Field of Glory Tabletop Rankings Live!

[Martin0112]

Tennis is a good comparision.
Inn tennis, there is a ranking for single players as well an addisional one for double players.
They are really independable, so a player can be #1 in Doubles and being only #428 in Single.

This may be achievalble and sounds like a good plan.

Can we agree on this idea?

[nikgaukroger]

I'd rather doubles wasn't included in the rankings, or there was some way of keeping them separate. It may be a significant factor in the UK, but nowhere else plays doubles, and these are supposed to be international rankings.

Lot of sense in this IMO - means that, as far as is possible, rankings are considering like with like.

The UK includes doubles in their rankings so it isn't as if they are ignored in the country where doubles is played quite a bit.

Lets be honest, we don't want Hammy's international standing to be boosted by the players carrying him in doubles comps

[nikgaukroger]

Tennis is a good comparision.
Inn tennis, there is a ranking for single players as well an addisional one for double players.
They are really independable, so a player can be #1 in Doubles and being only #428 in Single.

This may be achievalble and sounds like a good plan.

Can we agree on this idea?

Works for me.

[rbodleyscott]

Perhaps a seperate doubles ranking but based on individuals rather than pairs where each game actually counts for both players such that if player A with an ELO of 1700 and player B with an ELO of 1600 play as a team then the team has an ELO of say 1650 and each of their opponents gets points based on their performance against the combined ELO.

That would satisfy most doubles players I think.

[Martin0112]

OK, so we have to find a way to rate a double into seperate player rankings, correct?

Meaning if player 1 is playing with player 2 and 3 and 4, there will be only one ranking for each player.

I will have to give it some thoughts and I can only ask for patience, that's for sure not too easy

Here is a thought:

Modify the ELO for the higher ranking player by 50% of the amount that would occur with a singles game.
Modify the ELO for the lower ranking player by 25% of the amount that would occur with a single game

Do you really think it make sense to have the doubles mixed into the singles?
I doubt this is a good idea.
Especially, as an ELO-value is a zero-sum-method of calculating. This idea will for sure make the value uncomparable at all

[rbodleyscott]

Tennis is a good comparision.
Inn tennis, there is a ranking for single players as well an addisional one for double players.
They are really independable, so a player can be #1 in Doubles and being only #428 in Single.

This may be achievalble and sounds like a good plan.

Can we agree on this idea?

Yes. Something along the lines Hammy suggested.

[rbodleyscott]

OK, so we have to find a way to rate a double into seperate player rankings, correct?

Meaning if player 1 is playing with player 2 and 3 and 4, there will be only one ranking for each player.

I will have to give it some thoughts and I can only ask for patience, that's for sure not too easy

Here is a thought:

Modify the ELO for the higher ranking player by 50% of the amount that would occur with a singles game.
Modify the ELO for the lower ranking player by 25% of the amount that would occur with a single game

Do you really think it make sense to have the doubles mixed into the singles?

No, I am sold on separate doubles rankings, but for individual players not for pairings.

[IainMcNeil]

It might be best to have a singles and doubles rankings separately.

[Ghaznavid]

Karsten / Martin

Thank you. Very interesting.

I have a problem that on the player rankings when I click on a country it just takes me back to the player rankings list. Is that intended?

It's not a bug, it's a feature, really, believe me... ohhhkay, I fixed it. Thanks.

Two questions.

1, Are we sure that none of the players list as United States are not really Canadians? Might be none but I am surprised if it really is none?

No we are not 100% sure, but it's not very likely. Most of the US results are from the Gulf South folks, so pretty far away from Canada. I've so far not been to successful in my attempts to find contacts willing and able to get me results from Tournaments in the more northern parts of the USA much less Canada.

2, Is it worth having national reps check the data for their countries? I don't know enough about some countries to comment but for example in the Spain data there are two players 'Juan Andrés' and 'Juan Andrés Pinilla'. They may well be like Dave M Allen and David Allen, two different people but is it worth a check. This was an example, it is not intended to be picking on any one country.

I did contact various local representatives including Spain, it's sometimes slow work though (as you will notice we don't have a single tournament result from Spain in 2009 so far either for example).

One other thing. The most used army is missing from the used armies list. 'Unknown' has been used 90 times as far as I can see.

For example, Tim Porter is listed as having used Unknown at Roll Call 2009 (he was a floater so that might be why). According to his site (http://www.madaxeman.com/match_reports_index.php) he used Medieval Free Company.

Well as "Unknown" can be any army listing it makes no sense, filling the blanks would be preferable. As for Tim Porter, yes I noticed, I just didn't get around to fix it. When Martin entered the Roll Call results Tim was listed as having used 30YW Catholics or something like in the Medieval period of the FoG:AM competition, not very likely I guess.

[hammy]

Tennis is a good comparision.
Inn tennis, there is a ranking for single players as well an addisional one for double players.
They are really independable, so a player can be #1 in Doubles and being only #428 in Single.

This may be achievalble and sounds like a good plan.

Can we agree on this idea?

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Martin0112]

This thread is growing quicker than I can read it

It looks as if we have more or less a common agreement on the following:

- Having 2 seperate rankings, one for singles, one for doubles
- The doubles rating should list individual players, not pairs of players.

I think, with this idea, Karsten and myself can go back and work on this.
I will not promise a final date, but it may take several weeks for testing and entering results, but for sure we will do our best.

Thanks for all this valuable input

[peterrjohnston]

No, I am sold on separate doubles rankings, but for individual players not for pairings.

This would make more sense.

[rbodleyscott]

No, I am sold on separate doubles rankings, but for individual players not for pairings.

This would make more sense.

It would also make sense not to use the ELO 1600 system for this, but to have a ranking that goes only one way, starting from 0.

That way, occasional doubles partners dragged in to make up the pair (and dominated by their tournament tiger partner) would not be hovering around the 1600 mark while more frequent (and quite likely better) players drop below it.

In other words, a system more similar to the BHGS rankings system.

(I realise that this idea might put the kybosh on the whole thing).

[Ghaznavid]

To be exact the double results I found are:

• Anderida 2009
• Leeds Doubles 2009
• Shieldwall 2009
• SoA Oxford Doubles 2009
• Doubles Derby 2008
• Rampage Doubles 2008
• Oxford Doubles 2008
• Leeds round from BHGS doubles

With doubles making such a minuscule percentage of the total tournament results it shouldn't surprise anyone that we did not consider including double tournaments a very high priority.

So far I am aware of the following doubles tournaments:

SoA Doubles 2008 (Oxford, Leeds, Luncarty, Derby, Chester)
SoA Doubles 2009 (Oxford, Glasgow, Derby)
Burton Doubles 2009 (there was a 2008 comp but it was the weekend before the rules were released so counts as a beta event)
Usk 2009 two themed comps (there were comps in 2007 and 2008 but again pre release)
Anderida 2009
Rampage 2008
Shieldwall 2009
Norhern Doubles four rounds in 2008 and five in 2009

I make that 23 tournaments with some (Burton, and Oxford) being among the biggest comps run to date. There may have been one or two more that I can't remember off the top of my head.

If you thin 23 tournaments is insignificant.....

I don't think you got my drift Hammy. I'm not saying that doubles make up an insignificant amount of tournaments played in the UK (although they seem to be pretty much a limited to the Isles), but when we started the whole thing we worked from what's in the (by now old) Hall of Honour ( http://www.fieldofglory.com/hallofhonour.html ) and while I may have missed one or two from my count above there aren't very many double results on that site. Which equals to: "I've never been supplied with the results from those other doubles."
My world is a pretty simple one though. I ask the various people that I'm told are responsible to provide me with the tournament results of their respective countries and I rely on them to do so. For the UK I pretty much rely on you. Trying to chase down individual tournament organizers all over the world in an attempt to get results from them proved to be very frustrating but not exactly fruitful. So those results that I get are worked in, the rest ... as stated my world is simple, so for me tournaments for which I don't get the results do not exist.




So for everyone out there running tournaments. We are happy to include them; we want to include them, but you need to supply the results to us in a usable formate. Either directly or via your national wargaming association. Please check the FAQ here for more details. Thanks, we appreciate every result we receive.

[Martin0112]

Well, all our work started out to be an ELO-ranking.
I'd like to go for this way at least for the beginning for the doubles as well.
If we have a solid working system as well as enough results entered, it is easier to bring in other rankings as well.
We now are pretty sure that we have also the correct calculations existing for an ELO-ranking, each other ranking will need additonally a very clear definition on how this ranking should work and also very intensive testing.
Not sure if Karsten or myself will have enough time for starting this from scratch (unfortunatelly we have other jobs to do, this is only a hobby for us, done at home during long nights....)

[Ghaznavid]

On the doubles topic. We will first include the doubles tournaments in the Hall of Honour. Rankings will naturally only come after that is done.
As far as I'm concerned double results will not influence the single rankings, ever. A separate double rankings listing individual, while initially anti-intuitive sounds like a plan though. However unless someone wishes to paint my army for Brussel for me I'm not promising that such a ranking will get done before mid February.
As for the type of the ranking, well I'm neutral on that, you will have to discuss that part with Martin.

[rbodleyscott]

On the doubles topic. We will first include the doubles tournaments in the Hall of Honour. Rankings will naturally only come after that is done.

There are definitely doubles tournament results that used to be in the Hall of Honour but have since disappeared. (For example Devizes 2009 is one that I am absolutely certain was in the Hall of Honour last time I looked. I am fairly sure the two themes for Usk 2009 were too. I umpired/scored all these tournaments. These events are included in the BHGS rankings, so Hammy must have had them.).

Is it still possible to look at the old files or backups to find any that have inadvertently got lost?

[hammy]

For the UK I pretty much rely on you. Trying to chase down individual tournament organizers all over the world in an attempt to get results from them proved to be very frustrating but not exactly fruitful. So those results that I get are worked in, the rest ... as stated my world is simple, so for me tournaments for which I don't get the results do not exist.

Some of these event didn't go into the Hall of Honour (mainly I think the Northern League) but I have all the information available if required. I didn't send it to you when I heard of this project because there was no faclility to cope with doubles.

I can make sure that all the doubles comp results are with you by the time you are in a possition to look at ways to include them.

Good luck in Brussels. I was trying to work out a way to get there as I have enjoyed my previous visits to Belgium to play wargames but in the end I could not find a way to manage it this year.

[Martin0112]

Thanks Karsten for playing the ball back in my half
I think I must take out my Swiss and drive your armies off the table next time we meet

No, that's fine, I'm open for any good discussion on a solid ranking

[Ghaznavid]

There are definitely doubles tournament results that used to be in the Hall of Honour but have since disappeared. (For example Devizes 2009 is one that I am absolutely certain was in the Hall of Honour last time I looked).

Is it still possible to look at the old files or backups to find any that have inadvertently got lost?

I've never deleted anything from the HoH here (http://www.fieldofglory.com/hallofhonour.html) and I doubt anyone else did. I don't know if there are separate backups somwhere, Ian should be able to tell us that.
Anyway, since the results in the old HoH are in JPG format I also checked if there is such an image for Devizes 2009, in case the link got dropped somehow, there isn't. So I'm pretty certain the Devizes 2009 results have never been in the HoH on the FoG Page. Maybe you saw the results somewhere else?