International rankings, nearly ready to roll

[hammy]

I have been gathering data from various locations and am almost ready to go with the first set of FoG world rankings.

At present I have a good feed of data from the USA, France and Spain. Italy is just about to start things rolling with FoG tournaments and I have a contact there too as well as one in Ireland. I don't have a contact for rankings from Australia or New Zealand as yet, all I can do for these countries is to take results from the Hall of Honour and add them to the rankings.

My current weighting plan is as follows:

There will be only one Grand Slam event, the IWF championship and this will be worth 120 points
Each country will have at least one and possibly more major events worth 100 points
All other events will be minors worth 80 points.
Umpiring will be awarded the points that a player could have got in a major event.
Six events will be required for a full ranking.

Expect the first international rankings in the next few days.

[KingHassan]

Hammy,

I would like to respectfully ask how errors in the data base will be handled.

As an example, there were 2 players in the US that participated in the Atlanta tournament but were left off of Dave Bennett's spreadsheet. Chris Anders and Mike Mills.
It is a thankless task and I know that Dave has been very busy with Hurricane relief in Texas.

The official results were sent to Dave by the tournament director and are posted on the Hall of Honor.
http://www.fieldofglory.com/atlanta2008.html

I have emailed Dave with the same point but have not heard from him and he has since removed the spreadsheet from the Yahoo group.

Unfortunately there were several other discrepancies in the first spreadsheet draft but he was able to check specific examples and correct data entry errors.

Moving forward, who should US tournament results be sent to if they are to be included in the international rankings.
Can you collect data from the Hall of Honor listings or will they have to go through Mr. Bennett?

There are pending results from the HubCon and the Brewer-Sailors tournaments that hopefully can be added.


JM

[hammy]

Unfortunately Dave has rather run out of time to mange the US results and I am in the process of finding a new admin for the US rankings. It looks like Jim Hauber is willing to do the job.

As to errors in results, they are not really the responsibility of the rankings admin, they should be up to the tournament organisers to manage. From my POV all I can go on are results that are sent to me or placed in the Hall of Honour, I can't go changing them just because someone other than the organiser says so.

Looking at the last set of data that Dave sent me there seems to be no reference to Atlanta at all.

When was the Atlanta comp?

[jfnavarro]

Umpiring will be awarded the points that a player could have got in a major event.

Please, can you explain this point in detail?

Thanks a lot.

[hammy]

Umpiring will be awarded the points that a player could have got in a major event.

Please, can you explain this point in detail?

Thanks a lot.

The way the rankings compensate a non playing umpire is by awarding points as if they had played in the event they umpired and finished in a possition equivalent to their average finish in all the other events they have played in during the ranking year.

For the GB rankings umpires are awarded points as if they had played in a 120 point tournament but most umpires are running 120 point events anyway so the small number of people who get a tiny boost by umpiring at 100 point events is not a major issue.

For the World rankings if the IWF championship is to be the only 120 point event then to award non playing umpires for other events as though they had played in a 120 point event seems wrong so I have currently set the numbers so a non playing umpire gets points as if they had played in a 100 point event.

It is my intention that for the world rankings every country will have one 100 point event and several countries will have more than one. It is really dependent on the size and presiege of the events.

For the World Rankings at the moment the following are looking like 100 point events:
GB- Britcon
GB- Challenge
SP- Alcoy
US- Historicon

I expect that there will be at least one French event when the French FoG circuit gets into full swing (very soon now) as well as at least one Italian.

I am open to suggestions.

[KingHassan]

Hammy,

the Atlanta Seasonal Summer tournament was held on August 23rd and the results were sent to Andrea 'Pet' Nicola and Dave Bennett as suggested in your pm.
They are currently posted in the Hall of Honor.

Dave had the Atlanta results included in his displayed spreadsheet on the NorthAmericaFoG yahoo group in the files section.
On the spreadsheet all of the other 16 players who participated in that tournament had correct places and scoring but Chris Anders and Mike Mills were left out for some reason.


Cheers.
JM

[berthier]

What defines an event as a major?

I know of at least three events in the US that had as more participants than Historicon which had no more than 18 in any one event. Is the major to be declared simply by prestige?

I played in the Atlanta Tourney and my finish (along with Mike Mills) is clearly shown in the rankings displayed in the Hall of Honour but is not reflected in the last list that was posted.

Chris The Tasty Numidian Anders

[hammy]

What defines an event as a major?

I know of at least three events in the US that had as more participants than Historicon which had no more than 18 in any one event. Is the major to be declared simply by prestige?

I played in the Atlanta Tourney and my finish (along with Mike Mills) is clearly shown in the rankings displayed in the Hall of Honour but is not reflected in the last list that was posted.

Chris The Tasty Numidian Anders

Definition of events as minor, major or whatever is a combination of prestige and size. It is best to define the ranting value of a events at the start of the tournament year simply to allow anyone who is worried about that kind of thing to plan their campign.

Last year in the UK there were 2 grand slams and 3 majors, this year one of the majors has dropped to a minor simply because the event in question (the Derby 'Worlds') has been declining in significance as an ancients comp for a very long time and with only 7 teams last year had pretty much reached the end of the road.

Britcon and the BHGS Challenge are Grand Slams because they are both prestigious and large events. Britcon had 62 15mm FoG players and the Challenge over 40. There are 25mm tournaments alongside the Britcon and Challenge 15mm events, these too are classed as Grand Slams so as not to detract from the smaller 25mm player pool.

The two major events (Roll Call and Warfare) are yet to occur this year so it is difficult to predict numbers but in past years they have all had a reasonable DBM turn out and should get reasonable numbers for FoG and DBM this year. Both these comps split rulesets into themed periods and players can only play in one theme. In the past there have been themes at Roll Call with less than 10 players but they still count as major events.

There are some minor events that perhaps should be classed as majors. The tournament at Campaign was one of the toughest on the circuit but has only ever been classed as a minor. For a tournament that is split into divisions with all teams within a division playing all the others and a top division where you can end up with three one pool of six players having three who won the DBM world championship and another who won the BHGS Challenge and you know you have to play them all that is a low return on ranking points.

As an outsider it would seem to me that Historicon is the 'big' show in the US so if I had to pick a single tournament as being most important for a set of World rankings I would probably pick that. With a new ruleset where the trournament scene is rebuilding then you may well get some odd situations. The main reason to try to have local admins is to get local knowledge. Dave initially offered to do the rankings but circumstances have meant he has had to stand down. I have a volunteer to replace in the form of Jim Hauber who is currently looking at the set of rankings I did based on the Hall of Honour.

There are bound to be teething issues while things are being set up. The international rankings are for the moment really only going to be a bit of fun as until we get bigger levels of international participation all we are doing is comparing apples with oranges.

[babyshark]

I know of at least three events in the US that had as more participants than Historicon which had no more than 18 in any one event. Is the major to be declared simply by prestige?

This is an issue of sorts that will need to be addressed once we get more of a handle on what attendance will be like at events around the country. In defense of Historicon, there were more FoG players there than at any other US event so far (42 unique players). The difference is that they were spread out over several events, in both 15mm and 25mm, so that no single tournament had more than 18 (IIRC) players. Also, Historicon draws players from all across the US and Canada in a way that no other event (except, perhaps, the US Open under DBM) has yet done.

I think there are valid reasons for Historicon to be rated a major or grand slam event.

Marc

[berthier]

I support Hammy's idea of onely one grand slam and that being the IWF.

Historicon's role as a grand slam and (so far) the only major is questionable. Historicon held three different comps and none had more than 18 participants. It seems that your point is that simple because of Historicon's historical relevance it should be a major and possibly a grand slam. Does that mean that the comps at Historicon get major or grand slam status simple because they are held at Historicon? Does that mean that each of the three comps held this year count as a major and possibley a grand slam just because they were at Historicon?

I think the number of individual attendee's has to be factored into the equation when deciding the comps value in the rankings. Let's face it. 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. There have been multiple comps here in the south that I have been able to attend that have had more attendees than Historicon but by the rationale put forth so far they would only be minors and might be majors.

I support the grand slam being the IWF for everyone and the majors being determined based on the previous years' unique individual participation. If the cut off for a major is 18, then fine Historicon held two majors and a minor. If the cut off for a major is 20, then Historicon had three minors.

[babyshark]

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.

The best thing would be to get a US Open going, along the lines of what we had for DBM. That worked out very well, was lots of fun, and attracted a good crowd of players. Until DBM started its long kiss goodbye.

Marc

[hammy]

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.

The best thing would be to get a US Open going, along the lines of what we had for DBM. That worked out very well, was lots of fun, and attracted a good crowd of players. Until DBM started its long kiss goodbye.

Marc

For international rankings we have a couple of options.

We could just have the IWF as the only grand slam and allow each country one major event for the World rankings. Or we could have the IWF and one grand slam per country with some countries that have other big tournaments getting a major as well.

Part of the idea of using different weightings for the international rankings is to encourage players to travel. If I was an overseas traveller then Historicon or Britcon would be more attractive than the BHGS Challenge or a US FoG open simply because there are other gaming attractions at these events.

Weightings are IMO something that can be changed but ideally should be made clear at the start of the year not after the event especially where international travel is concerned.

[berthier]

Hammy & Marc,

You make some good points. I am okay with the IWF being the grand slam but I think 1 major event per country is a bit harsh.

Weightings are IMO something that can be changed but ideally should be made clear at the start of the year not after the event especially where international travel is concerned.

I agree at least as far as next year goes. We are now trying to apply guidelines for this year that did not exist at the start of the year. I still think the size (i.e. # of individual participants) should determine its worth. This year I would suggest we count everything in the US as a minor, rank the IWF as the grand slam and develop a criteria for what constitutes a major event for application next year. We use the previous year's (in this case this year) attendance to determine the competition's status.

Between now and the end of December, we as a community work up the guidelines we want to apply when determining if an event is a major or minor (whether the cut-off is 18, 20, 24 or whatever). In this way, I think we measure an event's value better as attendance grows or falters.

Does that hurt Historicon? Based on this year's individual numbers, possibly. Will it in the future? Maybe. I think this possible formula encourages event organizers to promote and build the event.

What say the rest of you?

Chris The Tasty Numidian Anders

[jlopez]

For the Spanish national ranking, we are working on the basis of 11 players or less is a minor, 12 to 24 is a major and anything over 25 players is a grand slam. We may revise this upwards once the translated rules have been published and more people start playing but for 2008 it's fairly realistic. We count the number of players attending as a whole and not per period as we wan't to encourage more "historical" competitions rather than the usual all-books competitions.

Julian

[hammy]

Hammy & Marc,

You make some good points. I am okay with the IWF being the grand slam but I think 1 major event per country is a bit harsh.

Weightings are IMO something that can be changed but ideally should be made clear at the start of the year not after the event especially where international travel is concerned.

I agree at least as far as next year goes. We are now trying to apply guidelines for this year that did not exist at the start of the year. I still think the size (i.e. # of individual participants) should determine its worth. This year I would suggest we count everything in the US as a minor, rank the IWF as the grand slam and develop a criteria for what constitutes a major event for application next year. We use the previous year's (in this case this year) attendance to determine the competition's status.

Between now and the end of December, we as a community work up the guidelines we want to apply when determining if an event is a major or minor (whether the cut-off is 18, 20, 24 or whatever). In this way, I think we measure an event's value better as attendance grows or falters.

Does that hurt Historicon? Based on this year's individual numbers, possibly. Will it in the future? Maybe. I think this possible formula encourages event organizers to promote and build the event.

What say the rest of you?

Chris The Tasty Numidian Anders

Remember that the only one or two majors per country is for the international rankings, not for national ones.

The IWF has to be a top weighted event.
Each country must have at least one high category event for the international rankings
The question after that is should countries with multiple events that get overseas attendance actually have more than one non minor event for the world rankings.

I can make a good argument for both the BHGS Challenge (40+ players this year) and Britcon (60+ players) being significant events in the world rankings but that has the downside of biasing things towards the UK which already has a lot of players who travel. Next year it wouldn't surprise me if Roll Call and Warfare end up with 30 plus players in one or more FoG theme but I am not proposing that all the big UK events should be majors in the Wordl rankings.

What each country does internally is entirely up to that country's players / organisers. Jim has for example decided that all US events will be considered equal for rankings this year and worth a potential 100 points. The same will I believe be the case in Italy.

For the World rankings I have decided (although I will listen to arguments) that the WIC will be worth 120 points, Britcon, possibly the BHGS Challenge, Alcoy and either the Historicon open or Bayou Wars will be worth 100 points and everything else will be worth 80.

[nikgaukroger]

For the Spanish national ranking, we are working on the basis of 11 players or less is a minor, 12 to 24 is a major and anything over 25 players is a grand slam.

Are you trying to match the size of comp to the initiative rules

[paulcummins]

would that mean if you have an inspired organiser you can bump your competition up a couple of ranks?

[jlopez]

For the Spanish national ranking, we are working on the basis of 11 players or less is a minor, 12 to 24 is a major and anything over 25 players is a grand slam.

Are you trying to match the size of comp to the initiative rules

Well of course. Shouldn't this be the goal of any decent FoG competition organiser?

It was a just a vague estimate of the numbers we could get given that most players can't read English and are waiting for the translation. Having said that, most of us who can read English haven't bothered reading them either. It's just soooo liberating making them up as we go along.

[sagji]

I suspect there are some problems with the proposed method.

The first is seperate pools - most US players will only be playing in US events, most UK players will only be playing in UK events. Assuming the US and UK have the same number of major / minor competitions there is no way to differentiate the top ranked UK and top ranked US player if neither has gone to the IWF, there will be a small difference in points but as they have net played in the same competitions this is not representativ in difference in their relative skill but of their skill relative to their own pool. Compare this with the first two UK players in the UK rankings here the players pretty much have to have played in the same competitions, and even when playing in different competitions they are still playing against the same pool of players.

The second is availability - if each country gets 1 major event then someone in the US only has one they can get to, where as someone in Germany may be able to get to 4 or 5.

The third is umpireing - surely umpiring should count as the level of competition umpired, as proposed you are better off umpireing a minor and playing in a grand slamm, counting as an averaged major + a grand slamm, than the reverse, counting as a minor and an averaged major.

Suggestions

Increase the weighting for the IWF - to 1/3 - 1/2 of the total, this is the only worldwide individual event.

Other events would be classed by (projected) size
Major events would be the 2 biggest events in each region (Europe, N. America, etc)
Minor events would probably need to be split into two - for other large competitions, and for smaller competitions.

Additionally the other events should be adjusted based on IFW performance

To give figures
1 - The IWF is worth 40% and counts as 3 games.
2 - A Major is worth 25% and counts as 2 games.
3 - A Large minor is worth 20% and counts as 2 games.
4 - A Small minor is worth 10% and counts as 1 game.

IF you play 8 or less "games" then the score is just the total.
Otherwise the score is "averaged" as follows:
The maximum number of Majors you can count is 2 if you play in the IWF and 3 otherwise. If you play more than this then the score for each major you can count is your average score for all the majors.
The maximum number of Minors you can count is 8 - the number of "games" the non-minors count as. If you play more than this then the score for each Minors you can count is your average score for all the Minors.

Maximum scores
IF you play 8 or more minors your max score is 80%
IF you play a major and 6 or more minors your max score is 85%
IF you play 2 majors and 4 or more minors your max score is 90%
IF you play 3 or more majors and 2 or more minors your max score is 95%
IF you play the IWF and 5 or more minors your max score is 90%
IF you play the IWF a major and 3 or more minors your max score is 95%
IF you play the IWF two or more majors and at least 1 minor your max score is 100%

[hammy]

I suspect there are some problems with the proposed method.

The first is seperate pools - most US players will only be playing in US events, most UK players will only be playing in UK events. Assuming the US and UK have the same number of major / minor competitions there is no way to differentiate the top ranked UK and top ranked US player if neither has gone to the IWF, there will be a small difference in points but as they have net played in the same competitions this is not representativ in difference in their relative skill but of their skill relative to their own pool. Compare this with the first two UK players in the UK rankings here the players pretty much have to have played in the same competitions, and even when playing in different competitions they are still playing against the same pool of players.

Unless we try and do something like Glicko (and if people want to go down that route then that's fine by me but I am not running it) separate pools will just be something we have to live with. Any international rankings are only really going to be semi scientific fun and not a scrupulous calculation of who is the best FoG player out there.

The second is availability - if each country gets 1 major event then someone in the US only has one they can get to, where as someone in Germany may be able to get to 4 or 5.

A reasonable point and one in favour of perhaps another major comp in the US rather than more in Europe.

The third is umpireing - surely umpiring should count as the level of competition umpired, as proposed you are better off umpireing a minor and playing in a grand slamm, counting as an averaged major + a grand slamm, than the reverse, counting as a minor and an averaged major.

At the moment umpiring is being calculated as equibalent to playing in a major event. Bearing in mind that the umpires finish is the average of all their finishes during the year this isnt' as good as you might think. If an event needs a non playing umpire then the person offering to do that job and not play as a result IMO deserves some reasonable reward.

As things stand the figures are not that far off what you suggest.

The IWF is worth 120 points and counts as 1 comp
Majors are worth 100 points and count as 1 comp
Minors are worth 80 points and count as 1 comp.

If you play 6 minors you will have a maximum rating of 80
5 minors and the IWF will give you a maximum of 86.66
5 minors and a major will give you a maximum of 83.33

In practice looking at the numbers I have already it is likely that the top ranking at the end of the year will be close to or even over 80. To get to that kind of score just from minors would mean you won every event you played in.

I could reengineer the rankings software and have half competitions and all sorts of weightings but to be honest no matter how clever we try to be international rankings are only really going to be an approximation.