[hallso]

please take a vote

 

[coolfish1103]

Other: 18 best tournaments.

 

[purtov45]

Other: 18 best tournaments.

Half of tournaments is considered
Even better 24 best - 2/3 of tournaments is considered

 

[Cava]

I voted 4 + 14.
I don't really see much difference between this option and 18 best tournaments though.

 

[coolfish1103]

I voted 4 + 14.
I don't really see much difference between this option and 18 best tournaments though.

It allows new players not to be penalized for not playing for part of the year they are missing. It also allows some good picking players who were on extended break to be leveraged with some additional points, but not to the point where it will affect rankings severely (cause what's replaceable is obviously not going to be 1k points tournament except Monte Carlo).

 

[purtov45]

I voted 4 + 14.
I don't really see much difference between this option and 18 best tournaments though.

In what difference?
1) same as now: 4+9+5 : The weak result in GS or ATP1000 (in particular, skip of tournament) is not compensated.
2) 4+8+6 : One weak result in TOP1000 is compensated by good result in 500 or 250.
3) 4+14 : All weak results in TOP1000 are compensated.
4) coolfish1103 : 18 : All weak results in GS and TOP1000 are compensated.

The main choice between (1) and (4).
(2) differs little from (1), (3) differs little from (4).
Whether not so?

 

[Cava]

Obviously I know the difference. My point being 4+14 or 18 best are both better than the current.

Coolfish comments further makes me believe the current ranking system needs to change. I'd really like to hear why people think 4+9+5 or 4+8+6 is a good system. Just because that's how ATP does it? This is PAW people

 

[hallso]

but it 'lives' thanks to ATP

 

[Aenea]

but it 'lives' thanks to ATP

true that.

From PAW rules

The PAW Ranking System closely mirrors the ATP Ranking System.

I am a bit surprised that managers are suggesting big changes to PAW Rules/Ranking System. People seem to be forgetting PAW is a game created to follow ATP organization - tournaments, rules, ranking. I am for a ranking that if not exactly the same like the ATP RS then very close to it.

 

[purtov45]

I am for a ranking that if not exactly the same like the ATP RS then very close to it.

Let's look at a difference between item 1 and 2.
Item 2: All tournaments, except for the last in Paris, the same as earlier, with 6 other tournaments instead of 5.
Only after Paris: subtraction MIN(worst of ATP1000; 6th of ATP500/250; BNP Paribas Masters).
IMO, unjustified complication. Or big changes (item 4), or without changes (item 1).
But for not clear reason the majority for a item 2

 

[hallso]

You are not right. At every moment, in PAW rankings, last 9 ATP1000 would be included in the calculations.
The best 8 of 9 from last 52 weeks, not only from year-to-date. So before Paris, the tournament from the previous year would be counted.
Situation you mentioned would happen just in race.

I'm for the 2nd option because:
- everyone can play in each tournament, no matter what they ranking is
- nowadays access to the internet is so simple, that even if you travel, are on holiday etc., you can send your picks i.e.via mobile, what takes just few minutes
- I prefer this "8 of 9" change for some really 'critical' situations, when you go to the middle of Sahara or Amazonia and can't reach signal for whole week, then you can miss one ATP1000 without penalty

 

[Cava]

I am a bit surprised that managers are suggesting big changes to PAW Rules/Ranking System. People seem to be forgetting PAW is a game created to follow ATP organization - tournaments, rules, ranking. I am for a ranking that if not exactly the same like the ATP RS then very close to it.

I would guess that most players do not understand how the rankings work. I've played one full year and am just now understanding.

This game is modeled after ATP. The big difference is that ATP players cannot play every single tournament like we can in PAW. That is why ATP tailors the ranking system so that people only play 1/2 the available tournaments.

So I think it just comes down to how often you want people to play. For me, I like to play every week. Therefore, I like a ranking system that rewards playing a lot.

 

[coolfish1103]

I am a bit surprised that managers are suggesting big changes to PAW Rules/Ranking System. People seem to be forgetting PAW is a game created to follow ATP organization - tournaments, rules, ranking. I am for a ranking that if not exactly the same like the ATP RS then very close to it.

I believe it's just a vote that goes through once a year.

It doesn't mirror ATP enough because we do not limit the max amount of players who can play in each tournament and all rankings do is to determine qualifications to WTF. If we do limit the draws, then I guess the rankings can stay exactly the same as ATP because top players will be able to force lower players out of tournaments even if they miss a tournament or two.

Anyhow, I don't think that's going to happen cause I don't think we want to do PAWs for CHs, just throwing random ideas out about how the ranking isn't really the case claimed.

 

[purtov45]

hallso,
thanks for an explanation, I have understood your argument. You have convinced me!

 

[jervisjames]

I picked option 3 only because I thought it would be easier for scores manager to update the rankings each week.

Otherwise, I am happy for either option 1 or option 2. Either case doesn't bother me much because I am so terrible at this game! :lol: Probably Option 2 as it mirrors the ATP.

Although saying that, it only mirrors for those ranked at the top. Lower ranked ATP players do not have to play all the GS or ATP1000 but I don't want to see the scoring for PAW to be too convoluted, much better to have it the same for all players.