Two questions worth answering about the new rating system

[psychicwarrior]

[samuel]

Well, I also play within the rules, win games with more % of skill than luck, and am in the rankings. Above you.

Good day!

[psychicwarrior]

Play 800+ adequate players and then make that statement Samuel.

You won't and can't.

It's like asking a little girl who is afraid of the water to swim the English channel.

I also challenge you to a 5 game playoff - seeing if your big mouth is backed up by any action .. real action, that real men take.

I am sure you will puss out as that's what pussies do.

Yet all here who know you, know your response already.

[gentleben]

Now guys, you have strayed from the original topic rather drastically. But while we are on this subject , let me just say there is nothing wrong with Ed's style of play. People have different styles. That is just life. And the simple fact of the matter is a player ranked above 1500 is good. So even if someone's style of play is not like someone else's it is no big deal. It is silly to criticize someone's style when it works. If a person wins that is the main thing. A true lotto player will not win much against a good player because good players know how to defend against it. There are people who do not like my aggressive offensive style but it works for me (As far as I can tell it is working). Does that mean I am not playing with the spirit of the game because some don't like my style? Besides, who decided what the spirit of the game is? And what is it? Wait, I think I know. The spirit of the game is win. And Ed does that well.

And by the way Samuel, only 13 of your 115 games have been against 1500+ players. That is cherry picking. You are avoiding high ranked players. The number should look more like 25-30%, not less than 12%.

And Ed, is it really necessary to talk like that?

[psychicwarrior]

Ben,

The thing I respect about Gravon is the general courtesy and sportsmanship that most players exhibit and is enforced by the admins who are courteous and generally fair themselves.

I used to play on that trashy "other" stratego site, where the admins and the players trash talk and curse each other out on a daily basis. Admins delete you if you question them or even if you simply beat them in a game. I am not kidding !

Its pure pure unmonitored trash. The site owner cares not as long as people sign up and pay.

All that makes me appreciate Gravon and all the hard work that the admins and programmers do on a voluntary basis as well as the generally high quality of players that are here.

Yet on occasions, wimps; whiners and backstabbers come along and take cheap underhanded shots. They somehow think they themselves define the " spirit of the game" and attempt in a cowardly way to trash others who play outside their self declared definition.

Samuel qualifies on all of those hideous descriptors and thus needs to be dealt with accordingly. Decent, courteous sportsmanlike players like yourself and most others here would never deserve such words. Samuel indeed does.

So my apologies if you or anyone else thought that these harsh yet deadly accurate words were aimed at anyone but Samuel.

People like him need challenged so they either put up or shutup and stop their sissified, underhanded methods site degrading methods that unintentionally reward players who manipulate the ranking with their pussy like selection of opponents.

Furthermore, Samuel's snide comments on forums are merely worthy of a room full of uneducated gossipy old women. Pure cowardice for anyone claiming to be of male gender and degrading to all members of that gender as a whole.

Let's see if Samuel decides to man up or not and change his deviant and cowardly ways.

We are all watching him now. He fools no one.

[samuel]

I don't think anyone else could give a toss actually Ed. Nice try, snookering me there - I accept the challenge and it means having to play you (which I dont enjoy) or I decline and you think you have scored a point somehow. A best of 5 you say? Didn't I win our last 3 games, a total which you called 'misely' - so what would it prove anyway? You don't win games with skill, but lotto. The skill for the opponent is preparing to play that sort of style, but its still very much open to win or lose. Hey, if that works for you and you can win more games then good luck to you, but I personally would rather avoid opponents who do it.

[geenstijl]

[quote="PsychicWarrior"]Ben,

The thing I respect about Gravon is the general courtesy and sportsmanship that most players exhibit and is enforced by the admins who are courteous and generally fair themselves.

I used to play on that trashy "other" stratego site, where the admins and the players trash talk and curse each other out on a daily basis. Admins delete you if you question them or even if you simply beat them in a game. I am not kidding !

Its pure pure unmonitored trash. The site owner cares not as long as people sign up and pay.

All that makes me appreciate Gravon and all the hard work that the admins and programmers do on a voluntary basis as well as the generally high quality of players that are here.


YES YES YES !!!

Gravon is all that "internet" stands for; Free, open and nice.
Respect for that.



On Topic; I like the new yearly ranking system and prefer more to lower
the add. player modus to 1450 instead the % number against add. players


G gs

[stratego]

hi guys,

i think this is more than offtopic and i would like to go back to the original discussion.

for years now we had and have the hot spot "lotto" and all was said.
in the end its very easy:
pure lotto is for the people who never got the goal of the game and they will never have any success.
but if i am in a game against a very tough player, i must change my skill play to more "guess" play.
its a kind of lotto, which maye gives me the chance for a lucky punch and then i can win.
lets say: it would be same if i start with 2 caps or a major more which balance different rating levels.
also if the game is nearly lost, all i can do is to hope for a free flag with a last suicide piece.
but looking at the rankings for nearly 20 years now, i never saw a lotto player at the top.

going back to the question about the ratio%:

the main questions are:

should we stay with the current system?
if yes why - if no why?

i really want to hear your oppinion and your pros and cons.
and beside hard facts i also want to know if the community thinks that the system is fair or not,
even if this is just a "feeling".

the red line is:
to wait till end of august for more facts, argues and stats and then we have to decide,
if we change something or not. but this should be the last changes till the end of year.

i will try to get some inside facts, like:
- what ranking has a player, if we would delete all games against unadq. players - is this significant different?

one request: we have more than 110 players in the ranking and maybe you could
inform others about this discussion.
a lot do not use the forum, but gravon is a community with open ears.
so please try to force more players to join the forum/discussion.

stratego

[unbiasbob]

I know that I already weighed in but to make it official, I firmly believe that the following system is most fair because big bad over 1700 rankers do not need to be playing many games with sub 1500 guys. Also it could be for their own good too

I say 1500 is the mark

and 1 in 2 games vs adequates is absolutely perfect

[stratego]

hi,

just to clear the facts:
with the current ratio of 1:2 we are talking about 3 games
=> 1 against an adq. player and 2 against low ranked players to be in the list

looking at 100 games:
34 against adq. players and 66 against low ranked players to be in the list.
(thats why the ratio% is not 0,5 its 0,5151~, because we cannot play 1/3 game)

ITS NOT that 1 out of 2 games must be played against an adq. player

stratego

[unbiasbob]

The last thing that should be done is to ease up the challenge requirements. What happens then is the ultra high players can smash around the warhammers of the world and then what? Those poor lowest rankers stop playing because they're tired of being stomped on. You 1600-1700 rankers, prove your worth. You dont need anything to be easier. I'm glad GB agrees with this for certain. Perhaps others do like I thing NC does and Zach I know does. I mean prove it over and over. Feel the pressure like low rankers do

[unbiasbob]

[psychicwarrior]

To Comment on the ranking system's recent changes, my opinion is - Its a step in the right direction but 4 more steps need to be taken if both accuracy in player strength and a more competitive site is the objective.

Those changes, I believe are as follows:

1) The Adequate- Non Adq ratio is a very positive step yet needs refinement.

2) Weight recent games more heavily

3) Adjust and weight favorably more frequent players.

4) A higher minimum number of games to simply qualify for a ranking.


Point #1)

The ratio 1:2 is even slightly too soft in my mind yet I also believe very high ranked players must have a little more leeway as the available players that qualify as adequate to them is very narrow.

Often there are only a few players on Gravon and thus the availability to play top players can be somewhat limited.

For top 5 players, they may rarely see an "Adequate" opponent and quickly be unranked.

Point #2)

What I believe a new rating system must also incorporate is a weighted recency formula. Like WSC but not as radical.

Consider the player with 1000 games.. may for example win 400 of his last 500 games. Quite an amazing feat. Yet if that's counter-balanced with a poor record of his 1st 500 then he looks like an average player when in reality he is a top player based on his last 500 games. More games than most players play in a year.

Compare this to another player who has only 50 games yet won his 1st 35 and lost his last 15 looks far superior and this is a gross inaccuracy.

So I strongly suggest a heavier " weight" for more recent games.


Point #3)

I strongly believe there needs to also be some favour for players who play many games.. so that a true and accurate ranking by player strength is achieved.

It's no secret that the more often you play, the more well known your style, setups and opponents general feel for your game is and thus you are far more beatable than a player who barely plays and little knowledge about his game is known.

Consider for ex. a frequent player has 1000 games on record for the year and then wins 10 in a row, he moves oh so slightly in the rankings with a mere 1% additional win %.

Compare that to a player who has only played 30 games, he jumps up dramatically with 10 wins yet they both accomplished the same feat ! The player with 1000 games is thus in effect severely penalized for his frequent play.

So volume of games/wins should be weighted to accurately assess player strength. This I feel is a must.



Point #4)

Minimum Game Volume to be ranked.

I would suggest an average of 15games/mth so by end of March for ex. only a player with 45 games qualifies and by year end they must have played 180 to be ranked.

That way a player who has played 30 games and displays a high win % is not falsely and inaccurately rated above a player who has 1000 games yet a slightly lower win % etc.

A clear example of this is our beloved friend dcannies who has but 21 games and is ranked ahead of players who have 300 -500 games + and almost as high a win %.

Clearly this is grossly unfair and more importantly very inaccurate to those who have maintained a win % over a much higher volume of games.

This is, in my humble opinion, as big a flaw in the rankings is players who cherry pick and and play non adequate players as has been noted here previously.


So ideally a rating system that weights:

1) Keeping the current Adq/Non Adq ration but expanding the Adq definition for top players.
2) Recency
3) Win/game volume
4) A higher minimum number of games

This will make a ranking system, in my opinion, far more accurate and the site much more competitive.

[acerimmer]

NoChance raises some good points about how many players are actually available to 1700+ players.
When you take off the number of players who do not actually play very often (a few games per year hardly count) then you are left with even less players. Take away a few more 1500 players who avoid competition and will not play other 1500+ players very often (do not forget that 1500 players only need to play 1300+ players) and you are left with an even smaller band of possible players.

[stratego]