|
Post by carl on Dec 31, 2009 16:22:20 GMT
hi guys
what do club members feel about getting the club ranking system up and running again?
i would be willing to do this on a basis of 3pts for a win, 2 for a draw and 1 for a loss, and the top adult and junior will get the club trophy awarded to them at teh AGM next year.
i could update the standings each week or two with results but it would be down to individuals to either tell me on the night via a slip of paper of your result, PM on this site or email me aft the game.
you will get one week (somtimes two depending on when i update, which will depend on the amount of entries to file) to let me know of a result otherwise it wil be lost in time and space.
let me know and i can start this from either next week or an agreed date, which should really be by the end of Jan at the latest
ta for now
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Dec 31, 2009 16:50:55 GMT
I don't know about this. It seems that a lot of different games in one pot is a bit much. Someone winning a card game doesn't quite equate to a FoW or Warhammer game win. I could get into one card game and have 6 games in the evening and claim six wins - would this put me at the top of the board table with 18pts a night? There is also the point of the number of games that people have. Someone playing just twice in a month due to other commitments will be handicapped against someone that plays regularly. I think the individual league table for each genre is fair enough. I played a lot of games when this was up last time and I found myself near the top of the table most years. This is because of the number of games I played which was unfair on those that couldn't always make it.
So I'm really not in favour of this as for the reasons explained and also because of the unbalanced scoring system with different genres. Sorry mate!
|
|
Jon Nicholls
Gates of Antares
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
Posts: 403
|
Post by Jon Nicholls on Dec 31, 2009 17:11:09 GMT
I assumed that this would be for wargaming only (of any rules set) not card games or role playing, which as Warren points out would complicate things! In which case I like the idea as it was always a "freindly" side competition to whatever else was going on, although pressumably other competition games (eg SFS Trophy) would not be included. As for not everyone playing the same amount of games, I'm not sure this should be an issue, this is after all not meant to be an "overly competitive" league table.
Besides, I could do with a new wooden spoon...
|
|
|
Post by paulr on Dec 31, 2009 20:22:49 GMT
Not really in favour. I like to trial differant armies and units and wouldn't really want to make my friendly games 'competitive' even in a light sense.
If you do run it, I will join in, but might select which games count beforehand, as sometimes my games might just be for fun, like when I practiced for the army-swap tournament.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jan 1, 2010 10:29:17 GMT
this would indeed be just for miniature games as roleplay and card / boardgames can be tricky to police as they say, and yes as long as both players agree beforehand the game result can be ignored in terms of ranking points etc.
we have the trophies already from a few years ago so this is just a way of keeping this going and adding a bit of spice and friendly rivallry to the games.
|
|
darkangel1(Darrell)
Gates of Antares
Master of the Ravenwing
The Dark Angels the First Legion the true Angels of Death
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by darkangel1(Darrell) on Jan 1, 2010 13:00:02 GMT
the rankings system did bring a compedative edge but all the members did take to it i would like to see it resurected
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Jan 1, 2010 16:46:06 GMT
However the GCN formulated a rather complicated scoring system if I am not mistaken that enabled people at the bottom of the "league" to gain more points if they got a win over people positioned higher than them etc... I think only Stephen understood how that went.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jan 1, 2010 17:06:54 GMT
i think your're right. also, you need windows excel (i think) which i dont have so will just be doing a basic points scoring system as above.
if anyone else would like to do something else please feel free to volunteer, i dont mind.
|
|
|
Post by David B on Jan 1, 2010 19:59:12 GMT
To be honest I cant see this working. If you remember we tried restarting this in the year but noone could be bothered recording results
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jan 1, 2010 20:19:27 GMT
thats because no-one bothered to ask for them and people forget about it after a while.
i would do a sheet and people can record their games (if they wish) for this competition. i will then transfer the results onto this forum in a post only i can alter and the table should never be more than 1 to 2 weeks out of sync with games played.
i have been emailing Darrell and we may also offer some vouchers for 1st and 2nd places in each section as an extra incentive and to encourage people to put their results in.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jan 1, 2010 20:59:00 GMT
I only stopped doing the rankings a couple of years ago, partly as it was becoming more time consuming to produce, and partly as there was much less interest in reporting results, which made the effort needed to produce the rankings seem a bit of a waste.
The actual scoring mechanism for the GCN's rankings wasn't that complex as such, there was a formula which calculated the points for a game based on the difference between two players ranking points. All I did was enter it into excel. The time consuming bit was entering the results into the spreadsheet, then transferring the updated scores into the rankings table and then sorting into Ranking order.
The only issue with a flat scoring system, especially one that gives out points for defeats, is that it inevitably favours those who play more games. Provided that there isn't a large difference between the number of games played by those who enter any such competition it's not a problem (a difference of 5 games out of 50 played doesn't amount to much). However someone who plays say a game a week, nearly every week, is likely to finish high up in the rankings even if they lose a large percentage of their games, and would certainly beat a player who plays only once a month even if they win every game.
The GCN's rankings formula countered that somewhat, as it meant that occasional defeats affected the score of leading players much more heavily. Although it still favoured those who played more games.
I can think of several possible ways of trying to keep something like this roughly even for players who don't play quite so often.
One of the simplest would be to actually order the players on win percentage (the percentage of games they win), rather than a points score.
In order to stop someone who plays only one or two games and wins them from winning the whole thing, you'd have to work the percentage out as if all players had played a certain minimum number of games (10 might be a good base number for this, a higher number could be used if we think a lot of people are only going to play 10 games in a year). So a player who had played one game and won it would have a win percentage of 10% (won one game out of ten).
Once people have played a number of games, it will take a very good (or very lucky) player to keep a high win percentage, therefore over the course of a year, if most of the players are playing between 20 and 50 games, the person at the top of the table come the end of the year would be the one who has been able to win the majority of their games and therefore is the best player (even if they've played half the number of games that some other members have).
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jan 1, 2010 21:15:00 GMT
that sounds fine but i dont have the time, inlcination or computer programme to run something like that so as i said if someone wants to do another scoring system that they think is fairer then thats fine by me.
however, on the subject of playing more games against percentages of games played, surely anyone who turns up most weeks and plays more SHOULD be entitled to have a better chance of winning simply because they turn up more often and in effect put more money into the club, especially if the club funds are then used to put up some vouchers etc.
mine is only one suggestion and would be the one i would do if i were to run it, as i want to keep it, as Sergei says, 'SEEMPLES'.
if people would rather go with something else, thats ok, but someone else would then have to run it and keep it going.
i would simply like to see it brought back as it added something else to the club games as did the 'most sporting opponent award' which Jon and Dave Wilkin quite rightly won.
we dont have to bring this back at all, just thought it might be good to try again.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jan 1, 2010 21:28:40 GMT
I hear you, there is definitely a limit on how fiddly or complex you can make anything even if you are trying to improve it before it just becomes to much of a hassle.
Personally I'd be looking at any Rankings system as a way of determining the best player in the club, not the most active, but that's just my opinion.
Incidentally if we're giving out prizes for regular attendance I'd have won that for 2009, having attended every meeting.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jan 1, 2010 22:00:43 GMT
blimey. now that is something. every week of 2009. you've done it now though saying that, the die is cast and the next bout of flu will be gunning for you now.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Robinson on Jan 2, 2010 12:54:27 GMT
If some one can provide the formula / details I do have the time and computer skills required for this
|
|