Classicists League Table

General stuff.

Moderators: Fatmo, JonS, Buachaille

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby raphtown » 02 Nov 2010, 03:28

Mapmaker wrote:Yeah, a total points idea might be nice - but we'd have to have our own system. I was going with just the win % and solo % for now because they give you a pretty good idea, but if you want a point system I'm sure we can do that. Any suggestions?

Also, InterMPC - who clearly knows a lot more than me about spreadsheets - has offered to do some of the coding. I'm going to give him editorial access so that he can update it with any new features. If you have technical or layout issues, direct them at him, but any problems with updating the actual values will be my fault.


Sounds good. However, I have a question:

Is there a way to sort the table with respect to specific value?
The Classicists are a group dedicated to reducing player NMRs.
User avatar
raphtown
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:07
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby InterMPC » 02 Nov 2010, 12:44

Absolutely Raphtown,

Is there agreement on a point system? If so I can implement that into the spreadsheet and sort the table based on that metric.
InterMPC
 
Posts: 2225
Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 09:22
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby Mapmaker » 02 Nov 2010, 20:01

We could use the system used by the main site. However, I doubt many people will want that - perhaps something like 3 points for a solo and 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss (obviously)?
Bronze member of The Classicists.

We are not the lost nomads, we are the makers of maps.
User avatar
Mapmaker
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 06 Jun 2010, 00:14
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1009)
All-game rating: (966)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby raphtown » 02 Nov 2010, 21:44

Mapmaker wrote:We could use the system used by the main site. However, I doubt many people will want that - perhaps something like 3 points for a solo and 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss (obviously)?


Sounds reasonable. Any counter-proposals?
The Classicists are a group dedicated to reducing player NMRs.
User avatar
raphtown
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:07
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby InterMPC » 03 Nov 2010, 01:17

raphtown wrote:
Mapmaker wrote:We could use the system used by the main site. However, I doubt many people will want that - perhaps something like 3 points for a solo and 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss (obviously)?


Sounds reasonable. Any counter-proposals?


I'd love to see a system where you get more points for defeating a more experienced foe.

Maybe something like this
2 points for every bronze member you beat.
3 points for every silver
4 points for every gold
5 points for Platinum
10 point bonus for a solo.

Here are some examples of what I mean
7 way draw = 0, no player receives any points.
6 way draw each drawer receives points based on the losers membership level. e.g. If the loser was gold, then you'd all get 4 points each. The loser receives 0 points.
5 way draw, each drawer receives points based on the 2 loosing players membership level. e.g. one was gold, the other was silver, each drawer would receive 7 points, the losers receives 0.
3 way draw If you had a 3 way draw, and the losers were, 2 silver, 1 gold and 1 platinum the three winners would get 13points each.
Solo, you get points based on all your competitors membership level. If you beat 3 bronze, 2 silver and a gold you'd get 16 points + 10 points for the solo = 26 points

Just an idea, I'm sure everyone can think of pros and cons for this idea. I'd like to hear them.
InterMPC
 
Posts: 2225
Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 09:22
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby raphtown » 03 Nov 2010, 01:32

InterMPC wrote:I'd love to see a system where you get more points for defeating a more experienced foe.

Maybe something like this
2 points for every bronze member you beat.
3 points for every silver
4 points for every gold
5 points for Platinum
10 point bonus for a solo.

Here are some examples of what I mean
7 way draw = 0, no player receives any points.
6 way draw each drawer receives points based on the losers membership level. e.g. If the loser was gold, then you'd all get 4 points each. The loser receives 0 points.
5 way draw, each drawer receives points based on the 2 loosing players membership level. e.g. one was gold, the other was silver, each drawer would receive 7 points, the losers receives 0.
3 way draw If you had a 3 way draw, and the losers were, 2 silver, 1 gold and 1 platinum the three winners would get 13points each.
Solo, you get points based on all your competitors membership level. If you beat 3 bronze, 2 silver and a gold you'd get 16 points + 10 points for the solo = 26 points

Just an idea, I'm sure everyone can think of pros and cons for this idea. I'd like to hear them.


This sounds like a good idea, except that experience might not always match up to skill (some starters on playdip might be quite good). An idea similar to this one would be that everyone has a point value from 0 to 100 representative of their skill (this can be initialized based on the membership ranking) and you somehow factor the combined loser's score with the combined winner's score to determine points gained/lost. Thoughts?
The Classicists are a group dedicated to reducing player NMRs.
User avatar
raphtown
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:07
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby InterMPC » 03 Nov 2010, 02:54

raphtown wrote:This sounds like a good idea, except that experience might not always match up to skill (some starters on playdip might be quite good). An idea similar to this one would be that everyone has a point value from 0 to 100 representative of their skill (this can be initialized based on the membership ranking) and you somehow factor the combined loser's score with the combined winner's score to determine points gained/lost. Thoughts?


I like the concept. Here are a few issues to be aware of.

1. If we have a system where you can lose points and there is a cap on how high your score can go, we may see a scenario where people think it’s in their best interest to not play classicist games. E.g. I’m on 99 points (because I’m so awesome). I can’t get higher than 100, but I can certainly drop considerably. Isn’t it best for me just to not play anymore so I can stay on top of the table?
2. We need to define at exactly what point in time we take peoples score for calculation. What I mean by this is; let’s say I start a game and I have 50 points. Just before the game finishes, I have dropped to 45 points because I lost a different game in the mean time. Do we use 45 or 50 to calculate scores for that game?
3. The spreadsheet to be able to handle the table is possible, but would require a lot of work. One solution being that we manually enter each game in to the spreadsheet, which players are participating and what their starting score is, that will be used to calculate the result. We then enter the result into the spreadsheet and the spreadsheet automatically allocates new scores and updates the table. The spreadsheet will be able to handle a limited amount of games using this method though.
4. How do you calculate peoples starting scores? Who decides? Is it fairer to just start everyone on 50 and let their new results determine how they climb? People’s appropriate ranking would quickly come to fruition.

Issue 1 is the biggest concern for me, as the others are all quite fixable.
InterMPC
 
Posts: 2225
Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 09:22
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby raphtown » 03 Nov 2010, 03:29

A couple of ways to resolve #1.

1) A controversial one that would do the job is to adopt a system similar to one used in other ladder rankings. If you are close enough in ranking to another player, you can issue a challenge to him. If that player is A) not already in a game of dip or B) is too busy in real-life (no time to start any new games), he must accept the challenge and play in a given Classicist game with the challenger. If the challenged player is already in a game of dip and declines because of A), he must notify the challenger when he finishes one of his current games and must then play in a Classicist game of the challenger's choosing (unless he then uses reason B). If both players agree the challenge can be made public. If you use reason B, you must notify the challenger if you are no longer affected by rl (meaning you are able to join new games). A player can only have one challenger at a time.

Since this would potentially force players to play Classicist games, we would have to make this system opt-in for Classicists.

2) In order to remain in the rankings, a Classicist would have to play a Classicist game every 3 (2/4/5/6?) months. Simple and easy, but could still be gamed by playing with players of your choosing.

3) You lose points every month at a rate proportional to you current point score.
The Classicists are a group dedicated to reducing player NMRs.
User avatar
raphtown
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:07
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby Iamnobody » 03 Nov 2010, 03:45

For starting points we could start at 100 and rank everyone down from there. For example, If the person on the top of the table starts with 100 points and I have 1/10 of of their site points then I start at 10 points for this ranking purpose.

I don't think there should be an upper limit for points, but the the higher ranked you are the less point you should receive for being someone at a lower rank. Perhaps we group everyone into 10 groups and if someone from the highest rank beats someone 1/2 down the table then they only get 50% of the points and so on.

Just a couple random thoughts.
Heptarchy XVI - Wales - 6-way draw winner
Days of Enlightenment II - Sweden - 8-way draw winner
Blitzkrieg 4 - UK - Survivor
User avatar
Iamnobody
 
Posts: 351
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 07:18
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1104
All-game rating: 1113
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby InterMPC » 03 Nov 2010, 05:19

I personally think having no upper limit would be better, and the easiest solution for issue number 1.

Also unless most of us have actually reached 50 games then I think giving everyone a starting score based on their position or score in the main stats causes a similar issue to using their membership level. You are ranked high if you have played a lot of games, because you've had more opportunity to accrue points.

I believe this is an opportunity to start everyone off on a level playing field and have scores that represent only how we have played in Classicist games. (maybe I'm biased because I have a low score ;) )

And yes Iamnobody, I agree that if you beat someone who has a lower score than you, you shouldn't get as many points as if you beat someone who has a highers score than you.

For those mathematically minded, maybe something like this..

If I win, my new score is (my old score) + ((average old score of contestants) / (my old score) * 10 / (number of winners) * 2)
If I lose my new score is (my old score) + (my old score) / (average old score of contestants) * -2

To test how this would work you can use this link - where you can enter who wins and what their starting score is.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=COvq2tcK
Just make sure you only change the values in the white cells to test the method.
InterMPC
 
Posts: 2225
Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 09:22
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+10

PreviousNext

Return to Miscellaneous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest