The top 4 cherry pickers in the top 20

gentleben · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103

I will be happy to assist Bob but I must make one comment and ask one question first. I can only do it based on who is ranked right now so, for example, even though Dozer would top the list by far he will not be on the list. The question is: do you want the top five worst offenders regardless of whether they are really cherry picking, or do you want to only know the actual cherry pickers?

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

Well GB, probably what we need is a separate top 5 for each list. cheers pal, Bob

stratego · Posted: 18.06.2010 16:09 Post subject:

hi,

i think the list has no power anymore.

if we raise the number of games before a player gets a significant rating,
the topic is done.

i need some answers to my proposal, otherwise it seems that there is no need
for a change and i`ll leave it the way it is.

stratego

gentleben · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103

Stratego, I like the idea of raising the minimum games requirement. Your number of 25 per quarter (point 2) is better than the current number but I would be in favor of an even higher number.

(point 3) I do not see how this will affect when people get ranked. You can still rank someone who has only played 20 games but if they have not played 25 by march 31st they fall out.

(point 4) I do not understand what having a grey name means. Do you mean their name will show grey as opposed to light blue on the users list, or something else?

stratego · Posted: 19.06.2010 14:30 Post subject:

hi ben,

i think we have to take care, that we do not overpower the changes.

looking at the ranking we see a broad distribution between players with 20 or over 1000 games.

the problem is, that some play very few games, because their ranking position is good,
and they do not want to risk it.

others play few games because of various privat reasons, but they are not intrested in a ranking position.

in addition we all know, that a ranking position, based on only few games, is more or less very unstable.

what we need is a fair solution for all players, who want to stay in ranking, but the requirements must be reachable.

if we agree, that 100 games a year (25 in a quarter) is one of the requirements for the challange ranking,
we have to talk about the players who have less games.

1. we could delete all players out of the list.
2. we could change the colour of the players nick (grey) to show that the ranking position is based of few games,
but they get a ranking.
3. same as 2, but without a ranking position.

my proposal is, that a player must play:
25 by the end of march
50 by the end of june
75 by the end september
100 by the end of december

if as player does not meet the no. of games each quarter his nick will stay in the list, but changed to grey
and he gets no ranking number.
e.g. Atillares will stay at 4th position with a grey nick, but new no. 4 is Zach21 (current situation)

stratego

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

I think raising the minimum games per quarter to stay in the rankings is important and should be done. I agree that the number should be at least 25; my recommendation is a number more like 30. Cheers and thank you for all your fine work Stratego. You work for nothing and I commend you to no end. GB, as always I appreciate your input and all others who contribute to the forum and website.

UB

samuel · Posted: 20.06.2010 00:31 Post subject:

You don't want to get too many people out of the list because then its a very short list! Surely you want to be top of a list of over 100 players than top of a list of only 50 or so. I know I am proud to top the barrage WSC rankings list even though it's not as prestigious as Klier, but there are over 400 players listed and while some have hardly played, I can still say my rating is the highest of over 400 people, which is nice. If I top the klier rankings there are about 15 people listed so it is a short list.

I do agree that you should have to have, IMO, at least 50 games a year and so many per month or quarter to be on the final list though. 50 is not even 1 a week remember. But it seems like a decent sized sample.

There are so many ifs and buts to contend with. The distribution of players you play....unbiasbob and art for example, play each other so many times compared to another 2 players...does this mean anything for their rankings? Should they be playing other people more often? My brother is not registered but we play all the time here...I mean almost daily! Go to player vs player and put in Samuel and Simon3....it is quite remarkable! But he never plays anyone else! If he was to get a ranking it would be based entirely on games against me! (which Im sure Stratego would not allow but if he did!)

does this need considering? Or just the number of games against anyone.

Honestly, I think the current system is good. Nothing will ever be perfect. Look at the world cup - you have the hopes and dreams of entire nations decided by penalties whenever a game is drawn. This is hardly fair as it is a lottery really. But its the best they can do within the parameters of the sport that unfortunately does produce many ties. In fact in the WC, if you have a situation with a group where every match is a 0-0 draw or a 1-1 draw or whatever, then 2 teams get pulled at random from a hat to advance. They don't have any other solution! Why not say, the team that earned the most corners or had the most shots on target, should go through? But no, its just a random draw. Hardly a perfect system!

So I don't think we can ever get it just right, and its very good at the moment.

gentleben · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103

Stratego, 25 games a quarter is good but my vote goes to leaving the names off the list completely. If it is grey it is still there and a player can take satisfaction they are at number 4 even if it does not say so. If they want to be on the list they should have to do what everyone else does to get there, play enough games. 100 games a year is not too many (I still think it is too few, 150 is better). 100 is less than 2 a week and 2 games can be played in an hour. That is not asking too much.

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

Probably GB is right. The minimum games to be ranked should be raised. These are some great players who would be left off the list but it's going to be because they are too busy or whatever. I know I missed a few year end lists because tego was not on my mind those last months of the year. I didn't cry and dont thing dudes with excessive low games per months or qtrs will either. It doesn't have to be raised majorly but it seems too low where it is.