Any progress on the ranking module?

@Adonai:
So your beef isn't with the VEKN but Princes who aren't:
1) On the VEKN Forums
2) Posting events on the Forums
3) Posting results on the Forums
4) Using the Event Calendar


Regarding #1:
I can't even get all of my playgroup to join the forum. I've tried to nudge them onto here for a year at least... nothing doing. Me and about one other guy from my local playgroup regularly read this, let alone post on it.

Regarding #2:
I've posted my Events. It's not too hard, it may not be sexy and glamorous but sexy and glamorous requires website design skills. Since I don't have heaps of them, I don't bitch at people about theirs. It would be nice to have a worldwide VEKN Group of Facebook (which seems to have a LARGE amount of the playerbase) and announce things through there... but even then I know at least one of the Princes in AUS is not on Facebook.

Regarding #3:
Some of my Events have basically been forced to be non-rated since we didn't want to play with horrible numbers like 7. So rather than have people sitting out, we just turned it into a social non-rated tournament. Not much point reporting it if it won't be rated. I've got the Archon files sitting around, but they aren't going to do people much good.

Regarding #4:
I'd say its about the same as #2. People don't really check the Calendar here, so Events aren't posted here. I'd say Local Groups are being used on things like Facebook (or other web-forums) and then turning up later. I can't account for the goings on of the EC. Not my ballpark. Regarding the AUSNZ/Oceania Championships... I'll hassle Disco Stu to post. Stuart Jaques won in the end, but I haven't got all the details.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

but even then I know at least one of the Princes in AUS is not on Facebook.

*Gasp*
The sheer horror of it all!


But I raise you on that -I know a NC in Finland who isn't on the facebook.
But it is OK, he is a stubborn luddite and known troublemaker...

johannes wrote:

If we manage to release well in 2012 we can also use current data to see how it works until the end of the year and then reset to zero at 01.01.2013 (or probably keep the 2012 championship events).

This is quite good a suggestion.

Then people in charge of ratings and other relevant personnel should start tweaking with the new and improved ratings formula ASAP! To get the job done on time.

If we reset the ranking we NEED to tweak the formula for counting the rating points.


People who get into finals, and especially finals on larger as well as important tournaments should get better ratings that Joe Average who attends tournaments all the time but doesn't do that well in them (such as yours truly). Getting into finals and winning a tournament should give you way more points that for those that just attended. Doing the same in a BIG tournament should score you some really major points. *

Then again, if you just attend one tournament, or very precious few, during a year you shouldn't rank in the absolute overall top of the rankings. Even if it happened to be a giganormous (EC level) tournament and you won it.


Izaak spoke some words of wisdom earlier on:

Izaak wrote:

the problem with that is that as a result of how the ranking works (or at least always has worked), that means that (average) players with more pro-active princes will be ranked high and that the players everyone agrees should be top 50 might not be ranked at all. The system as it stands already does a pretty horrible job at properly ranking players in the first place, messing it up even further by uploading only half (if that) the data doesn't sound like an amazing idea to me.

We might as well not have a ranking system if Joe Casual from "we have a tournament every monday-town" ends up being top 10 and the most recent top ~10 finishers of 2011/2012 EC/NAC players are outside the top 100.

* Hmmm, should we classify tournaments based on the attendance?

Such as:
10-24 minor
25-49 standard
50+ major

Suitable multipliers for rating points could be used for standard and major tournaments (say 2x and 3x -or whatever). Probably this is already being done so you can just ignore silly old me...

Lönkka wrote:

* Hmmm, should we classify tournaments based on the attendance?

Such as:
10-24 minor
25-49 standard
50+ major

Suitable multipliers for rating points could be used for standard and major tournaments (say 2x and 3x -or whatever). Probably this is already being done so you can just ignore silly old me...

This is already happening in the Formula for finalists. When you submit an Archon it counts the number of players and modifies your finalist ranking bonus based on a logarithm based on 15 (Why seems a little beyond me) so that basically, you get 2log15(Player count) - 1 = multiplier. If you attend a 15 player tournament you'd get 1. If you attended a tournament with 4 players you'd get close to 0. If you attended a tournament with 30 players you'd get about 1.4. If you want to do the calculation on what multiplier you get it isn't too hard.

You could apply it across the board, but really even at the big tournaments everyone gets handed a few 'easy VPs' just as much as you do if you attend frequent events. If you are worried your rating is slipping, travel more OR hassle your local princes into more events.