Probably an oversight or maybe there's a reason for this I don't know which. 

The Tournament section has the Top 20 on the right side there so why isn't there a Tournament Rankings button on the Ranking page to see more than the top 20?

I was thinking about this just a little bit ago. I would at least like to be able to see my tournament score on that page. :)

Probably just a feature's priority. I looked for that the day I saw tournament system had been implemented, and since I didn't find it I decided to reach the top 20!

d=

<--------- #8

Viper wrote: <--------- #8

Uahauhauahuahuahauhauhauahuahauh!  Nice one! 

Correction

<----- #7

Dang Hugh and BD for being so good.

<---- #3 =)

I'll add it to the ToDo list.

Guys, what do you think about sorting the Tournament ranking FIRST by number of tournaments won, and THEN by tournament score?

(=

Tesctassa II wrote:

Guys, what do you think about sorting the Tournament ranking FIRST by number of tournaments won, and THEN by tournament score?

(=

My first thought is that some tournaments are much easier to win than others if only because of number of players.  So for the moment, score has more weight for me.

Best would be to have it be selectable.

I concur with M.

M57 wrote:

Tesctassa II wrote:

Guys, what do you think about sorting the Tournament ranking FIRST by number of tournaments won, and THEN by tournament score?

(=

My first thought is that some tournaments are much easier to win than others if only because of number of players.  So for the moment, score has more weight for me.

Best would be to have it be selectable.

Yeah, I thought about that, but this would reward more who plays (and win) more tournament games even if he/she doesn't win them. I mean, if I'm win lots of big tournaments but I play disastrously in few others, I'll have a low score compare to someone that wins lots of game in various T, but not enough to win them.

What I'm trying to point out is that probably the tournament win/loss score should be taken in account as well.

For example, It could be weighted using the "difficulty" of the tournament as a parameter, so a hard tournament would count more than 1 while an easy one less than 1. To measure the difficulty of a tournament it could be possible to use the board ranking score of players participating in the tournament and/or the number of rounds (less rounds = more difficoult).

Or maybe the winner of the tournament could get bonus points as a "price", using some criteria to decide how much, or just deciding a fixed amount.

What do you think? (=

A third category for a "weighted" score might be a possibility, but even weighting wins still rewards those who play more.

Perhaps something more like an H-rating where wins show as a percentage of total opps/games, etc. might be more relevant.

M57 wrote: A third category for a "weighted" score might be a possibility, but even weighting wins still rewards those who play more

If by "even weighting wins still rewards those who play more." you mean that the more you play the more points you can have, well, there's not much you can do avoid that. Only normalizing the score could do the work.

The idea behind my question is that when you join a tournament you do it to win the tournament, no to win as much games as you can. Of course you have to do the second to obtain the first, but the goal is to win the whole tournament. For example, if at the last round I lose against the lowest ranked player of the whole ranking, not just of the tournament, but I still win the competition, I drop in the rankings despite having beaten other top-ranked players.

With the actual method, the rankings shows nothing more than the global ranking without the players that doesn't play much in tournaments. That's why it doesn't make much sense to me.

I think wins are the most important factor. After all the second placed finisher it just the first loser ;)

Winner takes it all!

You just don't like seeing me on top do you. =(

I actually like the idea of having won tournaments move you up in the list in some way, the problem is that how do you rank winning an 8 man tournament against winning a 64 man tournament? How do you rank winning a 3 Round Swiss tournament (that already cause controversy) against winning a 15 round Round-Robin tournament?

Seige07 wrote:

You just don't like seeing me on top do you. =(

That's what she said

Which is, of course, totally wrong

Seige07 wrote:

I actually like the idea of having won tournaments move you up in the list in some way, the problem is that how do you rank winning an 8 man tournament against winning a 64 man tournament? How do you rank winning a 3 Round Swiss tournament (that already cause controversy) against winning a 15 round Round-Robin tournament?

Weight tournament win.  =)

Tesctassa II wrote:

For example, It could be weighted using the "difficulty" of the tournament as a parameter, so a hard tournament would count more than 1 while an easy one less than 1. To measure the difficulty of a tournament it could be possible to use the board ranking score of players participating in the tournament and/or the number of rounds (less rounds = more difficoult).

Or maybe the winner of the tournament could get bonus points as a "price", using some criteria to decide how much, or just deciding a fixed amount.

How about an H-Score for tournaments? Or rather extend h-rating to the tournament level.
That is:
count the number of opponents you have beaten (number of participants in a tournament which you have won) and divide by the number of opponents faced (total number of participants in your tournaments you won plus the number of tournaments lost). Be sure not to count self as a participant and this could be meaningful.