UK Rankings

[dave_r]

(in no particular order):
BHGS Challenge (Dave Ruddock)
Britcon (Medieval: Dave Ruddock / Dave Handley - tie Ancients: Graham Evans)
Roll Call (Ian Stewart 15mm / Dave Handley 25mm)

Except those that Dave won first

Note it says tie for Britcon and not BHGS Challenge. Oh, and really it should be:

Campaign (Terry Shaw, because Dave Ruddock surrendered)

I'm beholden to how I get the results from the organisers. The challenge was shown as 1st and yourself 2nd, the results from britcon showed a tie.

The results from campaign should show maws not reigate at all, but since the rankings are based on the individual scores and not the team scores it is a moot point

[kevinj]

Is it time for a review of the way this works? I think that going to 4 rather than 6 comps was positive move but I think there's scope for a bit more variation in the relative values of the competitions themselves.

At the moment, Britcon and Challenge are worth 120 points each, everything else is 80. So, although you can get a full ranking without playing those 2 it will never be above 80 points. I think it's reasonable that Britcon and Challenge are worth more because they have more games and generally more players but it seems odd that otherwise a competition like Warfare is worth the same as a 1 day competition like the Games Expo.

I think this would be a more reasonable formula:

120 Points - Majors - Britcon and Challenge.

100 Points - Full Tournaments - Either Singles competitions with a minimum of 4 games (e.g Roll Call, Warfare) or the overall results serial tournaments like the Northern or Southern Leagues if individual round scores are not being counted.

80 Points - Everything else, 1 day Competitions or Doubles.

[dave_r]

Is it time for a review of the way this works? I think that going to 4 rather than 6 comps was positive move but I think there's scope for a bit more variation in the relative values of the competitions themselves.

At the moment, Britcon and Challenge are worth 120 points each, everything else is 80. So, although you can get a full ranking without playing those 2 it will never be above 80 points. I think it's reasonable that Britcon and Challenge are worth more because they have more games and generally more players but it seems odd that otherwise a competition like Warfare is worth the same as a 1 day competition like the Games Expo.

I think this would be a more reasonable formula:

120 Points - Majors - Britcon and Challenge.

100 Points - Full Tournaments - Either Singles competitions with a minimum of 4 games (e.g Roll Call, Warfare) or the overall results serial tournaments like the Northern or Southern Leagues if individual round scores are not being counted.

80 Points - Everything else, 1 day Competitions or Doubles.

There are only two competitions this would affect:

- games expo
- Stoke challenge

I can't see that making these already sparse comps less desirable would achieve much?

This was extensively discussed at the time, but I'm open to any ideas / suggestions.

[kevinj]

That's not the case. Those 2 are already 80 pointers and would remain so, along with Doubles competitions and any other 1 dayers like the Farnborough 25mm Fog R competition. My suggestion would not change those, but was intended to improve the relative weighting of the more substantial singles competitions like Roll Call and Warfare.

[Robert241167]

Hi guys

Don't forget you also have the 2 1-dayers at Stockport.

Although none of the small competitions change they do change relative to the ones being shifted to 100 points.

I was looking at competitions over the last few years yesterday and noticed the numbers at the small competitions like the Games Expo and Stockport had more than halved over the last 5 years.

I agree with Kev that the 4 game competitions should carry more value but also agree with Dave that this may hurt the small competitions even more as people prioritise those competitions that can gain them more potential ranking points.

Rob

[kevinj]

How many people play competitions because or ranking points? I don't think anyone who went to Stoke did so in the anticipation of getting cheap ranking points. I play them because I enjoy playing the game and it's good to get a wider variety of opponents. I just think that if we're going to have a ranking system it makes sense to weight the tournaments so that the bigger ones count for more and the smaller ones for less.

[philqw78]

I don't think anyone who went to Stoke did so in the anticipation of getting cheap ranking points

I did

[petedalby]

Back in the mists of time, I used to do the rankings for DBR and we used a very simple system to recognise the importance / challenge of each competition.

Basically you were awarded a number of points based upon your final position within the field. So in an 8 person competition, the person who came last would get 1 point, 2nd to last 2 points, etc and the person who won would get 8 points. There would then be an additional 3 points for 1st place, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd.

This meant that doing averagely in a large competition was as well rewarded as coming 1st in a small competition. And the value attached to each competition varied with the attendance.

In our current system, winning an 8 player 25mm competition achieves the same rankings points as winning a 30 player 15mm competition at the same event which has never seemed quite right to me.

Sadly some people do attend smaller events / periods with the intent / added bonus of picking up easy ranking points.

But thanks very much to Dave for maintaining the current system - it takes time and effort for scant thanks and no reward.

[philqw78]

So I would have got one point for Stoke in both systems.

Those points are very cheap.

[AlanCutner]

Ranking points are also awarded based on final positions in Northern and Scottish Leagues. In the case of the Scottish League this is a 15 game tournament (and must be similar for Northern League). I understand the history behind these decisions, but if re-thinking the balance maybe these should be reviewed as well. And have I read it right that other 1-dayers are counting as ranked competitions in their own rights? That would seem unfair to the league tournaments.

Personally I'd prefer to see a self-balancing system based on number of entries to competition. Either along Petes lines, or as something based on (entries x no. rounds) so <40 = minor, 40-80 = medium, >80 = major. Britcon Ancients was 30 entries and 6 rounds, ie. (30x6)=180, so a major.

And a question. A full ranking can be achieved with 4 tournaments. If more than four are played are the ranking points averaged out, or are best four (only) counted? Used to be the former, but with majors retaining full value.

[madaxeman]

Is it time for a review of the way this works? I think that going to 4 rather than 6 comps was positive move but I think there's scope for a bit more variation in the relative values of the competitions themselves.

Certainly in FoGR there has been an explosion in 2-3 game, 1-day competitions in recent years, arguably at the expense of Doubles format events - I'd suggest that this is the only real material change in the way the calendar works that perhaps warrants a re-looking at rankings. There are lots of 1-days in FoGAM in Scotland, Northern League etc as well.

That to my mind means we have:

- Big events - Britcon & Challenge (5-6 games)
- Standard 4-game singles events
- Doubles events with 4 games
- One-day events with 2-3 games (and maybe reduced points totals)
- Team-based events (Campaign and maybe Derby)

Based on keeping it simple, that to me suggests 4 tiers of weighting, and just leave Derby and Campaign out of it entirely. You could even leave doubles out too if you wanted?

Keeping it as best few scores (so you can drop some) seems to be a good idea from all sorts of perspectives, as was proved by feedback from Britcon. It's then just what the right number is - 4, 5, 6 ?

I can't see that making these already sparse comps less desirable would achieve much?

If anyone is choosing which competitions they attend on the basis of wanting to win ranking points they need to be taken outside and shot.

Rankings should be a bit of fun to add some additional context to the whole year's calendar of events, and to allow us to give out another trophy at Britcon. With "drop a round" at Britcon in play, they aren't even going to be used for seeding the first round anymore, so they have no real importance other than being a bit of fun AFAICS

If we are getting anywhere close to "complicated" in the ranking system we are probably doing something very wrong long the way!

[Robert241167]

Tim, can you take Phil outside please and have him shot?

Rob

[petedalby]

Based on keeping it simple, that to me suggests 4 tiers of weighting, and just leave Derby and Campaign out of it entirely.

Not sure why you would wish to do that?

[madaxeman]

Based on keeping it simple, that to me suggests 4 tiers of weighting, and just leave Derby and Campaign out of it entirely.

Not sure why you would wish to do that?

On the basis that they (well, at least Campaign) are in theory team competitions, where the results, and the draw for each round is done on the team score rather than the individual scores?

Or, more pertinently, it avoids the risk of us all being bored to death by someone who actually cares explaining in a thread on this forum about how they are trying to invent some obtuse weighting algorithm to reverse engineer individual rankable scores out of the team totals

[kevinj]

For Derby we have prizes for the winners of each pool, so no reverse engineering required, just sorting.

[dave_r]

Based on keeping it simple, that to me suggests 4 tiers of weighting, and just leave Derby and Campaign out of it entirely.

Not sure why you would wish to do that?

On the basis that they (well, at least Campaign) are in theory team competitions, where the results, and the draw for each round is done on the team score rather than the individual scores?

Or, more pertinently, it avoids the risk of us all being bored to death by someone who actually cares explaining in a thread on this forum about how they are trying to invent some obtuse weighting algorithm to reverse engineer individual rankable scores out of the team totals

Campaign is treated as singles for ranking purposes.

Because derby is scored and the draw is done by team, therefore the ranking is completed by team. Otherwise, somebody would turn up with two, ERM, dreadful players, get an easy draw and win the comp

[philqw78]

Tim, can you take Phil outside please and have him shot?

Rob

For the one point I deliberately went to Stoke for.

You're a clever 'un Rob, you can always see through my sarcasm.

Or is it ironic that I can't see through yours?

[timmy1]

Phil

I think Bob's comment was general rather than being linked specifically to this thread...

[timmy1]

In dave_r's defense (did I really type that?) it is me that has been including each round of the one day comps in the FoG:R ranking rather than the method dave_r uses where he takes the end of year league result for FoG:AM. I know that some of the FoG:R players have expressed their concerns over this. Dave got the changes made from 6 to 4 to encourage more people to play in comps. He also did all the grunt work of getting the rankings translated to the new format. Finally he got the weightings agreed. As it is now it is simple to administer (though you would not guess that from the number of mistakes I make), and easy to spot when some some numpty makes a snafu. No objections if people want change but please don't make it too complex to administer.

[dave_r]

Certainly in FoGR there has been an explosion in 2-3 game, 1-day competitions in recent years, arguably at the expense of Doubles format events - I'd suggest that this is the only real material change in the way the calendar works that perhaps warrants a re-looking at rankings. There are lots of 1-days in FoGAM in Scotland, Northern League etc as well.

That to my mind means we have:

- Big events - Britcon & Challenge (5-6 games)
- Standard 4-game singles events
- Doubles events with 4 games
- One-day events with 2-3 games (and maybe reduced points totals)
- Team-based events (Campaign and maybe Derby)

Based on keeping it simple, that to me suggests 4 tiers of weighting, and just leave Derby and Campaign out of it entirely. You could even leave doubles out too if you wanted?

Keeping it as best few scores (so you can drop some) seems to be a good idea from all sorts of perspectives, as was proved by feedback from Britcon. It's then just what the right number is - 4, 5, 6 ?

When I did the analysis of those players who got a full ranking 4 was the best number. We don't four tiers of weighting as that _does_ mean that people would attend the higher ranked comps as opposed to the lower ones.

I can't see that making these already sparse comps less desirable would achieve much?

If anyone is choosing which competitions they attend on the basis of wanting to win ranking points they need to be taken outside and shot.

Lots of people trot out this statement - but rankings are important to people. Whether it be to see who ends up higher than their club mate or as to who get to represent GB at Lisbon. Just by the amount of emails I get over the rankings each year means they cannot be trivialised.

Rankings should be a bit of fun to add some additional context to the whole year's calendar of events, and to allow us to give out another trophy at Britcon. With "drop a round" at Britcon in play, they aren't even going to be used for seeding the first round anymore, so they have no real importance other than being a bit of fun AFAICS

If we are getting anywhere close to "complicated" in the ranking system we are probably doing something very wrong long the way!

They are already hugely complicated, so that doesn't matter. The ultimate purpose of the rankings is to get people to attend tournaments.