Thread Tools

A_Skywalker · 02-18-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol Apollo

Would it be possible to have a thread tracking who has won what tournaments (and possibly who they played in the final)?

You mean something like statistics , it will be super if we just save in one thread the matches played in every tournament as a statistic

Gavnich77 · 02-24-2006, 12:41 PM

Question
Should all the tournaments that you play count towards your ranking or should we use a best of system where your best xx results count so that the people who can't play every week aren't penalised? We could count quite a large number of tournaments, say between 25 and 30 but allow people to have a few weeks where they can't play because of holidays, illness, computer problems, etc. What does everyone think?

Labamba · 02-24-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavnich77

Question
Should all the tournaments that you play count towards your ranking or should we use a best of system where your best xx results count so that the people who can't play every week aren't penalised? We could count quite a large number of tournaments, say between 25 and 30 but allow people to have a few weeks where they can't play because of holidays, illness, computer problems, etc. What does everyone think?

I agree with Gavnich, we should have some limit for the number of results which will count.

I think we could use the 'WTA system' for this game, so the best 18 results from all the tournaments would count for your ranking.

Quote:

A system similar to the WTA tour, all tournaments are optional, best 18 count. This will also include both a race and an entry ranking, but no mandatory tournaments.

invu2day · 02-24-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavnich77

Question
Should all the tournaments that you play count towards your ranking or should we use a best of system where your best xx results count so that the people who can't play every week aren't penalised? We could count quite a large number of tournaments, say between 25 and 30 but allow people to have a few weeks where they can't play because of holidays, illness, computer problems, etc. What does everyone think?

Labamba's idea is good or we could copy the exact same from ATP to include all Grandslams, all Masters series and 5 best others then we can have a Masters Cup at the of the year for the top 8 players.

keqtqiadv · 02-24-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invu2day

Labamba's idea is good or we could copy the exact same from ATP to include all Grandslams, all Masters series and 5 best others then we can have a Masters Cup at the of the year for the top 8 players.

Yes, I like the ATP idea. But if someone is unable to play a TMS, for instance, will this player be able to have a sixth best result?

Labamba · 02-24-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invu2day

Labamba's idea is good or we could copy the exact same from ATP to include all Grandslams, all Masters series and 5 best others then we can have a Masters Cup at the of the year for the top 8 players.

We can have the Masters Cup with the best 18 system too. I think the best 18 system is better suited for this game than the ATP system... if you miss the big tournaments, you can't replace them!

Gavnich77 · 02-24-2006, 01:42 PM

I prefer using the best number of results rather than having mandatory tournaments as it penalises people for not being able to play on certain weeks. I think we can use a higher number of tournaments than the ATP/WTA as well - I would say at least 20 as I would estimate that regular players of this game would play around 30 tournaments a year and we shouldn't discard too many "bad" results.

keqtqiadv · 02-24-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labamba

We can have the Masters Cup with the best 18 system too. I think the best 18 system is better suited for this game than the ATP system... if you miss the big tournaments, you can't replace them!

In ATP, you must not replace your miss in a big tournament if you are ranked to be in entry list. I think it could be adapted for TT. But WTA rule is also a good idea, although it lowers the prestige of GSs and TMS.

Labamba · 02-24-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavnich77

I prefer using the best number of results rather than having mandatory tournaments as it penalises people for not being able to play on certain weeks. I think we can use a higher number of tournaments than the ATP/WTA as well - I would say at least 20 as I would estimate that regular players of this game would play around 30 tournaments a year and we shouldn't discard too many "bad" results.

I don't mind if we have more tournaments than the best 18, maybe best 20? But the more tournaments we count for the ranking, the less importance it gives to big tournaments...

In this game even the top players are going to have many first round defeats, because there are no big differences between players. That's why there shouldn't be any mandatory tournaments...

Labamba · 02-24-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

In ATP, you must not replace your miss in a big tournament if you are ranked to be in entry list. I think it could be adapted for TT. But WTA rule is also a good idea, although it lowers the prestige of GSs and TMS.

If you can replace the big tournaments, how will it be different from the WTA system? We don't have any entry lists in this game...

Maybe we should make a poll about this question?

Gavnich77 · 02-24-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

In ATP, you must not replace your miss in a big tournament if you are ranked to be in entry list. I think it could be adapted for TT. But WTA rule is also a good idea, although it lowers the prestige of GSs and TMS.

I don't think it lowers the prestige of GSs and TMS as you earn bigger points for playing in them so that's the incentive to play in them - it would just mean that the penalty for missing them isn't too great as you have an opportunity to use one of your other scores.

invu2day · 02-24-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavnich77

I prefer using the best number of results rather than having mandatory tournaments as it penalises people for not being able to play on certain weeks.

If a player misses a big tournament they penalise themselves anyway. To gain the equivalent points of Masters Series win you will need to win 2 or 3 International Series events. And to gain the equivalent points of a Grand Slam win you need to win at least 4 -7 International Series events.

If anyone misses a big event then so be it. It's like real life. I missed the Australian Open because I failed a dope test with Puerta in the doubles at Roland Garros.

Gavnich77 · 02-24-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invu2day

If a player misses a big tournament they penalise themselves anyway. To gain the equivalent points of Masters Series win you will need to win 2 or 3 International Series events. And to gain the equivalent points of a Grand Slam win you need to win at least 4 -7 International Series events.

If anyone misses a big event then so be it. It's like real life. I missed the Australian Open because I failed a dope test with Puerta in the doubles at Roland Garros.

Yes, but being able to replace it with another tournament score of lower value is not as harsh as getting 0 points.

invu2day · 02-24-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavnich77

Yes, but being able to replace it with another tournament score of lower value is not as harsh as getting 0 points.

We are all thinking along similar lines with a few variations here and there, so maybe it would be best if you (GAV) or deccy could issue a poll with a number of options and let this sort itself out.

Gavnich77 · 02-24-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invu2day

We are all thinking along similar lines with a few variations here and there, so maybe it would be best if you (GAV) or deccy could issue a poll with a number of options and let this sort itself out.

OK, we'll wait until Deccy comes back online and see what he thinks.
It seems that at least people think there should be a limit to the no. of tournaments that count towards your ranking it's just the finer details of what those tournaments consist of.

I think the first poll though should be whether or not there should be a limit with a Yes/No option to give everyone a chance to vote, then we can iron out the details over mandatory and optional tournaments.