Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Ranking Problem?
| Ranking Problem? |
Thu, 26 January 2006 12:17  |
|
|
|
| Wizard wrote: |
Yes, there is a reason. IMO, the major flaw with the ranking system is that you degrade the players on the last ranks. That's not fair IMO, as everyone learns from a game, even if you have made a wrong decision in race design and thus are weak in game.
There is still the option to promote the winners of the game, but as host I wouldn't decide to degrade certain players. We can talk about that. IMO it makes sense that you can just get better, but not worse. Open for discussion 
I have still to send the results from the last game to donjon.
|
Hmmm, talk to me...
The host is responsible for increments and decrements... I don't understand how this could cause problems...
regards,
dj
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 06:01  |
|
 wizard |
 | Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 279
Registered: January 2004
Location: Aachen, Germany | |
|
Well...
As far as I have noticed up to now, it's usual for hosts to promote some players and degrade others. I don't think that a ranking system with those rules can work.
I have been playing in a ranked game with four players (SCC, Shielded Chaff Challenge by Staz), all intermediates, all not ranked before, thus starting on "Lower Intermediate". Nobody was killed until 2514 when the game ended due to technical problems. The host insisted on degrading one of the players (in this case me, because I was #4 due to bad race design) to Advanced Beginner. I had learnt a lot in the game, and I am surely not at advanced beginner level. And nobody of the other players is.
And as I play perhaps 1 ranked game a year, it's nearly possible to come to any reasonable level in reasonable time.
That's my problem with the ranking system. I would change it that way that no players are degraded, except perhaps due to sudden drop-out.
That's it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 11:06 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
no players are degraded
|
I disagree with no players degraded, problem with that is a so-so player can join lots of games, and only put effort into those he gets lucky start... and end up with highest rank.
At same time from my experiance I think you're better than advanced beginner.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 January 2006 11:07] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 11:54 |
|
|
|
| wizard wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 05:01 |
Well...
As far as I have noticed up to now, it's usual for hosts to promote some players and degrade others. I don't think that a ranking system with those rules can work.
I have been playing in a ranked game with four players (SCC, Shielded Chaff Challenge by Staz), all intermediates, all not ranked before, thus starting on "Lower Intermediate". Nobody was killed until 2514 when the game ended due to technical problems.
The host insisted on degrading one of the players (in this case me, because I was #4 due to bad race design) to Advanced Beginner. I had learnt a lot in the game, and I am surely not at advanced beginner level. And nobody of the other players is.
And as I play perhaps 1 ranked game a year, it's nearly possible to come to any reasonable level in reasonable time.
|
The assumptions are that
(a) hosts are reasonable in their assessments.
(b) that ranking actually accrues over time (decrements are not as severe as increments)[this is my or the ranking officer's responsibility]
If one plays in fewer ranked games the movement will be slower...
This makes sense, similar to ranking in chess.
As far as I know SCC is still pending concerning the final ranking increments/decrements, this may be due to the host considering what he should do. (this means he is probably considering his judgement,... which likely means he is being conscientious)
The awarding of decrements and increments is purely at the descretion of the host, (the value of the increments and decrements is at my discretion)
| Quote: |
That's my problem with the ranking system. I would change it that way that no players are degraded, except perhaps due to sudden drop-out.
That's it.
|
Any ranking procedure with a game which lasts over months, is going to be slow to move players up the ladder, and depends upon the faith of the hosts and the players to ensure its success.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 14:58 |
|
|
|
| multilis wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 16:06 |
I disagree with no players degraded, problem with that is a so-so player can join lots of games, and only put effort into those he gets lucky start... and end up with highest rank.
|
Yep, that's the reason why the same number of players are demoted as promoted.
| Quote: |
At same time from my experiance I think you're better than advanced beginner.
|
When we were first discussing the ranking system - see the topic "Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship)" in the bar - some of us suggested using military ranks rather than names like "advanced beginner".
It is important to remember that the rankings are simply a measure of your win/loss rate in games; try not to place too much emphasis on the names of the ranks.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 15:01 |
|
|
|
| wizard wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 11:01 |
Well...
As far as I have noticed up to now, it's usual for hosts to promote some players and degrade others. I don't think that a ranking system with those rules can work.
I have been playing in a ranked game with four players (SCC, Shielded Chaff Challenge by Staz), all intermediates, all not ranked before, thus starting on "Lower Intermediate". Nobody was killed until 2514 when the game ended due to technical problems. The host insisted on degrading one of the players (in this case me, because I was #4 due to bad race design) to Advanced Beginner. I had learnt a lot in the game, and I am surely not at advanced beginner level. And nobody of the other players is.
And as I play perhaps 1 ranked game a year, it's nearly possible to come to any reasonable level in reasonable time.
That's my problem with the ranking system. I would change it that way that no players are degraded, except perhaps due to sudden drop-out.
That's it.
|
Just as a point of note, you probably wouldn't be #4.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 15:07 |
|
|
|
| donjon wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 16:54 |
As far as I know SCC is still pending concerning the final ranking increments/decrements, this may be due to the host considering what he should do. (this means he is probably considering his judgement,... which likely means he is being conscientious)
|
Actually, it's more due to the way the game fizzled out, finally ending when someone uploaded a corrupt turn file and I failed to sort it out (I actually emailed Ron on his old email address, so he didn't receive it for months). None of the players contact me so I basically let it die.
I'll contact all the players again and see if we can bring the whole thing to a conclusion.
| Quote: |
The awarding of decrements and increments is purely at the descretion of the host, (the value of the increments and decrements is at my discretion)
|
For the record, hosts don't decide to demote players, they only get to rule on *who* gets demoted. From the "host instructions" in the ranking forum...
| Quote: |
*the players you have decided should receive decrements (25% of players, or bottom team)
|
In a 4 player game, this means that one player *will* get demoted.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Fri, 27 January 2006 16:00 |
|
|
|
| Staz wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 14:07 |
| Quote: |
The awarding of decrements and increments is purely at the descretion of the host, (the value of the increments and decrements is at my discretion)
|
For the record, hosts don't decide to demote players, they only get to rule on *who* gets demoted. From the "host instructions" in the ranking forum...
| Quote: |
*the players you have decided should receive decrements (25% of players, or bottom team)
|
In a 4 player game, this means that one player *will* get demoted.
|
In the letter of the law, yes, however, I have listened to the suggestions of the hosts involved in games which have completed...
the spirit is more open.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 January 2006 16:00] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Ranking Problem? |
Mon, 30 January 2006 17:53 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, but only if he finishes all those games. That's a lot of effort
|
It doesn't have to be lots of effort, a person can stay in but not try.
IMO this ranking system is little different than normal chess one, in chess everyone including beginners starts in the middle so even increment/decrements work better, and the scale is just a number.
Here you start people where they think they belong, and after that people on average will get better.
So I suggest a finer scale, perhaps add an extra digit to the end.
So for example in Wizards case he might drop from 40 (or 4.0) to 38 (or 3.8 ) if he had a poor showing in a 4 player game but still be I. If next game among 4 Intermediate players he does average he might go back to 40. If the game after has some advanced players in game of 4 people or lots or players (8+), and they all surrender to Wizard, he might climb even more than a rank... from 40 to perhaps 56, skipping IA and jumping all the way to Advanced.
[Updated on: Mon, 30 January 2006 17:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 10 16:26:36 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
He obviously joined too hard game and then tossed shield away and ran. 
Must be done something to him so he joins easier games next time. 