Weird ranking system

Gaius_Marius · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 04 May 2003 Posts: 199

Hello spion admin. I know u explained the system to me of ranking. Can I request something though? Can u do away with it and use the old WSC ranking system? I gained no points for beating Apollo, who has a higher rating than me. He lost points but i gained nothing! This is weird, change the system.

-

spion · Posted: 30.10.2003 07:20 Post subject:

Hi!

AFAIK mr. kleier is working on a document that explains the rating system en detail.

We will not change it. The WSCs rating system was not very good. You gained points for just playing, no matter against whom. Thats not a fair system, because you would be able to become nr. 1 just for beating newbies a few hundred times..

I will take a look at your rating later.

Anyway, the difference between you and Apollo became less, didnt it? Thats absolutely ok. The rating does not show "points" but playing strenghts.

Apollo is now considered to be weaker. But perhaps Apollo played only against players who are weaker than you, so you will not be considered to have become stronger but he is considered to be weaker now...

Its difficult to understand. But its the most fair system i know and even the ISF world stratego ranking for real life tourneys uses this system.

Best regards
spion

TheGreatPumpkin · Guest

The Kleier system has it's faults but is pretty good overall. It just needs alot of data to get accurate. A frustrating problem I've seen is how it skews the rating to the high side early on. I've played most of the good players here and I can say with reasonable certainty that the current #2 probably doesn't even belong in the top 10, but there he sets.

Also a clarification: While it was theoretically possible to become #1 at WSC just by playing weak players, it certainly wasn't practical. It's true at WSC you would always get at least a point or 2 even if the other player was far weaker, but the higher rated player could lose 25 points if he lost to that weak player. It would take a very long time to amass points using this strategy. Given the time required for a Hasbro game it was never feasible, and probably wouldn't be even here.

Happy Halloween all

Gaius_Marius · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 04 May 2003 Posts: 199

????

WSC is a dead site it DESERVED whatever I did to it!

When u wanna play me its RANK only! btw

Guest · Posted: 08.11.2003 02:31 Post subject: Re: Weird ranking system

johnnyblood · User Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 28

Spion states:

"We will not change it. The WSCs rating system was not very good. You gained points for just playing, no matter against whom. Thats not a fair system, because you would be able to become nr. 1 just for beating newbies a few hundred times.."

I agree with Spion that the WSCs rating system was not very good, but the problem is Kleir system is worse. You shoulds always gain points for beating an opponent. That's the American way. Not gaining any points is very unAmerican. The WSC existed a long time. No one ever became #1 by beating newbies. And everyone who was ever #1 at least deserved that consideration.

"Anyway, the difference between you and Apollo became less, didnt it? Thats absolutely ok. The rating does not show "points" but playing strenghts. Apollo is now considered to be weaker."

You don't play games just for the opponents ranking to go down. You play for your ranking to go up. Trying to justify Kleir by stating the difference between the two decreased is nonsense. If that's the case, leave Apollo's the same and make his opponents rating go up by the same amount that Apollo's went down. The difference between the two players be the same. Would that be fair? No, not really. Just an illustration of the fallacy of that reasoning.

"Its difficult to understand. But its the most fair system i know and even the ISF world stratego ranking for real life tourneys uses this system."

Because the ISF uses this system does not mean too much. Maybe they should change it as well. It is certainly not a fair system. It is not a measure of strength, and therefore the ISF rankings are meaningless as well.

You make a very simple issue far too complex. Just look at any major sports league. What do they do? Does the New England Patriots or New York Yankees fail to make the playoffs because their Kleir system points are too low?

A better ranking system is not that difficult, but you Euros are so set in your ways that nothing but Kleir would work for you. It is not worth the effort to show you how it should be done. You would stay stuck. It's the same reason your political-economics stay stuck and don't progress.[/quote]

acerimmer · Posted: 09.07.2005 22:40 Post subject: klier

klier is as fair as it gets CK!

klier maybe not as accurate as klier2005, but it is still acurate.

like i said the only real improvement spion could make would be an additional klier system with a shorter start and end.......just like a season in american football or soccer or any other sport that has a start and end.

The ratings would then be reset for another season.....with a players ability being recorded for that period in time.

In general in the current ranking system of klier 2005 people usually deserve to be where they are in the ranking system.
90% of the people above me in klier2005 i lose to....more often than win.
And conversly 90% of the players below me in klier2005...i win more than i lose to.
The only concept i think you might be missing, is that if you beat a player once or twice.......but you lost 20 times previously to this person.....you will be 1/21 or 2/22 to this person and would need alot more wins against him to even the score.

But to summerize i think the only think that could help you is a shorter season ......but it has to be klier.
Like i said before.....a quarterly klier ranking.

As for wsc..........yes you can get to the top....playing newbies and known bad players....so it's not accurate.
Ever heard of rewbicon?
He's a nice guy but he made a habit of only playing newbies and low players.....and he was always very high on wsc.
You and sadi know who i'm talking about!

johnnyblood · User Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 28

Ace,

You say a shorter period of time would be more accurate. I have heard a long period of time with Kleir is more accurate. Obviously confusion somewhere.

Does rewbicon play here? Did he play at old WSC? If so, I am unaware of it. And certainly unaware of him getting to #1 in WSC ratings.

You can not get to the top only playing newbies in WSC. If so, give me an example of someone who did acheive this and who did not play anyone else in the top 20.