WARZONE Tournaments and ratings

Hi all,

I already reported in suggestion/criticism this fact, so feel free to delete this post if you think that is not useful, or to change the text in order to better explain the problem

I like to play warzone tournaments, but i discovered that can be really hard for a 2000 (more or less like me) even to have a chance to win.
I noticed that if there are lot of players with little elo, let's say untill 1700-1750, a player with 2000 and more can have problems.
The point is that even to win a 1600 at least you need 30, 40 seconds, and at the end you get really little points, while a 1600 winning aginst a 1600 receive a lot, especially if they double the points for the game.
Many times I won all games and I didn' get further than the 6th place.
So i realized that I cannot waste time to play (and hopefully win) against people with less than 1750, and that is better to resign and try to get at least a 1800-1850.
But at this point, considering that elo is affected by the resign (and not points), technically I am doing sandbagging, that is forbidden and also morally miserable, and also my elo decrease, so i got really lot of points winning against a 1800.

So how to solve this problem?
Proposals:
§ a 2000+ cannot play warzone in the morning in the Greenwich +1 time (in the afternoon situation is better becaus ethere are more high elo payers)
§ the creation of separated warzone tournaments according to elo (but there is the possibility that many tournaments will be empty

§§§§ or I suggest that only for warzone, would be possible to resign in the first two moves without elo variation, so for a hogh rated player would be possible to resign 3-4 times and get an opponent of similar level (and at this points all variations and similar will be like in a game among two 1700).
I don't know if it is also a good idea to apply this "rule" for no elo variation only if the difference among ratings is 300 elo (or different value)

[Sean]

I like to play warzone tournaments, but i discovered that can be really hard for a 2000 (more or less like me) even to have a chance to win.
I noticed that if there are lot of players with little elo, let's say untill 1700-1750, a player with 2000 and more can have problems.
The point is that even to win a 1600 at least you need 30, 40 seconds, and at the end you get really little points, while a 1600 winning aginst a 1600 receive a lot, especially if they double the points for the game.
Many times I won all games and I didn' get further than the 6th place.

This is due to the Points handicap (Positive/Negative ELO points system) - which is, as said, a handicap. As with any handicap - it provides a level playing field between various differences in player ratings. The Points handicap system provides a handicap even more so than Position or Time handicaps, as it rewards a lower rated player for beating a higher rated player - and gives a higher rated player less reward for beating a lower rated player.

So i realized that I cannot waste time to play (and hopefully win) against people with less than 1750, and that is better to resign and try to get at least a 1800-1850.
But at this point, considering that elo is affected by the resign (and not points), technically I am doing sandbagging, that is forbidden and also morally miserable, and also my elo decrease, so i got really lot of points winning against a 1800.

Resigning when you're in a position to win is a form of cheating, as you're falsely setting your rating to a number which is untrue. The spirit of a tournament is to win - and to play for a win. Every point counts.

So how to solve this problem?
Proposals:
§ a 2000+ cannot play warzone in the morning in the Greenwich +1 time (in the afternoon situation is better becaus ethere are more high elo payers)
§ the creation of separated warzone tournaments according to elo (but there is the possibility that many tournaments will be empty

There are many Open tournaments for 1800s+, including separate Warzone events throughout the day, every day. A <1800 Warzone has in the region of 150+ entrants, 1800+ Warzones bring in <60 entrants.

§§§§ or I suggest that only for warzone, would be possible to resign in the first two moves without elo variation, so for a hogh rated player would be possible to resign 3-4 times and get an opponent of similar level (and at this points all variations and similar will be like in a game among two 1700).
I don't know if it is also a good idea to apply this "rule" for no elo variation only if the difference among ratings is 300 elo (or different value)

Once again, this is against the spirit of a Tournament. Why would you WANT to resign in the first 2 moves of a game? That's not what you paid your entry fee to do. Play the game out, check out your position, and decide at the point a Doubling Cube is offered or at some point during the middle-game/end-game if you would like to resign.

Bottom line, if you do not like the Points handicap system, it's your choice not to play in it .

Thanks,
-Sean

i don't know how to do multiple quote...so I proceed less elegant writing "YOU" for your quotations and adding my comments

PS everything is based on the fact that, as you say, the spirit of the tournament s to win ...the tournament ( I would add).
I am not talking about lowering elo and similar miserable things, I am just interested in winning the warzone tournament


YOU
"Resigning when you're in a position to win is a form of cheating, as you're falsely setting your rating to a number which is untrue. The spirit of a tournament is to win - and to play for a win. Every point counts."

I didn't say that I resign a better or draw or worst position, I meant to resign immediately, and I made the example of two moves because in blitz games you don't realize immediately what happens, so 2 moves are enough to read all data.
Also for me the purpose is just to win the tournament, but due to some unbalanced things in the warzone, in order to win you have to sacrifice single games.
I am always interested in winning the tournament!


YOU
"Once again, this is against the spirit of a Tournament. Why would you WANT to resign in the first 2 moves of a game? That's not what you paid your entry fee to do. Play the game out, check out your position, and decide at the point a Doubling Cube is offered or at some point during the middle-game/end-game if you would like to resign.

Bottom line, if you do not like the Points handicap system, it's your choice not to play in it [quote][/quote]."

It is the spirit of tournament to win the tournament and not a game, and loosing too much time against a too low level player makes impossible to win, so to resign and to play against a same level opponent (when it comes) is the only way to play for the victory.
Is not that I don't like the handicap system: it is great and funny and somehow innovative.
I am only saying that can be better balanced in order to avoid to resign to look for another opponent.
And my concern is only for warzone, because in the other tournaments a similar behaviour is a mere sandbagging

My solution simply allow to resign and look for another player (also with the risk that this player will come too late), and without elo variation this would be no more sandbagging, and the variation would be caculated on the original elo, not on the one lowered during the waiting.
The only problem of my proposal is that some people takes lot of point (not elo, I am talking about points) after winning against a 2000, and this can false the competition...not too much but can, even because you can encounter the same person more than once.

[Sean]

My solution simply allow to resign and look for another player (also with the risk that this player will come too late), and without elo variation this would be no more sandbagging, and the variation would be caculated on the original elo, not on the one lowered during the waiting.
The only problem of my proposal is that some people takes lot of point (not elo, I am talking about points) after winning against a 2000, and this can false the competition...not too much but can, even because you can encounter the same person more than once.

This is completely impractical. Users would resign games free of charge and cherry pick opponents to play when they feel that they have a chance of beating them.

My solution simply allow to resign and look for another player (also with the risk that this player will come too late), and without elo variation this would be no more sandbagging, and the variation would be caculated on the original elo, not on the one lowered during the waiting.
The only problem of my proposal is that some people takes lot of point (not elo, I am talking about points) after winning against a 2000, and this can false the competition...not too much but can, even because you can encounter the same person more than once.

This is completely impractical. Users would resign games free of charge and cherry pick opponents to play when they feel that they have a chance of beating them.

...but only at the very beginning of the game...
anyway it is true even now some players just wait doing nothing ...uff
Another possibility can be something that I somehow already experienced: to setup to something like 1800-1900 the minimum rating for players that reached 2000 (or 2050 or 2100) for "long" period and regularly winning against 2000.

I don't know for sure, it is just a proposal

Sean,
I support Deggial, cherry-picking described in this post is a custom already and some players will wait for you to resign (which you will do in order to save time for better opponents).

I agree with the OP here. The points handicap system is making it impossible for higher rated players to even have a chance at winning. I played in one recently, and found after winning several games in a row in a matter of a few minutes, I had a mere 11 points compared to 67 points for the leader. By the time it was over, I had only lost one game, yet didn't even place in the top ten. This was even with the double-or-nothing being active in the games I won.

The system clearly does NOT work. Either have rating sections with these warzones, or get rid of the handicap system.

i recently played a warzone with a different rating system.
It seems to be better, but i need to stress more

i recently played a warzone with a different rating system.
It seems to be better, but i need to stress more

why are you guys tripping man? Its an online rating. be thankful that we have these structures. I am a 2100 player, and I dont mind the warzone format one bit. Just enjoy it and lets not try to tweek it so much that politics get involved in it. GL Cubers!

i recently played a warzone with a different rating system.
It seems to be better, but i need to stress more

why are you guys tripping man? Its an online rating. be thankful that we have these structures. I am a 2100 player, and I dont mind the warzone format one bit. Just enjoy it and lets not try to tweek it so much that politics get involved in it. GL Cubers!

I am grateful. And because I am grateful I would also like to contribute to a better site.
Bugs or, like in this case, balance problems, can be annoying in the end, and if it is possible to solve with small adjustments, why not?
None here complained about the website