State of the V:EKN - October 2013

fredsct wrote:

I think you're refusing to concede the obvious. Of course ratings hinge on number of events attended: if you attend zero events, you will score zero points.

I've been very careful not to say skill doesn't matter to VEKN point system because that isn't true. In the end, both things matter. Trouble is, in order to rate skill, one of the two doesn't belong there.

But if you are skilled the numbers don't really matter as you consistently rank high, eh?

Since you've been talking highly skilled players, you just need eight, or slightly more, tournaments and you're set.

Lönkka wrote:

Since you've been talking highly skilled players, you just need eight, or slightly more, tournaments and you're set.

I believe such a resonse is severely lacking in reality. In an area like Phoenix, eight tournaments in 18 months isn't happening. If you live in Anchorage, Alaska, one tournament in 18 months isn't happening.

And, even besides that, it makes a huge difference how large and important those tournaments are - so if you can get to eight 8-person tournaments, your score still isn't likely to compare to someone who has done well in two or three of his tournaments, if they're, say, 50-person tournaments.

And your worst omission of all is that anyone who plays more than 8 tournaments has the advantage of substituting better scores from their ninth and subsequent tournaments for their poorest scores from their first eight. And while this effect begins to mean less, the more tournaments you play in, let's not pretend it's meaningless. It's actually going to be a very important advantage.

Do we really need to have this dispute? This is just a silly line of argument, IMO.

Fred

We want to encourage people to attend events and play V:TES.

Due to geographic and demographic issues, there will never be a way to ensure equal access to participation.

As such, ranking and ratings systems, whether the format is attendance-based, ELO-based, or otherwise, will be imperfect.

Programs to reward or incentivize attendance and performance at VTES events will likewise be imperfect.

We're going go forward with these programs anyway, because we want to encourage people to attend events and play VTES.

BenPeal wrote:

We want to encourage people to attend events and play V:TES.

Agreed.

BenPeal wrote:

Due to geographic and demographic issues, there will never be a way to ensure equal access to participation.

Agreed.

BenPeal wrote:

As such, ranking and ratings systems, whether the format is attendance-based, ELO-based, or otherwise, will be imperfect.

They're more than "imperfect". I'd say they're downright bad - at least, the ones are that tend to be fun for the people you already have participating and discourage the populations of players who already tend to be discouraged from starting.

BenPeal wrote:

Programs to reward or incentivize attendance and performance at VTES events will likewise be imperfect.

We're going go forward with these programs anyway, because we want to encourage people to attend events and play VTES.

Why? I don't think the only incentives programs that are possible are based on the existing ranking system.

fredsct wrote:

Do we really need to have this dispute? This is just a silly line of argument, IMO.

Ben thinking about exactly same thing for a couple of days now -kinda tired of this two-man-asshat show.


Since, Fred here states the obvious problem among the more spread out kindred, I suggest hat we lessen the number of tournaments used to count the ratings. If 8 is too high in some locales, perhaps lower number might be deemed more fair and appropriate. True Skill TM among the players would show if we only counted one tournament, but even thus some people might have problems attending the one needed VTES tournament in 1,5 years so we could go as low as 0 too...[/asshat off]


I state again the obvous, grow the playerbase, organize more tournaments, attend them and have them reported. Ain't no other way.

Don't have anything more to add to this thread since I more or less said the same things over and over again even if I wasn't the only one going that road.

Lönkka wrote:

Since, Fred here states the obvious problem among the more spread out kindred, I suggest hat we lessen the number of tournaments used to count the ratings.
...
If 8 is too high in some locales, perhaps lower number might be deemed more fair and appropriate.

The obvious is that there is no number of tournaments that makes this work. The whole idea of rankings based on achievement formulas is borked due to the structure, not the exact number chosen.

Lönkka wrote:

True Skill TM among the players would show if we only counted one tournament, but even thus some people might have problems attending the one needed VTES tournament in 1,5 years so we could go as low as 0 too...

Exactly. So take the point...

Lönkka wrote:

I state again the obvous, grow the playerbase, organize more tournaments, attend them and have them reported.

This is frustrating. Your mind just does not want to wrap around the idea that what you're fighting is a physics problem, not an "effort" problem. If you just don't give a rat's ass about fairness, just say so and we can agree that we have unresolvable value difference and quit talking past each other. But if you honestly believe that it's "obvious" that the answer for players in low-density play areas is to "grow the playerbase, (yadda, yadda)...", then - as Inigo Montoya siad - "I don't think that word means what you think it means!"