Player Rankings

Aussie Gaz · Post by **Aussie Gaz** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:57 am

I think it was Al that started a discussion a while ago about a system of ranking all of the wok players.

What happened to that discussion thread?

Did it die from apathy or was it to hard to decide on a suitable scoring method?

It might be that we have two rankings per player based on WOK4 and WOK5 performances with another ranking for MW when it arrives.

Is one combined ranking better than separate ones?

If a suitable system can be arrived at I would be willing to try to keep track of it (my ability to keep the system running would be dependant on how much time is involved).

Kiesta · Post by **Kiesta** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 8:49 am

I'm looking at quite a bit into the future. If you have, say, 1000 players playing this, it wouldn't really make sense NOT to have a player ranking system, would it?

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:55 pm

Technically, the VP system is a player ranking system. Are you proposing something different?

I tried something like this a couple of years ago when I was a GM. There was a lot of discussion about how to rate non-winners of a game, not only in terms of what position they finish in but how many points to award for each position. Basically, you won points for every game where you won VPs and you lost points for every game where you did not win VPs. The number of points won or lost was not a constant, but based on the average rating of the players in the game. You won more points if your rating was below the average. You won fewer points if your rating was above the average. The opposite was true if you lost and you were losing points.

I believe that system is still on my old web space. Let me know if you want the URL.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 8:41 pm

Would love to see it Bjorn!

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:11 pm

Realistically WOK has never grown to more than 50 active players at any one time and I doubt it ever will. Kaohalla works. A player ranking system would be fine, but instituting it at this point with three years of WOK behind us might be somewhat difficult.

Aussie Gaz · Post by **Aussie Gaz** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:30 pm

Bjorn

Yes I would like to see what you have done previously.

Dameon

There are many new players who have not been around since day1 of WOK.

Older players with many VP's would start with a higher ranking obviously but the good new players would rise rapidly escpially if a system such as Bjorn described was used.

If you win vp's against the old hands then you would score more points than against a bunch of newbies.

Playing more games than someone else won't necessarily mean a higher score either as to consistantly increase your ranking you would have to be winning consistantly.

Post by **Duke** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:18 am

Aussie Gaz wrote:I think it was Al that started a discussion a while ago about a system of ranking all of the wok players.

What happened to that discussion thread?

Did it die from apathy or was it to hard to decide on a suitable scoring method?

It might be that we have two rankings per player based on WOK4 and WOK5 performances with another ranking for MW when it arrives.

Is one combined ranking better than separate ones?

If a suitable system can be arrived at I would be willing to try to keep track of it (my ability to keep the system running would be dependant on how much time is involved).

I remember that post. We had a LOT of suggestions on how to make that system work. It must have been quite some time ago and I was rather new to the community so no one listened to my suggestions. Nice to see that some things dont change.

Post by **Count Henri** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:48 am

What I would like to see is a 'Reliabilty' rating (RR) for players.

You start at 100%.

For each game you get 100% for RIP or VP.

Each missed turn is -5%

M3 is -25%

Your overall RR is the average of all games played.

To illustrate if you played 4 games & were RIP twice, won VP & went M3 you would have a RR of 93.75%.

On the other hand if you joined 4 games, were RIP in 2, missed a turn before going RIP & were M3 in one game your RR would be 92.5%

Worst case for 4 games is of course 4 M3 which gives a RR of 75%

If M3 was caused by RW circumstances beyond your control the GM could still report you as 100%RR for that game.

GMs could then set a RR minimum for games, particularly X-Games.

Thoughts?

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:29 pm

Interesting idea Count. In general, I find that players who start to miss moves soon take a leave of absence from Kaomaris. There are some who return, most do not. The ones that return can be the most unreliable because as soon as they return and join a game they remember why they left in the first place.

Like any community, you need to participate in some of the discussions to maintain an interest in what is going on.

Yep, the GMT rating system page is still there. You will see some familiar names at the top, and some familiar names not near the top. It has more to do with the time interval used to rate games than anything else.

I had a spreadsheet in excell that maintained the data. That is long gone now.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/gmtom/GMT_ ... system.htm

Post by **Count Henri** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 3:34 pm

Hmmm who the Hell are Fuhrer & Parguiva (amongst others) & why am I not on the list?

Errr maybe that was during my first away period...

Hang on Thin King is there & Egbert & I know I won some games around then...

This is an anti-Henri plot isn't it...

*Checks WOK email history*

OK well maybe I got my VP before then & a fair bit after...

Curses I have no legitimate reason to be on that list...

Shut-up Allister...

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:58 pm

I would like to ask 2 pertinent questions?

1. Are we talking about a player "performance" score or a "reliability" score?

Assuming it's the former, then:
2. To what use would we put the score?

Some examples:
- allow some (say 3?) top scoring players to get into the player championship game, rather than being totally reliant on VPs, or
- have a 2nd player championship based on the top scorers rather than VPs

I'm not saying I support either, it's just that I don't see it as a good idea to introduce a player rating if it's not used for anything.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 1:30 am

Personally i feel that the vp system isn't a very accurate system.

It's vey easy to use, but by no means tells us how players really rank.

Also the fact that both wok 4 and wok 5 matches are rated on the same total has never made any sense to me as they are totally different games.

Now i know that WOK maybe is too small a community to have seperate standings for wok 4 and wok 5, but it would make a lot more sense.

Theoretically i could qualify for the wok 5 final after getting all my vps from wok 4 games and somebody who only plays wok 5 and has even won wok 5 vps might not qualify for a place in the wok 5 final because his place is being taken by somebody who 'only' plays wok 4...of course this is an extreme example but still very viable.

I would be for a rating system where a player's total performance is taken in to account (number of rips, number of wins, number of provinces held, number of turns survived, missed turns, etc. etc.) and all this weighed by the ratings of his/her opponents.

We had discussed something like this on the Scholar's list a while back...i'll see if i can put it up here for discussion.

Post by **Duke** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 12:09 pm

Hey, I am on top of Massie in Bjorns list!!!

....on top of.....that didnt sound right.

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 1:21 pm

Hey-Piebald or Lord Kragg, wheerever you are. Come out of hiding and join me in teaching these "high ranking" dudes what it's all about. It's no fun to be at the bottom of the pecking order.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 5:32 pm

Other than bragging rights, there is no point to the player rating system. I favor the current VP system for determining who gets into the annual championship game. As a rule, the more games you play the more VP's you get. We really want players with RECENT VPs in the championships.

Goat Herders point is well taken. If we don't use it for anything, why bother? It does take some work and the only reason I did it was for my own entertainment.

What I would want to add to it is a qualifier for number of games played. One rating system I participate in for board games has three qualifiers after your rating. 1) Total number of games played. 2) Number of different titles played (you can play different games, but they are all used in the rating) 3) Number of different opponents played.

So, we could add some qualifiers after the rating. Some things we could consider are 1) Number of rated games; 2) Number of WOK4 rated games; 3) Number of WOK5 rated games; 4) VPs from WOK4 games; 5) VPs from WOK5 games. Whatever. Just suggestions. Figure out the two or three things you really care about and keep track of them.

I note that I have been a member of the AREA rating system for boardgames for over 20 years. As far as I know, the rating system isn't used for anything and no gamer I have ever played asked me what my rating is. If only confers bragging rights.

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:27 pm

Hey --- so I guess this means that I can brag that I am the highest rated player in WOK (unless and until we implement a new rating system). Cool!

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:38 pm

Egbert wrote:Hey --- so I guess this means that I can brag that I am the highest rated player in WOK (unless and until we implement a new rating system). Cool!

Perhaps that's why we want to change the system

Aussie Gaz · Post by **Aussie Gaz** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:33 am

Bragging rights is probably all this will be good for.

I have attached a file with all the player names and their current vp's as best as I can work out.

Any amendments to me as soon as possible please.

I will allocate all playes a starting figure of 1000 points plus 50 per vp.

Players will increase points by winning vps (50 per vp) and by killing other players (20 points adjusted by each players current score).

Players will lose points by getting killed and 20 points for quitting a game.

I will commence scoring from the information on the current Kaobase but will not include xgames or clan games in the scoring.

Any suggestions on improvements please let me know.

Aussie Gaz · Post by **Aussie Gaz** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:35 am

System wouldn't allow me to attach a ".txt" file.

Player name and current vp's below.

Allister Fiend 1
Amgor 0
Angel grl 1
Aussie Gaz 2
Axebold 3
Baron Krul 1
Baron Roland 3
Ben III 2
Bicco 3.5
Bjorn Toulouse 8
Blackthorne 0
Blind IO 3
Brykovian 2
Butcher 0
Calidus 9.5
Casablanca 0
Chan 0
Coolant 4
Count Henri 4
Covenant 3
Crazy Psycho 1
Crusher Bob 2
Dameon 13.5
Dark Monk 5
Darkelf 0
Delimar 1
Delirium 0
Dorothy of Kansas 0
Doverish 5
Duke 4.5
Dyana 5
Eagle_Eyes 0
Ecrivian 0
Edsu 2
Egbert 21
Eric Slash 1
Funtastick 1
General Havoc 1
Goat Herder 4
Gorzag 3
Grave Maker 1
Ja' Ded 1
Jadg 3
Juggernaut 2
Kaiser Mojie 4
Kalisto 1
Kiesta 3
Lardmaster 4.5
Lord Amgor 3
Lord Carlow 2
Lord Fredo 3.5
Lord Jadin 2
Lord Kragg 0.5
Mac an Ghiolla 2
Mason 1
Massielita 22
master 0
Modi 3
Mylantis 2.5
Nemesis 3
Nestalawe 3.5
Nova 1
Pemca 3
Piebald 2
Queen Pea 1
Ralrac 1
Raven 3.5
Raw 4
Reaper 7
RevAmp. 1
Saladin 5
Shadycreek 1
Shagga 1
Silver Surfer 1
Skarn 2
Sleffie 1
Smashface 5
Spud McDoug 3
Strider 1
Taipan 1
TBert 5
Temujin 0
The Invisible 4
The_Last_Paladin 0
Thin King 7
Tomb Raider 6
Tristao 6.5
Underdog 7.5
Undertaker 5.5
Warlord Ram 1
Xero 0
Xwing 3.5
Yarosund 6.5

Post by **Count Henri** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 5:12 am

Aussie Gaz wrote:System wouldn't allow me to attach a ".txt" file.

Hmmm OK I think I've fixed that now - try again.

The Worlds of Kaomaris

Player Rankings

Would a player ranking system be of use to the WOK community?

Player Rankings

Re: Player Rankings

Rating System

Re: Rating System