Slitherine

An easy way would be to say how many players you placed above in a competition +1 and make that the score for the comp (multiply that number by 1.2 for the IWF as it is the most important). You could then have a score as high as the number of players in the cometition+1, +20% for the IWF, and as low as 1 of you finished last. Bigger comps then give a bigger reward and the IWF makes a bigger difference. Doubles compeitions could be added easily by using number of teams you beat +1. Cap the number of comps to certain ones and average the rest if you want only certain numbers, ones to count.

philqw78 wrote:An easy way would be to say how many players you placed above in a competition +1 and make that the score for the comp (multiply that number by 1.2 for the IWF as it is the most important). You could then have a score as high as the number of players in the cometition+1, +20% for the IWF, and as low as 1 of you finished last. Bigger comps then give a bigger reward and the IWF makes a bigger difference. Doubles compeitions could be added easily by using number of teams you beat +1. Cap the number of comps to certain ones and average the rest if you want only certain numbers, ones to count.

That is a ranking system that has been used but if you want any pretence of ballancing the field from country to country it won't work.

Consider say Ireland where they might get 12 players to every comp. If you play in six comps and win them all you would get 72 points. Placing half way down the field at Britcon this year would have been worth 32 points.

Using a sliding scale allows us to compare apples with oranges and get something that is at least believable.

Sticking with this system for a while will mean that the IWF FoG tournament becomes really important and to get to the top of the rankings without playing and doing well there would require a player to be really dominiant in home tournaments. If that player is unable to travel abroad then players from other countries might try to travel to play against him

When are you going to cease the lip waving and actually publish the bloody things then?

To be fair to Hammy he has now submitted them, but I did not like my ranking so it all has to be done again:-)

JDM

jdm wrote:To be fair to Hammy he has now submitted them, but I did not like my ranking so it all has to be done again:-)

JDM

"Power corrupts . . . ."



Marc the powerless

To be fair to Hammy he has now submitted them, but I did not like my ranking so it all has to be done again:-)

Ah. Would that be the I have played in one tournament, but umpired five others, therefore I get six majors to my score?

Can't be that - nobody is silly enough to let JD umpire

To be fair to Hammy he has now submitted them, but I did not like my ranking so it all has to be done again:-)

ROTFLMAO

nikgaukroger wrote:Can't be that - nobody is silly enough to let JD umpire

'Tis tru, letting JD umpire would not be a good plan.

He still gets an 'umpire' rating for running Britcon though. I think he is angling for an umpire by proxy ranking for every other tournament the BHGS run

you have to be fair about these things ...just the grand slams and Major events. I dont want to "umpire" the tiddlers

JDM

Perhaps you could introduce a charge of one pound per umpire call. Whoever gets ruled against pays the costs. There could be a queue buster five pound call. The umpires could be ranked on their takings.

rogerg wrote:Perhaps you could introduce a charge of one pound per umpire call. Whoever gets ruled against pays the costs. There could be a queue buster five pound call. The umpires could be ranked on their takings.

You can't possibly be serious! I mean it would be a choice between bankruptcy or actually getting around to read the rules for a fair few players.

Julian

babyshark wrote:

berthier wrote:An individual attending Historicon has the opportunity of playing in two if not all three comps at Historicon. That in itself is a bonus. Counting all three as a major comp just because is way out of kilter.

This is a good point, and something worth considering.

Marc

Simply counting based on total number of players would be an objective criterion.

How much of a consideration is prestige and ability to draw players from across the country? Historicon is the national miniatures convention and one with a significant draw across the country - given the cost of a 5000 mile weekend gaming jaunt from the Pacific coast to bucolic Amish country, it's having several events plus a broad range of vendors etc. that can justify the trip.

Quick update on where things are with the next set of international rankings. I have spent all afternoon trying to get them all together but still have the French, Iberian and Australasian results to enter. Unfortunately even with most countries using the same software amagamating everything is proving quite hard work.

I am taking a rest now as massaging the data into the right shape is something that needs concentration and mine is shot.

Hammy,
can you get JH to update the US rankings?

JM

I shall send him an e-mail and send all the national ratings mods a prod so I can do an end of 2008 set of international rankings.