Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
1700 tables!?!
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 12:48 PM, Wednesday March 21, 2007 EDT
This is yet another plea for 1700 tables.
Why? Among other reasons because 1600 tables are overloaded, it happened now already more than once to me, that ALL 1600 tables were occupied! |
|
Louis Cypher wrote
at 4:17 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT Well fuzzy, bringing up the same idea without new arguments every other day might keep people busy but does not make them any better.
And currently there are 3 empty 1600 tables... I see that quite often. Thus you should play at different times :-) |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 4:43 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT Louis Cypher, i *did* bring up new arguments, so don't act hypocritical please.
|
|
AndyLT wrote
at 4:49 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT 1700 tables would be cool, as reaching 1800 from 1600 tables is very hard.
|
|
StupidRomans wrote
at 6:34 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT If you ask me (but PLEASE don't, cause I don't really feel like discussing the matters of ELO-ranking depending on table limits AGAIN,AGAin,AGain,again, a g a i n)
So If you'd ask me, I'd say that time has proven that 200 point-steps are quite the right distance to take for a skilled player. And I assume that we will end up with 1500,1700,1900 again with ppl pledging for 21/2200 tables again... |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 8:55 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT StupidRomans, its totally okay for me the 200 steps stay constant.
But changing steps, sometimes larger steps, sometimes smaller are not fair! |
|
super strut II wrote
at 9:11 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT But if they don´t change randomness, but depending to special rules - and everyone may deal with this rules - it´s fair enough.
|
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 9:20 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT still going high on ELO is so not only determined by your kdice skills. It is determined by playing at the right time at right level.
People had it far easier to reach 1800 when 1700 tables were in place. |
|
|
super strut II wrote
at 9:30 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT But perhaps it´s not the goal to "make it easier" to reach the 1800-tables?? The table-limits changed in the beginning of the first phase as well - it took also more then 4 weeks to have stable tables and ELO-settings.
I could imagine that a changing of this table-limits would even have an effect to the ELO-system... So please stop whining. All of us have to handle with the same system. Accept it. |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 9:33 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT Maybe it is not the goal. But it *was* easier once. Thats what I call unfair.
Im just making logical comments and suggestions, this is not "whining". |
|
|
super strut II wrote
at 9:43 AM, Thursday March 22, 2007 EDT perhaps it wasn´t whining, but it wasn´t "logical" as well...
Dreh´ den Spieß mal um! Try to take the other side of view... 1800 is a table for min. the first 250 players - like the first league - as well 1600 is a table for min. 1000 players, the 2nd league... why should we make it easier to pass the 2nd league? |
