1 - 20 of 35 Posts

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
I think that, besides your idea of having players guess the number of games in the final match and results used to resolve ties (which I think is good), it could be fun and possibly useful if we would have seeded players in every tournament. For instance, after every tournament top 4 players in the rankings are awarded seedings for the next tournament, which would mean an extra point for each of them before the first round. For the very first tournament of the next season, seeded could be those who finish this season as the top 4.

DarkchildSwiss

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,279 Posts
I think that the tie-brake system suggested by ronim1 is fine. Other possible solutions could be that we count backwards meaning if several players have the same amount of points we compare how many points they received in F, SF, QF and so on or that the player wins who has the most correct picks.

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
I think that the tie-brake system suggested by ronim1 is fine. Other possible solutions could be that we count backwards meaning if several players have the same amount of points we compare how many points they received in F, SF, QF and so on or that the player wins who has the most correct picks.
I think your first idea is great - counting backwards. It would be even easier than that suggested by ronim1 (not to mention compared to mine:lol, cause in case of a tie we would simply state that the winner is the person who guessed the winner of finals. If they're still tied we'd compare how much points they've earned in semis, and if they're still tied we'd compare their points from quarters. I think it's a really great idea and would be very easy to implement it.

I'm not sure about the "number of correct picks" suggestion though, cause there's 31 match played during every tournament so it might be complicated.

DarkchildSwiss

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,279 Posts
I think your first idea is great - counting backwards. It would be even easier than that suggested by ronim1 (not to mention compared to mine:lol, cause in case of a tie we would simply state that the winner is the person who guessed the winner of finals. If they're still tied we'd compare how much points they've earned in semis, and if they're still tied we'd compare their points from quarters. I think it's a really great idea and would be very easy to implement it.

I'm not sure about the "number of correct picks" suggestion though, cause there's 31 match played during every tournament so it might be complicated.
I am happy that you like the idea with counting backwards which is also used in other games if I am right.

Concerning the "number of correct picks" it is not so difficult to calculate. Here is an example:

mare: 8 7 6 8 5 = 34

This would mean that you have would have 21 correct picks [8 (1 point per pick) +7 (1 point per pick) + 3 (2 points per pick) + 2 (4 points per pick) + 1 (5 points per pick)].

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
You're right, it's not difficult, but counting backwards is still easier so I'd go with that unless it's forbiden to take rules from other games (in case that's one of such rules).

49295

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,201 Posts
Discussion Starter
Darkchild's suggestion looks fine by me also, also the most correct picks. Actually, the later looks even more "fair", as it judges the player's ability throughout the whole tourney.

As a compromise, we can always use the counting backwards system as a tie brake for the other solution.

Of course I'm also in favour of giving seeds any kind of benefits. (I'm ranked 3rd . I'm sure that darkchild will approve also as possible champion of this year.)

Bye the way, it's a pity we don't have an accumulation system, only a race.

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
Bye the way, it's a pity we don't have an accumulation system, only a race.
Yes, but it would be too dificult since the number of points a player gets is diferent for almost every tournament (due to points earned for correct guesses).

It would be possible if we wouldn't count those points for rankings (if we would just count bonus points), but in that case only 8 players would get points from each tournament and the game would, I think, start to look too much like real tennis.

49295

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,201 Posts
Discussion Starter
Yes, but it would be too dificult since the number of points a player gets is diferent for almost every tournament (due to points earned for correct guesses).

It would be possible if we wouldn't count those points for rankings (if we would just count bonus points), but in that case only 8 players would get points from each tournament and the game would, I think, start to look too much like real tennis.
The way to do this would be to use the "next off" according to weeks#, regardless of what has been a year before.
In the long run everything would sum up the right way.

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
The way to do this would be to use the "next off" according to weeks#, regardless of what has been a year before.
In the long run everything would sum up the right way.
Not sure I follow - what do you mean by "next off"?

Another idea - maybe it would be good if we would allow only the top 30 from the rankings to play tier I and tier II tournaments, and only top 15 to play slams.

49295

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,201 Posts
Discussion Starter
Not sure I follow - what do you mean by "next off"?

Another idea - maybe it would be good if we would allow only the top 30 from the rankings to play tier I and tier II tournaments, and only top 15 to play slams.
"next off"
example- week two rating list will show how many rating point each player had earned last year's week 3, and those points will be deleted in week three's rating;' before adding the new ones

Regarding to limit participants according to rating, I personally believe in "the more the merrier".
Also there are not too may players, so it will look a little sad.

What I do think should change is the possibility to participate in more than one tourney per week.
I think each week should be only one played, the on with the higest tier.

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
"next off"
example- week two rating list will show how many rating point each player had earned last year's week 3, and those points will be deleted in week three's rating;' before adding the new ones

Regarding to limit participants according to rating, I personally believe in "the more the merrier".
Also there are not too may players, so it will look a little sad.

What I do think should change is the possibility to participate in more than one tourney per week.
I think each week should be only one played, the on with the higest tier.
Ah now I get what you meant - like, you only have a 52 week ranking so points earned prior to 52 weeks ago are erased; I like the idea! But rankings should be updated after every tournament, with no exceptions.

I agree that there's not too many players at the moment, but at times there's about 20 playing the same tournament which might be a lot for the moderator - don't know since I've never moderated a tournament. It could get complicated with all the new rules.

I also like your last idea - only tournament of the highest rank to be played each week, cause it's not easy to follow all the matches and make all the tipps if there's more than one tournament going on.

DarkchildSwiss

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,279 Posts
zveeen updated the normal ramkings and the race weekly but then it stopped and only the race was updated. I think that the race is enough and that no picks should be deleted because next year there will be a totally different schedule.

From my point of view the highest tournament should be played and only one tournament per week.

Marco-Nicole

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Hello guys,

since I'm manager of Tipping I'm very pleased to view that the game is popular.
In my opinion I'll accept all your final decisions for the system but I want to take a my little final decision only for these points:

- there will be only Race
- there will be not points to defend

For any other question you can discuss by yourselves and then one of you send me pm or write here in bold the final decision, ok?

:worship::wavey:

49295

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,201 Posts
Discussion Starter
I have no objections to Marco's statement about not playing the 56 weeks games.
( I'm not sure I understand the "only one race " statement.

Let me try so summarize the issues on hand

1) Tie brake-
Solution a: sending number of games prediction either by PM to manager ,or
posting them, posts cannot be repeated., or ma re's proposal, but I
think we all agree it's a bit too complicated
Solution b: counting number or correct picks throughout the whole tourney
Solution c: ma re's proposal, but I think we all agree it's a bit too complicated
2) Playing only one tourney each week- the highest tier.
I think we could also review the pointing system ( is this the right terminology?)
Maybe we should change this too . Example – 1st round 1 point ,second 2 and so on, until SF and finals- just a thought.

Anyway, do you think we should post a poll on our recommendations?

·
Let's have a kiki!
Joined
·
102,623 Posts
Well, I loved the old style of tipping when zveeen was running it:weirdo:
OOP, Weekly Ranks and Race, 1 tournament a week...
And I also think there should be more people running the tournaments than only Marco
:wavey:

49295

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,201 Posts
Discussion Starter
I think there's another issue which should be discussed.
What are the rules of withdrawals.
Should we accept any kind of pick changes, as long as the match hasn't started?

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
I think there's another issue which should be discussed.
What are the rules of withdrawals.
Should we accept any kind of pick changes, as long as the match hasn't started?
I think that should stay as it is.

But I got an idea regarding players missing picks for some days - maybe that should be penalized by taking away one point for each day missed?

And another idea. I don't think all tournament should receive same bonus points; not because of the playing field, but because of the number of matches. So, I'd keep current bonus points for all 32-player tournaments, but would make diferent bonus point distributions for tournaments with more players. For instance, if there's 3 rounds to play before quarters, winner of the tournament should win 160, finalist 120, semifinalists 80 and quarterfinalists 60 bonus points. If there are 4 rounds to play before quarters (like in slams or some of the biggest tournaments), winner should get 200, finalist 150, semifinalists 100 and quarterfinalists 75 points. Something like this should be employed because it's more dificult to win tournaments with more matches, since there's a greater chance of mistakes.

49295

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,201 Posts
Discussion Starter
But I got an idea regarding players missing picks for some days - maybe that should be penalized by taking away one point for each day missed?
I think not getting points for missing picks is penalty enough.

Regarding points distribution- I'm not sure about your suggestion.
The more rounds there are in the tourney, the more points you can accumulate anyway, so why adding for bonuses?
But I wouldn't fight over your suggestion.
If the others like your Idea, it would be fine by me

ma re

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,588 Posts
Regarding points distribution- I'm not sure about your suggestion.
The more rounds there are in the tourney, the more points you can accumulate anyway, so why adding for bonuses?
Simply because, the more matches there is, more chances to miss i.e. harder to win the tourney. Glad you don't object this, I think it might make things more interesting.

1 - 20 of 35 Posts