Moderator: Community Team
Velvecarrots wrote:I think just a score for "singles" games and a score for "team" games would suffice.
3seven1 wrote:Don't worry about points? If they weren't their we wouldn't worry about them. But they are there so we have to worry about them.
bob72 wrote:Most high ranking players I play against seem to play 10-15 trips games then play 3-4 single games then back to the trips games to up their scores. Without a good partner or 2 you have no chance to make it anywhere or enjoy a good game even if you are serious about playing, you are left to play with new players and deadbeats all the time.
I think having more than 1 global set of points there should be various depending on the following factors:
1v1 league
1 triples league
2 doubles leagues: 2*2 and 2*3
2 singles leagues : 3-4 player games and 5-6 player games.
So in total instead of one set of points you would have 6 different points tables.
GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order
Xyl wrote:The easy solution would just be to copy everyone's current ranking to each of the categories, and let them vary separately from then on.
This idea makes a great deal of sense to me - chess has different ratings for different game types and speeds (lightning, blitz, regular, bughouse, etc.), why shouldn't we have different ratings for games which require very different strategy and skills?
Personally I'd say the two big differences are singles vs team games, and games with two sides vs games with 3 or more sides. That would make four rating categories: singles (3-6 player), 1v1, team (2v2 and 3v3), and 2v2v2. The last category maybe doesn't really deserve its own rating, though, and could be merged into team.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Are you flirting with me? Your angry posts are just the equivalent of school-yard pigtail-pulling.
wicked wrote:We like to give the mental patients a chance to get back on their meds.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users