View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
samuel Alter Hase
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 344 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: 17.04.2010 19:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Just out of interest, is it the player's ranking BEFORE the game that counts, or after it? Say you had a 1400 player taking on a 1200 player, but if the 1200 player loses he drops to 1199, thus he would now be a non-adequate player. Does that mean it doesn't count in the ratio, or only the next game between them?
Likewise if an 1199 player beats the 1400 player and moves up to 1200 or more, does the 1400 player get credited with having played a player in his adequate bracket or not?
Or if someone has 1500 and loses to a top player, does the top player still get credit for that game when the 1500 rating may have now turned to 1499? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stratego Chief-Admin
Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 1123 Location: Germany
|
Posted: 17.04.2010 22:18 Post subject: |
|
|
hi samuel,
of course its the player's ranking BEFORE the game that counts.
but it could happen, that in the one second when starting the game,
the new ranking was just calculated and the player has a new one.
but who really cares?
stratego |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gentleben Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103
|
Posted: 17.04.2010 23:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Stratego, I like your idea even if Spion will kill you but I think it should expand to the top 20.
Samuel, I didn't explain myself well. I didn't think you misunderstood how it works. I think the misunderstanding is your surprise you have played so many non-adequate players. That should be no surprise. Anyone who plays all players on Gravon will have alot of non-adequate players on their list. But it will now be harder for higher ranked players to maintain the ratio. The higher a person is ranked, the more players there are that are non-adequate for that player. I personally do not have a problem playing low ranked players though some players on Gravon choose to play high ranked players only. Since I play anyone, you can see I have played alot of non-adequate games. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stratego Chief-Admin
Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 1123 Location: Germany
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 00:02 Post subject: |
|
|
ok gentleben - i have 9 lifes
what is the fairest and best solution?
rank 1-10 ration 1:3
rank 1-15 ratio 1:3
rank 1-20 ratio 1:3
rest always 1:4
stratego |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gentleben Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 03:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, after thinking about it, I think the fairest and easiest solution is using a 1/4 ratio for everyone. Though previous years have had about 1/3 of the players ranked having a 1500 or above rating, this year only 25% are in that range, so 1 out of 4 games being played against adequate players is reasonable. And making it harder on the top 10-20 seems like overkill to me. What has been done has solved the real problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arco Newbie
Joined: 21 Jun 2009 Posts: 6 Location: Nederland
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 08:00 Post subject: tree-picking... ? |
|
|
Hi there,
tnx for the welcoming (ace, gentleben etc.).. i just read the new scorelist and find myself not cherry-picking, but tree-picking... I have an Adq./non-adq. score of 165/0...
witch means i only play to good players! (so: tree-picking)
or.... is it becouse my rating is 1130...
goodluck and have fun!
thanks to stratego and spion for this system
arco |
|
Back to top |
|
|
samuel Alter Hase
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 344 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 14:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes arco it is because of your rating. But hang in there, you can only improve if you keep practicing!
Yes I see what you mean now Ben.
I think the new rule should stay as it is, as it was brought in to deal with people like Dozer, which it has done. Why make life even tougher on the top players? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stratego Chief-Admin
Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 1123 Location: Germany
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 17:58 Post subject: |
|
|
hi all,
thinking it over it seem to make sence that the top 10 players get a little
harder ratio.
its just that they have to play from time to time 1500+ players so they cannot rest
at their rating. pelase remember we call it the challange ranking.
at every tourney you have a 1:1 ratio, and a 1:3 ratio for the top 10 doesn`t change
anything at the moment.
but we don`t wanted an anti-dozer ranking, we wanted a fair ranking for all
and this include the top 10 as well.
i don`t think its too complicated if we would split the ranking in a top 10 with a 1:3 ratio
and the rest gets a 1:4 ratio.
its just a little more more challange and from my point of view a little fairer for all.
stratego |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nochance Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 106 Location: Germany (Hessen)
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 19:05 Post subject: d |
|
|
I prefer a 1:1,2 ratio for the highranked players _________________ DontMissTheChance |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gentleben Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103
|
Posted: 18.04.2010 21:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Now let us not go overboard with this NC. A 1:1 or 1:2 ratio would be difficult to maintain because of the number of players on gravon at certain times. It is not always easy to find players above 1500, like yourself, online often. And I would personally get tired of playing the same people over and over again, like every other game against Rapunzel. Nothing personal against him, I just like variety and forcing a the top 10 into a ratio that high would not be as fun.
A 1:3 ratio is fine though Stratego if that is what you want. I am usually around 2:5 anyway.
And arco, tree-picking is just fine. I like your sense of humor. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spion Gravon Administrator
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 750 Location: Koblenz
|
Posted: 20.04.2010 22:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
after a long long discussion we have changed the ratio to 1:2. That means every 3rd game has to be played with an adequate opponent.
Currently this ratio affects only two players: Dozer and AceRimmer. And AceRimmer is very close to 1:2 so after a few more games he is in again.
So since effectively only one player is thrown out by 1:2 and this one is even thrown out by 1:4, it seems to be easily maintainable. It's not the final word yet. We'll check it out for some time and see what happens.
If after a couple of weeks it turns out to reduce 'variety' too much, we'll start another discussion
So enjoy the new challange rating and good luck
Thorsten |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gentleben Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103
|
Posted: 21.04.2010 06:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Spion, what you refer to as 1:2 is the same thing I meant by 1 out of 3 which I am ok with. I thought NC might have been referring to playing an adequate player 1 out of every 2 games (50% of the time) and I think that IS too high. But 1 out of 3 is no problem.
Good job on the new system. However, I never did see any response to Ace's request to return the wsc rating to the site. And I miss the All Players rating too but I am in favor of leaving anyone off who does not meet the ratio requirements. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stratego Chief-Admin
Joined: 20 May 2003 Posts: 1123 Location: Germany
|
Posted: 21.04.2010 14:40 Post subject: |
|
|
changing the ratio to a 1:2 system is based on following table:
(because the forum cannot show a table, i create one for gravopedia)
link: http://gravopedia.gravon.de/index.php/Challange_Ranking_Ratio
about all players and wsc ranking:
this would show dozer again, even if he goes on with his cherry picking.
and we do not want to show him at 1 in all-player-ranking.
beside wsc is more or less a fun ranking without any sence. spion add a better
features instead: time when ranking was calculated.
stratego |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nochance Fortgeschrittener
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 106 Location: Germany (Hessen)
|
Posted: 21.04.2010 17:04 Post subject: ratio |
|
|
gentleben wrote: |
I thought NC might have been referring to playing an adequate player 1 out of every 2 games (50% of the time) and I think that IS too high. |
no, I meant 1:1,2 (and not 1:2) but it was just a joke, because at this time I got a 35:37 (or whatever) balance
I think, 1:2 is maybe too hard, but very good to start with.
(Changing "hard" to "less hard" is much better than the other way round) _________________ DontMissTheChance |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spion Gravon Administrator
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 750 Location: Koblenz
|
Posted: 22.04.2010 00:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
I will re-add WSC ratings within the next weeks.
"All players" option will not be re-added. If a player has a bad ratio, he's not mentioned in any list and that should push him to play more adequate opponents
Best regards
Thorsten |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|