times State of the V:EKN - October 2013

29 Oct 2013 16:10 - 29 Oct 2013 16:19 #55870 by fredsct

So I'm confused why you should say this was 'hot air'?

Plenty of discussion to no effect.


When you're concerned that a bad effect is possible and you're trying to warn people to avoid it, "no effect" is a good thing - right?

The problem, as Johannes and I alluded to in our exchange, is that in the VEKN ranking system no attempt is made to take other factors into account in order to neutralize them so that the remaining number reflected only skill - for instance the quality of competition encountered in a given event or (for me, what is the important thing) the relative difficulty in attending the events.

A lofty idea but how would the "quality of competition" be measured in concrete terms? VTES ain't golf where par number can be assigned to players to indicate their relative provess.


You record who the opponents are in a game or tournament and take their ratings into account.

But I don't think it's worth discussing what it would take to create an true rating system here. The point is, the VEKN ranking system isn't one and shouldn't be treated as one.

Yet, IIRC, it was quite an important thing to get up and working again.


Erm,...that's a matter of opinion. I don't think you've ever heard me say that.

Since you have a strong opinion about the subject I honestly think it might be a solid idea if you proposed (in its own thread perhaps) the outilnes for the proper & perfect rating system for VTES that only shows skill.


There's no particular need for that here, though. VEKN has been served just fine (IMHO) by simply keeping its ranking system as a show piece and not trying to use it for anything important. I think that's the main takehome here.

In case you're curisous, I will tell you, we had that discussion 10 years ago on Usenet in the rec.games.trading-card.jyhad newsgroup. My summary is (of course) personally biased but for my purposes, it boided down to:

1) I thought you could create an interesting and arguably effective skill rating system by using the chess/ELO-based rating system VEKN once used (but bungled in a technical sense by using a really awful coeffecient).

2) Others thought that such a system was technically infeasible due to the need for ordering results in the database (that the current VEKN ranking system doesn't have). I'm pretty sure such issues could be sidestepped, but it wasn't worth arguing about.

3) Others also thought that my propsed system might not reflect skill very accurately in the end, either, when everything was said and done. I think it's hard to tell how well it would work without implementing it - but they might have been right.


Fred
Last edit: 29 Oct 2013 16:19 by fredsct.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Oct 2013 17:07 #55873 by BenPeal

1) I thought you could create an interesting and arguably effective skill rating system by using the chess/ELO-based rating system VEKN once used (but bungled in a technical sense by using a really awful coeffecient).


Technical requirements aside, such a system would have the same issues with locality that the present system has.

3) Others also thought that my propsed system might not reflect skill very accurately in the end, either, when everything was said and done. I think it's hard to tell how well it would work without implementing it - but they might have been right.


In a multiplayer game, there really isn't any way to objectively and conclusively rank players. For example, if two players gang up and oust a third player, is that third player a lesser player for being ousted, or a greater player for it requiring two other players to oust them?

I do think you're correct that the current system is more of a participation/achievement/merit-badgey system than a true ranking system. However, I'm of the opinion that it's "best available" or "works well enough" for a reward system. I also agree that given the issues of locality, a regional basis should be used for such rewards.

All that said, the specifics and details of how the system will be implemented haven't been fully determined yet. As such, I think we should concern ourselves less with panic and more with suggestions. :)
The following user(s) said Thank You: D-dennis

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Oct 2013 17:32 #55875 by fredsct

1) I thought you could create an interesting and arguably effective skill rating system by using the chess/ELO-based rating system VEKN once used (but bungled in a technical sense by using a really awful coeffecient).


Technical requirements aside, such a system would have the same issues with locality that the present system has.


Nonsense. In the current system, number of rated events attended, with a distinct bias towards the largest and most important events, are critical aspects of a player's point total along with how well he does in those events. Since the effort to attend events can vary wildly, anywhere from getting out of bed and crossing the street all the way up to getting on an airplane and flying to a different part of the world, this non-skill factor clearly has a massive effect on point totals.

Contrast this to an ELO system. Granted, the ELO system can be flawed based on the how well your opponents' skill are reflected in their ratings (and, perhaps other issues: metagame, deck ordering, and other chance factors), these don't hold a candle to the effect of differential attendance requirements. And they're also present in the current system, as well - so it doesn't matter.

If all you're saying is that ultimately, representing skill as a number isn't possible at all, again, you might be right. But if it isn't, why even have a ranking system? I don't see how implementing a thorough unfair one helps.

...I think we should concern ourselves less with panic and more with suggestions. :)


I'm not sure why you suggest that. I wasn't "panicing", just throwing up a red flag about what I saw as a problem with one of Ginés' proposals. Discussion raises awareness which results in more refined and intelligent choices in the end. My main proposal is, "stay away from altering the structure of continental championship tournament qualifying and implementation." If you must use it, the Legends tournament proposal struck me as a reasonable outlet.

Fred

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Oct 2013 19:02 #55879 by jhattara
Even in ELO system more activity means a better rating, if you are good that is. Technically the database would have to be a LOT more complex. And also it would be important that tournaments would be reported in order. Also, 5 player ELO coefficients would be very difficult to put fair coefficients on. Even worse if we need to count ratings per tournament.

:splat: Jussi Hattara :splat:
:vtes: Webmaster Extraordinaire :vtes:
Finnish :POT: Politics!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Boris The Blade

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Oct 2013 19:10 - 29 Oct 2013 19:11 #55881 by fredsct

Even in ELO system more activity means a better rating, if you are good that is. Technically the database would have to be a LOT more complex. And also it would be important that tournaments would be reported in order. Also, 5 player ELO coefficients would be very difficult to put fair coefficients on. Even worse if we need to count ratings per tournament.


Some of that was conceeded earlier. Some of it isn't really true. Some of it is true...but... - that is, there are reasonable enough answers to it. If you want to start another thread somewhere else, I'll certainly be happy to go there and defend the concept for argument's sake, although I'm not personally motivated enough to go do it myself. (Once again...) The relative merits of various ways of doing player ratings and rankings are beside the point.
Last edit: 29 Oct 2013 19:11 by fredsct.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Oct 2013 19:13 #55882 by BenPeal

1) I thought you could create an interesting and arguably effective skill rating system by using the chess/ELO-based rating system VEKN once used (but bungled in a technical sense by using a really awful coeffecient).


Technical requirements aside, such a system would have the same issues with locality that the present system has.


Nonsense.


No, not nonsense at all. The data points are localized, regardless of whether it's the current system or ELO. I agree with your comparison/contrasting of the current system and ELO, but the fact remains that the data points from, say, North America don't cross-pollinate with the data points from Australia. With the exception of the few players who do travel inter-continentally, the data is going to remain "siloed" whether it's ELO or the current system.

If all you're saying is that ultimately, representing skill as a number isn't possible at all, again, you might be right. But if it isn't, why even have a ranking system? I don't see how implementing a thorough unfair one helps.


I would agree with you if you said the current system is imperfect. I disagree that it is unfair.

...I think we should concern ourselves less with panic and more with suggestions. :)


I'm not sure why you suggest that. I wasn't "panicing", just throwing up a red flag about what I saw as a problem with one of Ginés' proposals. Discussion raises awareness which results in more refined and intelligent choices in the end. My main proposal is, "stay away from altering the structure of continental championship tournament qualifying and implementation." If you must use it, the Legends tournament proposal struck me as a reasonable outlet.


The discussion part is great and very valuable, but at the same time you were decrying the proposal as unfair before first knowing how it is to be implemented - and it's still not yet known.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.080 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum