Uk rankings Poll

[madaxeman]

Should the 1-day events all count in their own right as part of a "best X results count" tanking system, or should they be aggregated?

[gibby]

My view for what its worth is.

Count 6 results.

Britcon worth 140/Challenge 120/Roll call 100 , all other 3 or more games 80. Everything else 60.

cheers
Jim

[madaxeman]

copied from the other thread:

FWIW my vote would be to count each 1-day round as a separate tourney. This is because:
- they are now all 3 games anyway, which is not far off 4
- if we want to encourage whacky armies, having each round separately de-risks the impact on rankings of a really bad result
- counting the series would mean it only adds into the rankings in December, and that makes the results less "live" when we aim to present the annual trophy at Britcon in August

I do however think we have so any events there is maybe an argument to up the number of events that count to 5 or maybe even 6. With a BHGS hat on, It'd be good to have Roll Call, Britcon and The Challenge count for slightly more points.... Although with my own hat on, I'd be happy to drop Roll Call this year at least!

Looking at Tim's rankings file I make it that;
20 did more than 6 events (ie there are 20 who would would be able to drop at least one score if we had 6 rounds counting)
27 people completed 6 or more events last year (27 get to drop a score if best-five 5 count)
30 completed 5 or more. (30 are currently dropping at least one score in the present system)

Looking at that, if you do need to pick one number there is maybe an argument for 5 rounds counting rather than 6 ? I'd suggest that 4 isn't really working, as we should be moving towards a number that means that Alasdair does not pick up a 100% score !

This is out of 99 players who played at least 1. The top competitor was Keith Spedding, with an amazing 15 events played over the year. !!

[quackstheking]

I think there are a number of changes that need to be made to the rankings. My starter for 10:-

1. Increase the number of counting events to 5. More than enough players play at least 5 events especially with the one dayers.

2. Change the points per event such that
- 120 pts - Britcon and The Challenge
- 100 pts - Roll Call, Warfare and the World Championship ( that's Koblenz not Derby!)
- 80 pts - all singles events with 7+ players and a minimum of 3 games.
- 60 pts - all other singles events and all doubles events - this would pick up the individual sub periods at Campaign and Derby

The 100pt Index max is a mere artificial barrier

3. For the Southern League, we should definitely keep all events counting as individual events. As the instigator with Alasdair, the rationale is that the geographic and date spread was implemented to get as many entering as possible including competition first timers. Each event averaged 24 players and across the year there were a total of 50 players however only 3 played all 5 events and only 10 made the minimum of 4!

4. Whilst I'm in "wishing" form it would be good if we had a universally agreed (!!!) method of splitting podium ties!

The rankings are a bit of fun but they should give a relative pointer to the current success, experience and activity of players. At least with FOGR, we know that Alasdair will be no. 1!

Don

[timmy1]

So everyone is clear, for consistency with FoG:AM and in support of the BHGS, the two BHGS events will remain weighted as they are and others will be worth 2/3rd that. Only item up for discussion is how leagues qualify as results. I know this sounds high handed but it becomes too complex otherwise.

Don

It was actually at a Southern League round that the point was made to me that the final positions only should count rather than each round. However I will go with the majority view.

[quackstheking]

So everyone is clear, for consistency with FoG:AM and in support of the BHGS, the two BHGS events will remain weighted as they are and others will be worth 2/3rd that. Only item up for discussion is how leagues qualify as results. I know this sounds high handed but it becomes too complex otherwise.
.

Sorry Timmy, but why is that? The only involvement of the BHGS is that they run 3 of the events and host the Rankings on their site.

Equally I see no reason why there should be consistency with FOGAM. It is a separate rule set with by and large, a separate group of players? DBMM are able to do the rankings for their rule set as they wish.

It is a complete nonsense that winning Warfare with 28 of the best FOGR players carries the same weight as winning a 6 person one dayer and therefore reduces the credibility of the rankings.

As far as I'm concerned everything is up for debate and we have a volunteer who is computer literate enough to run the rankings in greater detail.

Don

[daveallen]

At least with FOGR, we know that Alasdair will be no. 1!

Don

Hmmm, maybe we should adapt a trick used by some on-track bookies who offer "betting without the favourite" and have a separate "FoGR ranking without the Horse Meister." Or you could just put Alasdair's name in the title as in:

FoGR Ranking
1, 1, Alasdair Harley, 100%

Not serious Tim, just keeping up with us is heroic enough

Dave N Allen

[kevinj]

The BHGS also hands out a prize for top ranked player each year. This happens at Britcon and the rankings year is based on this. That said:

1) I see no imperative to be consistent with Fog AM. The rankings need to be credible to the players of Fog R, there is very little crossover between the sets.

2) I agree that the current weighting does not give sufficient value to competitions like Warfare and that it needs to expand to 3 or 4 levels as others have suggested. I also think that, as UK rankings, only UK tournaments should count, not events like the Worlds if they are held outside.

3) There is merit in both options for serial events such as Northern/Southern leagues. Counting each separately allows some people to have a fuller ranking than would be the case if they only got one score based on final position. I think players should count individual rounds if necessary to make up the 4/5/6 that gives a full ranking, otherwise the overall position. Clearly that requires a greater range of weightings and the overall should be weighted higher than individual rounds.

4) Due to the fact that the next year starts next month, this needs to be sorted quickly.

[benjones1211]

I agree with Don. Except ignore Koblenz as not in UK.

I would have 5 possibly 6 events rank, use all Southern / Northern league results

Challenge and Britcon 120 pts
Roll Call, Warfare 100 pts
8+ Players and three games minimum 80 pts
Doubles, 2 games and less than 8 players 60 pts

As for Dave Allen's comment don't count his rivals out yet, if I come 2-3 places above Alasdair at Britcon like I did 2 years ago, I would have a great chance of piping him to the title just like I did that year, I am sure there may be others such as Don in a similar position. So everything to play for.

Ben

[gibby]

Ah.....Good debate,

Whilst I would like to see 6 as the divisor.....5 is a start towards it.

Like Kev and Don, i don't see why anything should be out of scope and actually and unusually I agree with most of what Ben has put.

cheers
Jim

[quackstheking]

Well, there's a first! A group of wargamers getting a virtual consensus - next we'll have events with no umpires!

With no voices anti change and bearing in mind Kevin's comment that with Britcon looming just over a month away, the following seems to have broad agreement for the 2014/15 Ranking year:-

1) A players 5 best events count

2) event weightings are

- 120pts Britcon, The Challenge
- 100pts Roll Call, Warfare
- 80pts Singles events with 8+ players and 3 games minimum
- 60pts all other singles events (<8 players or < 3 games) and all doubles.

3) The Southern and Northern League events to count as individual events.

Unless there are any extreme dissenting voices or other proposals for the next Ranking year, for the sake of good governance, can Tim P as the FOGR representative on the BHGS confirm these proposals so we can make a start on getting the Rankings updated in time for Britcon.

Don

[timmy1]

Don

Sorry I don't agree with the changes you are proposing. Not that that is a reason for them not to go ahead, just I want people to be clear it is not quite a consensus.

[gibby]

Well, Just as well Don qualified that with a "virtual consensus"

Is it all of the changes you don't agree with Timmy or just bits.
And if particulair bits it would be good to know why.

From the current poll and I know it's early days...the majority look like they don't want the N/S league results rolled into one.

So the other major points I guess are the divisor. How many competitions count 4,5 or 6. And whilst I would like 6, madaxemen puts forward a good argument for 5. My 6 is a romantic notion that it might encourage marginally more people to enter competitions especially thos interested in a full ranking. However what I do know as someone who plays a few competitions....4 is too low.

Then there's how much is each event worth. Ben's thinking on that seems acceptable.

Just like anything, we ain't going to get 100% agreement......so Ben/Don's proposal whomever looked like as good as it gets for herding sheep into a consensus.

cheers
Jim

[timmy1]

It used to be 6 competitions that qualified. There were 3 gradations of competition. 2 years ago we (Dave R, The BHGS Committee and myself) reviewed the rankings and determined that 90% of the participants were taking part in 4 or fewer competitions. Changing to 4 competitions qualified seemed to get a better spread of participation and brought a wider ranger of players in with a chance of making the top 10. That is why I disagree with making the changes proposed.

I led the process of having the FoGR rankings count all rounds of leagues as qualifying results. However having had it expressed that some people felt that discouraged taking off the wall armies in some rounds, and to make it more consistent for the people who play both FoGAM and FoGR, I was willing to offer to do it which ever of the two ways the majority of people wanted. It would have been a lot easier for me to carry on as before but I presented both methods for people to choose from. The Scotch league have already request that only their final position counts as a qualifying result for 2014.

[spotteddog]

The Scotch league have already request that only their final position counts as a qualifying result for 2014.

Pending ratification by the new Government of Alba of course!

HH

[timmy1]

Well for 2015 I know that I will not have to count them anyway as these are the BRITISH Rankings...

[spotteddog]

Quite so Tim. The web site, sign people etc etc etc may have a busy year ahead. E,W&NI Historical Games Society just doesn't have the same ring to it. Takes me back to a chat with Rob Brennan wo was setting up an Irish Society and working on the name. Wargames Association of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland sounded great till they looked at the acronym! WARINI. Quickly became RINIWA.

HH

[spotteddog]

I dont suppose WENI HGS is any better ...........

[gibby]

Good to know that the whisky drinkers amongst us have a secret league.
But seriously if you are referring to our Scottish comrades. then I think it's just as likely that my fellow Scots will vote to stay as part of the Union.
So I wouldn't hurry to give up your job for a career in sign writing.

cheers
Jim

[timmy1]

I was hoping that when the Jocks decided to stay the English would get a vote if we wanted to keep them or send them all back...