bonefaith
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 16:06 |
 
|
i retired it because i have no more fun in making casualties with so few ball handling .... btw i didn't knew one could make an uranked team . i know i would not win game with dwarves . |
|
|
SideshowBob
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 17:26 |
|
How about editing the ranking over games played the last 12-month period? In this way old coaches that has stopped will be weeded out, and new coaches that lost a lot in the beginning will have a chance of catching up.
Kinda like the tennis-ranking you know... |
|
|
Zy-Nox
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 17:39 |
|
is it april 1st?
 |
_________________
"Who made that girly Zy-kNox Mod?"
Anarchy Online |
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 18:18 |
|
| Renegade wrote: | | Of course, i'm also aware that it is won by coaches that have played 10-15 games and won them all nearly every month. The greatest coaches on the site ie Malthor and Jahira rarely come in the top 10 because of the volume of games they play. The championship table is a useless statis tbh. |
Allow me to laugh at this. Please. Have you seen the wussy rank-hunting people partake in? Check some match records before you say "so-and-so is the best player".
Top coach-ranking spot is held by people who play the most matches, who play big teams vs small teams, who play coaches they can beat easily. I'm not going to mention names. You know who I mean. Or if you don't, go check some match records of the "top coaches".
The championship is won by coaches who play fewer games, granted. It is also won by coaches who play up every game. Trust me, I've beat people who've won every match straight while playing down at an average str of .93 times theirs, because I played an average of 1.02 str while losing a ranked match during that month.
The problem I have with "timed rankings" is that it gives such a big advantage to players who play far more games than anyone else - that advantage is already there but time-outs would make it a lot worse. The championship manages to balance it out by dividing through the number of games played - not a possibility for the main ranking ladder.
I have only one suggestion to make. Make losing matches more severe, make winning matches vs lower ranked coaches less gainly. The ranking system as it is is quite good, but the height at which it levels out is not. The maximum it should be possible to rise to is 200, and it should be tough as hell to stay there. I think this could be achieved by editing some of the figures in the ranking formula (i.e. those related do dT and dR).
My two copper pieces. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 18:37 |
|
Mez - ROTF - First 3 paragraphs ....I didn't even want to go there. You're a bigger man than me!
Fourth Paragragh - don't agree - or at least don't understand your logic. Surely a 1-2 year period is a big enough time frame so that the VOLUME of matches won't have an impact. (as opposed to 1 month for the FUMBBL Champ). And since you can lose points just as easily as you can gain points, I don't know why it would be such an advantage. Show me the math if you can. As I said in an earlier post, I play in a ladder league with ageing points and it works perfectly.
The one thing it does that I like is coaches who stop playing for a period of time will slowly fall back down the rankings. I think this would be fair. (And wondering if Christer has already considered this in the past.) |
|
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 18:51 |
|
The math is thus: After a certain time your ranking should stay steady around a certain value, going up and going back down like a saw-toothed sine wave, but on average staying at a certain value. We'll call this point "equilibrium".
We are currently almost reaching equilibrium for the very high-rank coaches. This is after more than a year. In this time-span the difference between the #1 ranked coach in the number #11 ranked coach in games played is a whopping 279 games. Take away that #11 coach's ability to have another year (or two) to catch up and reach his own "equilibrium" and he'll never have a shot at becoming #1. That's why I am against time-outs (yes, it's a very selfish reason indeed but there are more coaches out there that would suffer the same fate). |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 19:14 |
|
Mez - ok got it - thanks.
Just came back from the crapper (where I do my best thinking) and had an inspiration. Try this on for size.
<b>Roll the rankings based on 2 factors</b>
Time : ranking will only consider matches played within the past 2 years rolling. (or insert your own time frame). Any match over 2 years old falls out of the calculation.
Games Played : The ranking will only consider the last 300 games played (or insert your own # of games). So after 301 games, game #1, even though it was played 9 months ago, no longer counts.
Pros :
1) Coaches that leave FUMBBL will eventually see their ranking drop. (Who really wants to see Mezir forever in the top 20 after he gets a real job and leaves FUMBBL)
2) Coaches that play an exorbitant number of games will have no VOLUME advantage over coaches that play an average amount. (Mezir can now ascend into greatness)
Cons : Watch Christer come back after all this chatter and say he can't program a rolling ranking system even if he wanted to. :0) |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
The ranking system we employ here is based on the chess ranking system. As mezir points out, people hit the equilibrium after a certain number of games, say 100 or so. At this point, you won't increase all that much unless you play well against strong opponents.
For instance, looking at Malthor's development curve, you can see that his ranking hasn't changed significatly in the last 200 games and is unlikely to change much in the next 200.. Effectively this means other coaches have plenty of time to catch up, if they are good enough.
Now, I want to stress that ranking is a synthetic value. As such, it really only measures how good you are at increasing your ranking instead of your true BB skill. However, I personally feel that ranking is a decent measure of how well you play the game (or really how well you can win games). |
|
|
Athoria
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
|
 Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 19:22 |
|
Here is an idea - have two different ranking systems. One would be for Lifetime (full ranking points for every game ever played), and another system for Regular ranking (a rolling system). It would work something like this: Rolling System = Current date to 3 months previous = 100% rank points, 3 months - 6 months = 75 % rank, 6 months to 1 year = 50% rank, and anything over 1 year is dropped. Everyone would have 2 rankings = regular, and lifetime.
This would make sure that active coaches that play a lot of games, and who really care about thier rating would be satisfied that they see current results, and newer coaches would still have a chance to get up thier ranking in less than 3 months.
How does that sound to everyone?
Athoria69 |
_________________
Courage is not the absence of fear; merely the presence of fear combined with the willpower to overcome it. |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Mully wrote: |
Cons : Watch Christer come back after all this chatter and say he can't program a rolling ranking system even if he wanted to. :0) |
Anything is possible. However, I don't see a problem with the current ranking system. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 19:55 |
|
| Quote: |
However, I don't see a problem with the current ranking system.
|
Agreed - although not broken, there are some that see potential to make it even better. But as the site ages do you really want the rankings to reflect a <b>lifetime</b> record for coaches ?.
If the answer is yes, then never mind.
As creator you have every right to build it in your vision. And if there is any hint within these posts that we don't appreciate your work in putting it together, please know we do. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Fudge
Joined: Sep 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 20:00 |
|
I agree with the reset of ranking as it is now for a couple of major reasons.
First lots of games where played between teams with a huge tr diff before the handicap system was impplemented, and the smaller teams where beaten silly.
The second reason is that during this year fumbbl seems to have exploded with new coaches, and the ones reaping the harvest of these are the ones that had gotten their game together before all the rookies came.
And then there is the fact that you can pick games that makes the ranking a bit broken to begin with, but combined with the masses off new players that has come here during the year becomes even more broken.
To be honest i´m not that big a fan of ranking at all, i pick my games from what i think is a fun game. ( thats one of the reasons i play alot stuny because its more fun, even if my 4 stuny teams stand for about 50% off my entire losses )
And like most people played bad in the beginning but I´m getting better.
So to get it as fair as possible to new and old coaches, would be to reset it.
If the people that now has the highest ranking are the best then it should not be any problem since they will be right back on top again.
While it will also give the newer coaches that has been in a lerning curve and improved themselfs a chance at getting to the top.
Thats just my oppinion, but for all i care they could take ranking away. |
|
|
slackman
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 00:15 |
|
honestly, i wish there was a way to completely opt out of ranking. i know you can do it w/ your teams, but i always forget to click that extra box. and, unfortunately, if i didnt have a ranking at all it would cause conflicts with those i play that do. but really, when i see in chat ppl offering games w/ a high ranking, all i see is cherry picking. ppl have refused to play against me because my ranking is too low. oh well. guess i just suck as a coach... |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| slackman wrote: | | ppl have refused to play against me because my ranking is too low. |
Personally, I play more or less anyone. If it's a low ranking coach, I use a weaker team to cover up the difference in "skill". |
|
|
Korhil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 01:20 |
|
If FUMBBL restarted over again with new teams to go with the new ranking system, I'd be more interested in starting up again.
Changes to the ranking system, changes to the client, and changes to the rules mean the people that were in the situation to exploit one aspect of it at different times are higher than that would otherwise be. Its pretty easy to keep ranking when you have it.
Restarting the rankings without restarting all the teams, (like happened last time) would be as pointless now as it was then. Last time it just gave a huge jump to anyone that kept their beaten up Elven team.
Teams and Ranking are tied together as well, who cares about some 300+TR team if its gotta ranking of about 152, its not like the team has ever done anything special and wouldn't be much of a guideline for people wanting to see how to build a team of that race up with skills etc.
---Korhil |
|
|
|
|
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
