Any progress on the ranking module?

johannes wrote:

People still had the option to stash the Archon away until it works or to send it to Robyn who has been collecting Archons. I think at least the big tournaments will get in.

Thanks for the response Johannes.

Hope you don't mind me bending your ear for a second here.

In June, Robyn and I spoke about the ratings system. I proposed using a hard start date (a complete reboot of ratings) starting the day that the new system goes live.

This does a few things.

First (and most important) - it avoids all potential problems associated with a massive initial data surge into the system. It will contain the scope of roll-out and make final bug-hunts on the live system much easier.

Second - it circumvents any rating error associated with an incomplete data set from the last 18 months, and puts everyone on an equal footing going forward.

Third - it would allow you to tweak the ratings formula (if desired) without seeing a "step change" in ratings as historical data were re-weighted.

The downside - yes, it penalizes though who have both good past-year tournament performance and responsible organizers. I really hate to see that happen, but the logistical benefits may very well out-weight this (admittedly significant) draw-back.

In either start-up case, we're probably looking at 12-18 months of post-launch data entry just to get back to ratings values that accurately represent performance. Probably would be useful to recognize that.

Just offering something for you to consider as the roll-out date approaches.

Take care,
Darby.

I'd agree with Darby.
Start clean for 2013.
New tournament rules (if any) and new rankings.
Sound like wonderful end of year/Christmas gifts.

From past experiences (dealing with companies doing programming activities), even with the lead up they've had I am skeptical that suddenly changing tack on which tournaments to input will help the system come online in under 2 months.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

From past experiences (dealing with companies doing programming activities), even with the lead up they've had I am skeptical that suddenly changing tack on which tournaments to input will help the system come online in under 2 months.

The suggestion doesn't change the scope or timing of the project.
It simply suggests the best use after implementation.

Adonai wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

From past experiences (dealing with companies doing programming activities), even with the lead up they've had I am skeptical that suddenly changing tack on which tournaments to input will help the system come online in under 2 months.

The suggestion doesn't change the scope or timing of the project.
It simply suggests the best use after implementation.

Then why mandate a 2013 date when there does not yet seem to be a Beta-Version for limited testing?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Then why mandate a 2013 date when there does not yet seem to be a Beta-Version for limited testing?

Because current V:EKN local volunteers can't even be bothered to put their events in the calendar before they happen or report results after the events.

Deadlines for the V:EKN:

1) Continental Championship events
2) Random non-V:TES related dates

If it wasn't ready for the North American Championship, or the Asian Championship, or the Australian Championship, or isn't ready for the European Championship, then new year with new tournament rules makes sense.

New tournament rules are historically released at the beginning of December, to take effect January 1. This is the only regularly scheduled event that doesn't tie into a live collection of players all in the same building.

Announcements made at live collections of players in the same building are to be preferred, as you can help generate enthusiasm in those predisposed towards attending events and taking action. Choosing to make those announcements as each person reads a forum instead is historically much less effective at generating enthusiasm and participation.

My "mandate" for V:EKN to become active in rankings predates Heirs to the Blood. I recommended replacing rankings, the calendar, and the contact lists almost a year before Oscar left the company.