SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

New Rules for the yearly Ranking
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gravon - Das Spielerparadies Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 14.04.2010 02:08    Post subject: New Rules for the yearly Ranking Reply with quote

hi stratego players,

today i talked with spion about the unlucky situation within the yearly ranking (ranking 2010)

we discussed various options for the best and fairest solution.

the results are: (spion will change the system within the next 2-3 weeks)

1. beside the classic ranking (all times) we change the name of the Yearly Ranking to Challange Ranking

2. if a player wants to be in the challenge ranking (running time yearly from 01.jan to 31.dez) he has to play in a ratio of 1:4
this means 1 out of 4 games must be aginst a player with a maximun 200 points lower rating
or
he plays against a player with a rating of 1500+
(all games against 1500+ players count for the ratio regardless what ranking a player has)

i.e.: player A has a rating of 1600
game 1: against a palyer with 1200 (-400)
game 2: against a player with 1300 (-300)
game 3: against a palyer with 1350 (-250)
now he must play a player with a minmun rating of 1400 or he is out of the list.

remember: all games against 1500+ players count for the ratio!

i.e.: player b has a rating of 1850
game 1: against a player with 1500 (-350) - this game counts he can now
play 3 games against low ranked players

if a player miss the 1:4 ratio he is completely out of this list.
thats why we call it the challange ranking.

example dozer:
till time of this posting dozer has played 72 ranked games
lets say he had a 1800 rating from beginning he must play:
at least 18 games now against 1500+ players, before he is in the list again. otherwise he is out (only in the all time ranking list)

i hope this will force more sportmanship between all players and we closed the backdoor.

please let us know, if you have any comments.

stratego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England

PostPosted: 14.04.2010 17:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely Brilliant!!!



BYE, BYE DOZER!!!

I can't wait to see this guy playing 1500+ players.
I wonder what % of games he will win against better opposition?
Only around 50% would be my guess.

What's the odds that Dozer will try to restrict himself to players between 1500 and 1505?

What a fake he is........but anyway this is good news and even if he restricts himself to the bare minimum of 1/4 against the bare minimum of 1500 to 1505 rated players.......this will be enough to send his fake rating down to a more realistic and true rating/ranking.

Happy Days!


On the point of changing the name of the "2010 yearly ranking" to the "Challenge Ranking".........could you please still include the words 2010 in the title?
Maybe call the new ranking the "2010 Challenge Ranking"?

Thanks once again for listening to the players and dealing with this situation in a fair and just manor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 14.04.2010 17:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi ace,

yes of course we will add the year after the name.

and if dozer tries to play 18 games against the one 1501 player, he will need
some weeks or months to complet them.

also these players are (in the moment): ambiorix, samuel, warlord, bom

i dont think he can beat them or he deserve the ranking position.

stratego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England

PostPosted: 14.04.2010 19:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Stratego,

I agree that against the likes of ambiorix, samuel, warlord and bom.......Dozer will not do well.
But haing said this.....I do think he will win approximately half of his games against these players.
If he played these guys 18 games...... I would certainly expect Dozer to win between 8 and 10 of these games. (1500 to 1510)
Against higher players than 1550 I do not expect he will even win half of his games.......if he did choose to play anyone higher than 1550.

Having said this i disagree that winning only half of the games against a player on 1500 should indicate he is anything other than a player of similar ranking to a 1500 player. Certainly winning half of these games would not indicate a rating of 1800+.
Put it this way.......if Dozer played me 5 games, I would feel very confident of winning at least 4 of those games. Against players like gentleben and NoChance I would imagine ben and NC winning between 75 and 80% of their games with Dozer. For me, he is just an average 1550 player......no better.

To be an 1800 player he should beat 1500 to 1510 players around 87% of the time. This would mean he would be expected to beat these players 16 times out of 18 games.
My chart shows I beat these players around 85% of the time.......will Dozer's be anywhere close.......I do not think so.

Looking at the 2009 ranking we can see Dozer won (over the total of 2009) around 55% of games against players with a 1500 to 1510 rating.
This too would indicate he will win approximately half his games against similar opponents to ambiorix, samuel, warlord, bom etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 15.04.2010 06:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

The solution sounds very good to me and like Ace I would like to thank all involved for listening to the players here and their concerns. And I also look forward to seeing Poser dethroned from his imaginary ranking.

Oddly enough, the solution sounds alot like what I proposed in my previous thread, "They should have to play at least a certain percentage of their games against comparable players. (One game against a high ranked player is not enough either. The answer must be in the percentages.)" It seemed to me to be the most equitable solution to eliminate someone from the rankings who refused to play the top players. I am happy to see it implimented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arco
Newbie


Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Location: Nederland

PostPosted: 16.04.2010 08:56    Post subject: Question Reply with quote

Hi there,

At first: excueses for my bad english and goodluck with translating
i read this forum with great interest, but i have a question: this 'new' system is made up for the + 1500 players (i understand that), but in this new system seems it likely that players from 1400+ will not play any longer against players with low ranking (around 1000 - 1300).

and why should they? its not good for the points if they lose, and if they play 3 times against such a noobie (as myself) they have to wait for a 1500+ player who wants to play...

Ad ergo:
it seems to me that this new system is not nice / fair for everyone!

p.s. as i said before: this whole site, forum and game is fantastic set-up, thank you!

arco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 16.04.2010 14:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi arco,

also da hast du etwas völlig mißverstanden:

jeder spieler kann in das ranking. die 1500+ spieler sind deswegen extra erwähnt,
weil jedes spiel gegen sie für das 1:4 verhältnis zählt, egal wie hoch mein rating ist.

die regel in deutsch besagt:

- ein spieler muss zumindest jedes 4 spiel gegen einen spieler austragen, der maximal 200 punkte niedriger gerankt ist.
- aber spiele gegen spieler mit einen rating von 1500 oder höher zählen immer, egal wie hoch mein ranking ist.

im grunde ist das eher für die top spieler eine auflage, spieler um die 1300 merken die regeln fast gar nicht.

die spiele müssen auch nicht genau 1:4 sein, es zählt das verhältnis.

wir wollen ja nur verhindern, dass spieler die ganz oben stehen nur noch neue, unerfahrene
oder eher spielschwache gegner spielen, damit sie auch ja auf 1 bleiben.

das ist - im gegensatz zu live turnieren - im internet möglich, weil man sich hier seine gegner
aussuchen kann und schweren brocken einfach aus dem weg geht.

das macht zwar keinen spaß, aber manchen ist das ego auf 1 zu sein so wichtig, dass man dann zu solchen
maßnahmen greift. da sie aber gegen keine regel verstoßen sondern eine hintertür ausnutzen, haben wir diese
jetzt geschlossen.

gruß
stratego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 16.04.2010 19:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi,

most of the work is done.

please check the new Challange Ranking under the stratego icon at website.
(last minor things will be finished soon)

special thanks goes to spion for the fast and and excellent work.

stratego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
acerimmer
Alter Hase


Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 725
Location: England

PostPosted: 16.04.2010 21:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

arco:

This rule does not actually effect anyone other than those high ranking players who deliberately avoid playing 1500+ players.
To my knowledge I think this only actually effects one player currently........... (Dozer).
As the figures show......probably my own ranking is probably the most at risk for being removed from the ranking.........but even I (as the personal statistics show) can currently play 125 straight games against low players without losing my ranking.
So really you have no need to worry arco.

Stratego:

Thanks to you and Spion for the prompt work on the rankings.

Also a request............. is it still possible to still have the WSC rankings available?
I know they are not accurate, but they are fun and I for one would still like to see them available.

Cheers,
Ace
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
samuel
Alter Hase


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 344
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: 17.04.2010 01:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

This certainly sounds like a good idea. I have to admit Dozer has usually beaten me when we've played before, but I recall last time I was winning and he resorted to lotto and got lucky, then wouldn't play me again (this was before his tactic of only playing low ranked players was in force). Also I think we haven't played for some time and I've gotten better in the last year or so. I've been trying to play him for ages fancying the job so I expect I could win at least 50% of our games now.

However, you know what I'm tempted to do - if he suddenly now wants to play 18 games with me (those other 3 guys dont seem to be on gravon much so he'll do well to find them)....I might just sit there and not press OK to start the games. That would be hilarious. I'll report back if he's suddenly more keen to play me now...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
samuel
Alter Hase


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 344
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: 17.04.2010 01:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, the new column showing adequate games and low ranked player games is interesting. I had no idea I'd played more games against low ranked than adequate. That makes me look like a cherry picker too then. But Im still miles ahead of the 4:1 threshold so it goes to show it really is only going to be Dozer affected by this, or anyone else who tries what he did.

Thinking about it I guess I usually end up playing low ranked players as I prefer games to finish quicker so I'll instinctivly go for a player I think I can knock off in under 10 minutes, and also when Im in a room with a good player I tend to try and get them to play barrage instead as more of the top players are willing to get involved in that - most lower ranked players don't want to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 17.04.2010 01:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi samuel,

i think best for dozer and all here is to play each other - no matter what ranking a player has.

if we now see that some ignore other players, we will change the system to the old one.

i thought we have a very good and fair solution now - we do it for the players and all we
want back is fair sportmanship between all gravon players.

stratego
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gentleben
Fortgeschrittener


Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 103

PostPosted: 17.04.2010 06:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the new setup. It obviously affects very few people. I can't see anyone on the list who is in danger of being removed and the new system prevents someone from manipulating their ranking by playing low players.

Samuel, I think you misunderstand the column. Just because you have played alot of players who are non-adequate to you, it is obvious you are not cherry picking.

Stratego, I am confused about one thing. Your original thread said the ratio would be 1 out of 4 games (25%) should be against adequate players but the explanation above the rankings uses a 1 out of 5 ratio (20%). Which one is it? I think the 25% figure is better but either one is better than the old way.

Arco, welcome to the community forum on gravon and like Ace said, you have nothing to be concerned about with the new system. Most high ranked players do not have a problem playing lower ranked players. We can play any time you like.

Thanks Spion and Stratego!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stratego
Chief-Admin


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Germany

PostPosted: 17.04.2010 06:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi gentleben,

yes i saw that spion set i to 1:5 and i agree that 1:4 is better.
even 1:3 would work, looking at the result.

i ask spion to change it to 1:4 - think most agree that this is the best ratio.

stratego

ps: the list shows that only 1 or 2 players are involved.
now - after the list is open for all - i even like a dynamic system.
nr 1-10 must have a ratio of 1:3 - rest 1:4
just an idea - spion will kill me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
samuel
Alter Hase


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 344
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: 17.04.2010 13:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand the column Ben, it just surprised me to see I'd played over half my games against non adequates while most others have a lower ratio of this. But as I said I think I know why thats happened, its very interesting to see this new stat though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gravon - Das Spielerparadies Forum Index -> General All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group