Slitherine

Lets hear your ideas for a ladder or ranking system

We can operate this from the web site and or forum. There is some appeal to a world wide ladder system that players can simply log into and enter their scores, its dynamic and fast moving.

There are of course other systems but I think it would be more exciting to see rapid movement and changes happening frequently. Any ideas?

Ladder or ranking or whatever....views?

Regards
JDM

Hello JD:

I do very much like the idea of a ranking system, the more world-wide the better. The IWF's world-wide DBM Glicko system is a great example of a fun system (not least because it keeps all sorts of odd statistics). Obviously there will be issues with international comparisons. Or perhaps I should say with intercontinental comparisons, especially at first before the player pools have had much time to mingle.

As to whether the system that is eventually chosen uses Glicko or a more simplified ladder I don't really care. The most important part, to give the rankings wide appeal, is the keeping of the unusual stats: e.g., most games without a draw, most/least armies used, player nemesis rankings, and so on.

Marc

i think the best part of glicko are all the other stats about army use and frequncy of opponents rather than the raw number. So ladder is fine but keeping the other stats would be cool. and encourages diversity.

While the IWF's world Glicko is indeed interesting it is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Once you have played a reasonable number of games there is little if any movment of players in the rankings. For me a ladder would be more fun but having an underlying Glicko style analysis would be interesting.

I have to bet for the Glicko Ranking System, I think it´s interesting way to do a good measure of all players.

And We must look to the future, Glicko can be a good way to unify rankings and competitions in all countries with foggers community.



Cheers


David

robertthebruce wrote:I have to bet for the Glicko Ranking System, I think it´s interesting way to do a good measure of all players.

And We must look to the future, Glicko can be a good way to unify rankings and competitions in all countries with foggers community.



Cheers


David

I don't mind Glicko as long as it is interesting and fun. Unfortunately the weightings used in the DBM version of Glicko IMO made it anything but fun.

On more than one occasion I went to a big comp, won it by playing well against good players and my Glicko crept up a tiny fraction despite my single tournament Glicko in theory being well ove 100 points higher than my actual.

hammy wrote:
I don't mind Glicko as long as it is interesting and fun. Unfortunately the weightings used in the DBM version of Glicko IMO made it anything but fun.

On more than one occasion I went to a big comp, won it by playing well against good players and my Glicko crept up a tiny fraction despite my single tournament Glicko in theory being well ove 100 points higher than my actual.

I think this is a function of how the reporting was done in UK glicko. The output reports have a specific player of the year that calculates this year only (but you start at your then current glicko rating) In the US this has had great jumps and leaps especially early. I really think the bad rap the glicko got in the UK was from a poor reporting process.

Now for FoG, I am less interested in glicko, but want all the other stats on army use and such. That will prove interesting as the rules get played more.

hazelbark wrote:

hammy wrote: On more than one occasion I went to a big comp, won it by playing well against good players and my Glicko crept up a tiny fraction despite my single tournament Glicko in theory being well ove 100 points higher than my actual.

I think this is a function of how the reporting was done in UK glicko. The output reports have a specific player of the year that calculates this year only (but you start at your then current glicko rating) In the US this has had great jumps and leaps especially early. I really think the bad rap the glicko got in the UK was from a poor reporting process.

I dissagree, the problem IMO was that the Glicko parameters were set for an environment where players play perhaps 16-20 games a year in a few comps, not 100 games a year in 20. Once you have a solid reliability under the DBM Glicko it will take years and years of consistent improved performances to change your rating. This is why UK players really didn't like it and to be honest I can't think of more than a handful of UK players who actually care what their Glicko is.

The theory is nice but what players like (in my experience) is going to a comp knowing that they might go up or down the rankings significantly depending on how they do. They don't want to think "hey I just won the BHGS Challenge for the first time ever and my Glicko has gone from 2150 to 2158 Huzzah!"

Armies used and how they did is really useful information. How players do is less important.

A ladder or results based ranking is IMO more FUN, less scientific but much more interesting.

hammy wrote: Armies used and how they did is really useful information.

on this we agree.

Oddly, as I usually like these sorts of stats, I find the gecko DBM army performance, etc. stuff dull as dishwater - but that may be because the DBM info is presented in such a dreadfully dull way. If you're going to produce it at least try and make it look as though it may be interesting.

As for gecko as a ranking system I'm with Hammy on that - once you have got a reasonable number of games done the changes slow down and nailing your testicles to the wall becomes far more pleasurable. Have something that changes more IMO and stuff the statistics - this is a hobby to enjoy.