New GB and USA FoG Rankings

Post by **petirouge** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:57 am

The updated FoG rankings and the new USA ones are now in the FoG Rankings section

http://www.fieldofglory.com/fogrankings2008.html

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:24 am

However the NZ Rankings (now?) point to the GB rankings, which is confusing to say the least.

Andy1972 · Post by **Andy1972** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:03 am

how do these rankings work? You have to win.. or come in the top 3.. or..

im just wondering how these scores come about.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:43 am

I can't say how the NZ rankings work but the US and GB rankings use a system developed over the years by the BHGS.

Essentially to get a full ranking you need to play in N tournaments where N is defined by the national body and in GB and the US this is set to 6 tournaments over the year.

Tournaments are then split into classes depending on their 'importance' with Grand Slams being the most prestigious, Majors for other big tournaments and Minors for all the rest. In GB the Grandslams are Britcon and The BHGS Challenge, the Majors are Roll Call and Warfare, all other comps are Minors.

Grand Slams are worth a potential 120 points, Majors 100, Minors 80. The winner of an event gets the full points, last place gets 1 point and the other players get points on a sliding scale in between. The total points you score are then divided by the number of events reqired for a full score and that is your ranking. So if you just play at Britcon and win you will get 120 points which will give you 20 ranking points. If you play 6 comps and come last in all of them you will get 6 points which will give you 1 ranking point.

Rankings are calculated on a rolling callendar year so at the moment as FoG has only been published for 7 or so months they are building up but once we get to 2009 old scores will drop out or be replaced. Should a player play in more than 6 comps then majors and grand slams will be 'protected' and always worth a full tournament while minor events will have their scores averaged to fill in the extra events to make you up to 6 comps.

I hope that helps.

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:58 am

Hammy, Do you get bonus points if you are JD then.

How can JD have 23.9 from only 1 competition. Have I missed something in your calculation.

Also , how would I be ranked if I only done 1 GB /1 French and 1 Italian competition.

Cheers
Jim

jdm · Post by **jdm** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:09 am

this is always the point that if I dont get a good ranking I will shut the forum

JDM

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:16 am

Gibby

How can JD have 23.9 from only 1 competition

JD

I will shut the forum

Although JD likes to think he's important those that organise/umpire and don't get to play get an average or something for the ones they organise.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:39 am

gibby wrote:Hammy, Do you get bonus points if you are JD then.

How can JD have 23.9 from only 1 competition. Have I missed something in your calculation.

Also , how would I be ranked if I only done 1 GB /1 French and 1 Italian competition.

Cheers
Jim

Actually you get bonus points if you organise a big tournament and give up your opportunity to play so others can do so

There is an 'umpire' factor that allows for players who run major events like the Challenge, Britcon etc. to not lose out on ranking points for doing so. Essentially if you organise an event and don't play you get credited with the score you would have received had you played and finished in a position equivalent to your average finish in all the other tournaments you play in during the year.

As for 1 GB, 1 French and 1 Italian comp, they will all count for the international rankings but not for the GB rankings. I will be putting together the first international rankings before the end of the month and so far I have tournaments from:

GB, USA, Spain, France and Finland to include. Any other comps I get the results for will go into the international rankings too.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:40 am

timmy1 wrote:However the NZ Rankings (now?) point to the GB rankings, which is confusing to say the least.

i got the same. the "nz ranking page" links to the GB PDF.

and grats to steve payne in the USA.

hope you're using my old sargonids, or maybe the kushans i painted for you

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:27 am

Ok Hammy, I'm still being thick, surely you could not get above 20 points. If you win a grand slam you get 120 points and for ranking puposes this is 1/6th equals 20 points. Thats the most points you can get for winning a competition.

If you won both grand slams and both majors and 2 minors your total score would be 600 /6 = 100.

So at JD's organizing rate he could end up on more than a 100 if organized all events and I'm not saying he would.

I agree that organizers of shows should get equivalent points to what they could have got and despite thinking Britcon is the best show on the calendar, I'm not sure the organizer should get more points than the winner.

Still being thick.

Jim

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:40 am

He played one and organised one. The number must only show played

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:56 am

gibby wrote:Ok Hammy, I'm still being thick, surely you could not get above 20 points. If you win a grand slam you get 120 points and for ranking puposes this is 1/6th equals 20 points. Thats the most points you can get for winning a competition.

If you won both grand slams and both majors and 2 minors your total score would be 600 /6 = 100.

So at JD's organizing rate he could end up on more than a 100 if organized all events and I'm not saying he would.

I agree that organizers of shows should get equivalent points to what they could have got and despite thinking Britcon is the best show on the calendar, I'm not sure the organizer should get more points than the winner.

Still being thick.
Jim

JD played at Oxford and finished 7th out of 22 teams. For that he is awarded 57.43 points which works out at 9.57 rating points, he organises Britcon so is awarded umpire points for that. His umpire score for Britcon is 86 points which gives him 14.33 rating points. His number of turnaments played shows 1 because he only played 1 tournament, he is condsidered for scoring to have played 2 because of the umpire rating.

Before Britcon I had played 6 tournaments, all minors. As I organised at Britcon I get an umpire rating and that is based on my average finish over all 6 comps. As I finished 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd and 12th in those comps I have a relatively high average placing and my umpire score for Britcon was about 103 or so. What happens then is thay my minor comps are averaged out over 5 comps and my 'Britcon' score slots in to make me up to 6 comps. As a result my rating went up slightly after Britcon but not by the same as adding a whole extra tournament because I had alreadly played 6.

Since the latest rankings were published I have played in another minor comp and not done that well. As a result my average score for the minors will drop and my unpire score for Britcon will also drop.

It is a reasonably fair system. The only slight weakness at present is that if a player umpires a Major event they get an umpir ranking as if they had umpired a grand slam but on the overall scale of things it is not IMO a major issue.

DataBob · Post by **DataBob** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:03 am

so James

Does that mean that I can get a ranking for Britcon , depending on any placings I get on the FoG circuit ?

I have an army now and am not afraid to use it

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:14 am

DataBob wrote:so James

Does that mean that I can get a ranking for Britcon , depending on any placings I get on the FoG circuit ?

I have an army now and am not afraid to use it

Yup Bob,

Once you actually play in a FoG tournament you will get an umpire rating.

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:30 am

Ok Hammy, don't feel too thick now, Its just that I was looking at 1 comp played 23.9 points.
Maybe the comp played column should be competition equivalents because if that had read as 2 and 23.9 points then this whole thread would not have happened.

Cheers
Jim

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:51 am

gibby wrote:Ok Hammy, don't feel too thick now, Its just that I was looking at 1 comp played 23.9 points.
Maybe the comp played column should be competition equivalents because if that had read as 2 and 23.9 points then this whole thread would not have happened.

Cheers
Jim

Possibly but that is not the way the program works

The macros are how you might say comlpex and weren't written by me so modifying them is rather daunting.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:58 pm

Scardycat. I once had to modify a Pascal 64 programme just from the binary object code. Macros are for girls.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:49 pm

timmy1 wrote:Scardycat. I once had to modify a Pascal 64 programme just from the binary object code. Macros are for girls.

True, I have done some debugging after I got the very helpful message "Something has gone wrong. Phone Mark and beg for help!". My problem was I didn't even know who Mark was, never mind have his phone number

A bit of diagnostic code at the appropriate place and another run of the program and I worked out the problem. Modifying things just from the binary is not something you would want to do on a regular basis although I have modified printer drivers and comms configuration files in just that way in the past in extreme situations.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:16 am

Having done it once I never want to modify binary EVER again. A macro with a message like that would drive me demented. I now understand why you are less than keen to change the macro.

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:21 am

hammy wrote: As for 1 GB, 1 French and 1 Italian comp, they will all count for the international rankings but not for the GB rankings. I will be putting together the first international rankings before the end of the month and so far I have tournaments from:

GB, USA, Spain, France and Finland to include. Any other comps I get the results for will go into the international rankings too.

Faenza in mid-October, which Jim is coming to, will be our first proper FoG tournament. Obviously I'll forward
Hammy the results.

There may be another early November in Milan (I don't have any details yet). Definitely there will
be FoG at the tournament Paolo Paglianti organises in Milan (at the end of November this year,
rather than first weekend of December). Details being finalised.

Italian rankings are done using the same system outlined above by Hammy, except all meetings
count as 100 points.

Rgds,
Peter