater than it was before, and I think it is as fair as can be.

kj-
Mar 5th, 2004, 12:05 PM
maybe make a limit of played Tournaments per year
this would mean the top players would play more the tier 1 and tier 2 events.
and the lower tier events are for the lower ranked players, like on real tour.

maybe
13 tournaments per year, + 4 Grand Slams = 17 tournaments

this would mean, the players have to make her schedule more carefull, because a bad result will count for sure.
and to make a smart Schedule would bring a new dimension into the game.

just a idea
this is even better!! :D :eek: :D

Captain.Canada
Mar 5th, 2004, 09:26 PM
I personally agree with zorgzamesnip.
I don't agree with the two groupings for one tournament. It will make it harder for lower ranked players to get higher even if they are beating everyone.
I think they're should be a cut-off for the top tournament of the week. If it's a 32-player draw, I don't think that the commitment should be limited to 32 players though, I think it should be available to around 50 players or so.. and the rest have to go to the lower ranked tournament. And I also agree that there should be penalties for people who skip out on their commitments. I liked idea of a NR for the next tournament.
Right now as it is, the whole commitment thing seems pointless when you can enter 2 days in advance. The point of commitments is to get the best players in your tournament. I agree with Buitenzorg when he says that a wildcard can enter a tier I or tier II tournament a couple days in advance and win the tournament. You don't see that in the WTA. A newcomer would have to climb the rankings first through the ITF or the lower tier tournaments to gain points and only then would they enter into the top tournaments.
But the thing is, maybe actual useful commitments is too complicated for PAW.
And also it may not be fair to the people who don't have access to the internet all the time and may not be able to get to a computer to post picks or sign up on time.

blerr
Mar 8th, 2004, 07:10 AM
I think it's fine the way it is......the people who are suggesting that there are cut-offs are higher ranked players...and the people who are suggesting that there be a limit to tournaments and a second tournament commitment or whatever are higher ranked PAW players as well....haha its like prejudice to lower ranked PAW players :rolleyes:....just leave PAW how it is..it's great right now! Because the only people suggesting ideas are ranked inside the top 80-100...

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 8th, 2004, 07:11 AM
i think the main question is

has the guy/girl who make the point-table and the scores, problems with more then 50 players or even more then 75 players in a PAW Tier 2 tournament ?

if not, then it could stay like it is, because it is no problem if just the top32 or top64 get points. because noone can expect to get points for a poor performence.

No, we are fine handling the current player data flow.

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 8th, 2004, 07:13 AM
I think the current system is best for newcomers and they shouldn't be pendered to a disadvantage. :)

blerr
Mar 8th, 2004, 07:22 AM
good....cause if you change it to what some people are suggesting ..it will make some players not want to play anymore I think..

Captain.Canada
Mar 8th, 2004, 07:34 AM
Ya, I'm fine with the way it is. I thought that the PAW managers were trying to limit the amount of players or something because there were too many players and it was too much work.
I thought that was why they were not allowing people to play PAW unless they had been members for 3 months.

SpikeyAidanm
Mar 8th, 2004, 07:35 AM
I thought that was why they were not allowing people to play PAW unless they had been members for 3 months.

That rule was implemented with the aim to deter those who like playing with multiple accounts ;)

kfh_9118
Mar 8th, 2004, 11:08 AM
I am fine with the current system.
With all the proposed idea, I think it will disadvantage the lower rank players more than the higher rank players.

I know it's harder to win when there are more and more competitors in a tournament. But again, if you are really good at picking a winner, I think at the end, you will end up on the top of the ranking. The current system gives equal opportunity for all players. Just because you are ranked low does not mean that you are not belong in the same group with the higher ranked. In this game, everyone can win, no matter how low your ranking is.

The problem with the cut off system:
* It will force lower ranked players to enter the lower tier tournaments and gain lesser points. It will make it even harder to catch up with the rest of the others.
* Some people, like me, choose which tournament to enter not only based on the tier level of the tournament, but also will depend on which tournament my favourite players play that week. For me, it is more exciting to play PAW in the tournament when my favourite players play too.

The problem with the grouping system:
* Say we have Group A for people who made the cut-off and Group B for people who didn't make it. Both group pick on the same matches. At the end, say Player 1 is the winner of Group A with the total points of 150 (points from picking the winners, not for ranking), and Player 2 wins Group B with 160 points. Technically, player 2 is a better player in this tournament than player 1, but because of this grouping system, the winner is Player 1, and he/she gets more ranking points than player 2. Does it make sense? Do you think after this, player 2 will ever want to continue play PAW again? Clearly, he/she wins the title, but too bad his/her ranking is so low that he/she does not deserve the win.

I have no problem with the limiting of the number of tournaments suggested by matthias. Although I think people will lose track of how many tournaments have they played, and some people will lose interest with this game if they don't play it regularly. I still prefer the current system. Although the more you play, it seems that the higher ranking you will get, but for me, it's kind of the pay-back for all your hard work and time spent for this game. So, it's fair.

Sorry if I offended some of your ideas. I don't mean to, I just disagree with them.

Great job to all PAW organizers :wavey:

sandg
Mar 8th, 2004, 01:28 PM
I agree with kfh_9118's opinion.
I think current system is ok for recent number of players. If too much regulations, the game will be not funny.
I enjoy played PAW Games because I can bet the matches and made strategy. I don't know if I play in limited tournaments (17) in a year.

Buitenzorg
Mar 9th, 2004, 06:11 AM
Ok guys ;)

Thanks for all your thought :)

Maybe the PAW organisers can think with the better idea.

azza
Mar 9th, 2004, 06:37 AM
everyone should get points for coming 1st or 200th :)