V:EKN ranking issues
Emiliano Imeroni
This short message is to raise some issues
about the implementation of the rating on the
WW website.
1) First, the Ratings page explicitly states that:
"Players will be ranked according to their ratings
(RtP) beginning with their first tournament. That is,
there is no minimum number of events a player
must attend before being ranked."
However, it seems that in practice this is not the
case, and a minimum number of attendances is
required in order to appear in the rankings.
To give an example from my playgroup, Jeremie
Pichereau (V:EKN ID 1005151) and Peter Sitch
(1005472) are not ranked despite having played four
and one tournaments respectively.
2) The second issue is more general, and I already
raised it in the past without any reaction. Plainly said:
current rankings are wrong.
This is because when players are tied, the next one
in the ranking is not ranked correctly. For instance, in
the current top 50 we have:
3200023 Kamel Senni 17
3190007 Ginés Quiñonero 17
1003722 Prosper Florian 18
This is not correct: if Kamel and Gines are tied at
17th, Prosper should be 19th. The same happens
every time there is a tie, and the error gets of course
worse and worse by going down the list.
Can someone address these points? Robyn maybe?
Thanks a lot!!
Cheers,
Emiliano
Clément
> This short message is to raise some issues
> about the implementation of the rating on the
> WW website.
Thanks for bringing this up. I'll comment on two issues you pointed
out, and add another one.
> 1) First, the Ratings page explicitly states that:
> "Players will be ranked according to their ratings
> (RtP) beginning with their first tournament. That is,
> there is no minimum number of events a player
> must attend before being ranked."
>
> However, it seems that in practice this is not the
> case, and a minimum number of attendances is
> required in order to appear in the rankings.
I've seen this happen, but it's worth adding that it's not always the
case. Actually, most players in my playgroup appear in the rankings
after their first tournament appearance, so I'm confused about what
could be happening here.
> 2) The second issue is more general, and I already
> raised it in the past without any reaction. Plainly said:
> current rankings are wrong.
>
(...)
>
> This is not correct: if Kamel and Gines are tied at
> 17th, Prosper should be 19th. The same happens
> every time there is a tie, and the error gets of course
> worse and worse by going down the list.
This is really annoying. I can easily work up myself the correct
Brazilian ranks for our city playgroup, but to do the same for their
World ranks is more trouble than it's worth. It would be nice to get
the correct placings directly from the website.
3) Some players' ratings are simply incorrect. For example, let's take
VEKN ID 6040042. His constructed ratings appear as:
6040042, Felipe Fiuza, 3 games, 0 GW, 2.0 VP, 23 RP, 415 World Rank
If you check his tournament history, however, you'll notice that he
has played 7 tournaments, all within the 18-month valid tournament
frame, tallying 19 games, 2 GW, 13.5 VP, 120 RP.
Like item 1) above, this error only happens for a few players. Most of
the tallies are added up correctly.
I'd be very thankful if anyone from WW's ranks could clarify or look
into these issues.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Brazil VTES NC
Emiliano Imeroni
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> This short message is to raise some issues
> about the implementation of the rating on the
> WW website.
...really nobody cares? :-(
Emiliano
J
>
> > This short message is to raise some issues
> > about the implementation of the rating on the
> > WW website.
>
> ...really nobody cares? :-(
>
> Emiliano
Not that it matters much - but no... I don't care. I don't play for
rankings, and I probably don't attend enough tournaments for it to
matter anyway. I would assume that there are lots of other players
out there who share my sentiments.
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
Joshua Duffin
"Emiliano Imeroni" <emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173182319....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I care!
Hey Orgplay and VTESRatings, surely you can get something done about this...
sometime... right? :-)
If you didn't see Emiliano's original message, he was basically saying that
(a) the ratings page claims that no minimum number of tournaments should be
needed to get a rating (which I think should be true), but in practice he
sees some of his players not having ratings despite having played in some
tournaments. And (b), that ties aren't ranked properly in the rankings
list, in that if two people are tied for 2nd, the next person should be 4th,
but instead is listed as 3rd.
Plus Luiz Mello pointed out that some players still have incorrect rankings
given their tournament results. I seem to recall hearing that that's a
fairly difficult problem to solve universally, though...
Josh
we care a lot
Emiliano Imeroni
Just wanted to push this topic up the list once
again, hoping that Oscar or Robyn or someone
will say something about it at some point...
Also because I just saw that the results of
the February London draft are now counted,
so I have one more pleayer in my playgroup
who is not ranked despite having played in a
tournament.
Ciao,
Emiliano
OrgPlay
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wanted to push this topic up the list once
> again, hoping that Oscar or Robyn or someone
> will say something about it at some point...
>
I'm looking at the calculations now, Emiliano.
Oscar Garza
Organized Play Coordinator
CCP North America | White Wolf
Emiliano Imeroni
Thanks!!
Emiliano
Joscha
wrote:> > On Mar 16, 9:58 am, "EmilianoImeroni" <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > Just wanted to push this topic up the list once
> > > again, hoping that Oscar or Robyn or someone
> > > will say something about it at some point...
>
> > I'm looking at the calculations now, Emiliano.
>
> > Oscar Garza
> > Organized Play Coordinator
> > CCP North America | White Wolf
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Emiliano
Did something change to the better, Emiliano? My rankings are f* up
completetly, though I don't care anymore. I've been not that
successful lately, but I won a tournament and it did not count, nor
did any other tournaments I attended for over a year now.
Jeroen
> Did something change to the better, Emiliano? My rankings are f* up
> completetly, though I don't care anymore. I've been not that
> successful lately, but I won a tournament and it did not count, nor
> did any other tournaments I attended for over a year now.
Mine are wrong too. I don't really care about them, so I'm not really
checking regularly.
Emiliano Imeroni
Hi,
Thanks for raising this again. As far as I can tell, nothing has
changed.
The system still handles ties incorrectly, and players in my
playgroup remain un-ranked (I haven't checked about incorrect ratings
because I only know my own results and those are correctly accounted
for).
Maybe - who knows? - one day something will be done...
Ciao,
Emiliano
Shade
wrote:
> Maybe - who knows? - one day something will be done...
On the plus side, at least you're getting to play tournaments! If I
want to play tournaments I'll have to fly to Australia which is a bit
further, and more to the point a whole lot more expensive, than
jumping on the train to Swansea :-)
Simon
rob...@mindspring.com
> On Apr 23, 11:12 pm, Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe - who knows? - one day something will be done...
Emiliano, Joscha and all:
Unfortunately, the calculations part of the data base is nothing I can
help.
(Which is why I didn't answer last time.)
I'm still only a volunteer and communicate via email with White-Wolf.
I was told you must have 8 games in an 18 month period before you were
fortunate enough to get ranked.
Despite what anyone says, I see no evidence that that has changed,
although there are some that just don't work.
What I can not do, and what must be reported to Oscar and the
WebDeveloper are:
Any changes to your player registry.
Any changes to the Prince Registry - or make it possible for you to
be a prince or enter events.
Any recalculating or troubleshooting of any calculation. (IE.... how
the site handles ties.)
Correct events where the Prince used a comma to express Victory
points.
What I can do:
Approve and enter ratings.
While I am capable of entering every result for every event, there is
not time to do so. Which is why the organizer was put in charge of
entering their own events.
Correct results both pre and post approval.
Take a specific concern to Oscar and the Web team.
I can report to the WebDeveloper anything that might be amiss as long
as there is something specific to work with.
Most of what I do in an hour so or so everyday is answer email about
concerns_ be they ratings related, cancelled tournaments,
corrections....etc.
I never got an email from anyone in this discussion about any specific
concern.
Since I can't fix what I don't know about, please write me.
I have your entire reported history (from January 2002) at my
fingertips. If the event was reported to me, I have the results and
we can then set about finding out what the issue is.
Clément
know you have always been invaluable by helping me help the princes
here with their results submission doubts, which is why I didn't want
to miss the opportunity to make my appreciation public.
The points I'll address below are clearly not on your side of things.
I'm just borrowing something you wrote to raise a specific concern of
mine.
On Apr 27, 10:21 am, roby... wrote:
(...)
> I was told you must have 8 games in an 18 month period before you
> were fortunate enough to get ranked.
> Despite what anyone says, I see no evidence that that has changed,
> although there are some that just don't work.
I wonder if they mean 8 *games* or 8 *events*. If they actually mean
"games", I'm lead to believe that the webpage simply doesn't display
players with 7 or fewer games, although they are probably getting
their rating points for those.
The Rating System page (http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?
line=veknRating) explicitly says that "[players] will be ranked
according to their ratings (RtP) beginning with their first
tournament. That is, there is no minimum number of events a player
must attend before being ranked."
As I mentioned in a previous post (http://tinyurl.com/28u8n5), most of
my players show up at the website right after their first tournament
appearance is ranked (which means only 2 or 3 games played). This is
completely in agreement with the Rating System page and does not
support the idea that anyone has to play a minimum amount of games/
events before getting rating points.
If, in practice, there *is* a minimum required number os games/events
before players will show up on ranking from now on, I feel it's not a
good idea. For two reasons:
1) Players with less than 8 appearances do not particularly benefit
from it, so there's no harm in rating them from appearance one (there
could be if we used an average or % system, like the old one);
2) Players who care about ratings will probably enjoy to follow their
ranking improvement as they play. I see no point in making they wait
until their 8th tournament appearance. Best case, it's a little less
fun for them. Worst case, it could put some of those players off
tournaments.
Oscar already mentioned he was looking into the calculations issue.
Thank you very much for this, Oscar. Please let me know if I can be of
any help on this subject (by testing, making suggestions or anything
else).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
librarian
> Correct events where the Prince used a comma to express Victory
> points.
>
I bet this one is a doozy. In many cultures, commas are used instead of
periods to seperate digits less than 0. I wonder how many rankings are
messed up because of this one little error?
best -
chris
(Hey Robyn, are you and David coming out for May's Qualifier?)
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Joscha
> roby...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Correct events where the Prince used a comma to express Victory
> > points.
>
> I bet this one is a doozy. In many cultures, commas are used instead of
> periods to seperate digits less than 0. I wonder how many rankings are
> messed up because of this one little error?
I made this mistake too. Sorry for that. I just looked up the Archon
and couldn't find a remark about using points instead of commas. Am I
blind?
Emiliano Imeroni
Hi all,
>From time to time I check how things are going with V:EKN
rankings, and I'm happy to say that, at least as far as my
playgroup is concerned, the problem of not being ranked after
having played 1-2 tournaments is solved. They are now all
ranked. Thanks Robyn and everyone involved!
Now the remaining "global" problem is that the system still
handles ties incorrectly. Who is in charge of the "computational"
side of the system?
Cheers,
Emiliano
Johannes Walch
>From time to time I check how things are going with V:EKN
> rankings, and I'm happy to say that, at least as far as my
> playgroup is concerned, the problem of not being ranked after
> having played 1-2 tournaments is solved. They are now all
> ranked. Thanks Robyn and everyone involved!
By the way: please notice that the performance of the rating system
(while displaying pages) has increased tremendously.
*clap clap*
Johannes
Frederick Scott
"Shade" <sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177380311....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Which is the whole problem with the concept. It's not a VTES-playing
skill rating system. It's a rating system that combines information about
players by both their skill and their ability to attend tournaments at the
same time - meaning that it truly gives information about nothing at all.
It's like trying to rate a model of car through a formula which includes
its top speed and how much carrying capacity it's trunk has.
Fred
Emiliano Imeroni
>
> Which is the whole problem with the concept. It's not a VTES-playing
> skill rating system. It's a rating system that combines information about
> players by both their skill and their ability to attend tournaments at the
> same time - meaning that it truly gives information about nothing at all.
> It's like trying to rate a model of car through a formula which includes
> its top speed and how much carrying capacity it's trunk has.
Whatever the issues with the current rating system, this thread is
only
about trying to make it work, at a *technical* level. Nobody is forced
to use it, but since it is there it may as well work correctly.
Emiliano
Frederick Scott
> On 29 Mag, 17:25, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Which is the whole problem with the concept. It's not a VTES-playing
>> skill rating system. It's a rating system that combines information about
>> players by both their skill and their ability to attend tournaments at the
>> same time - meaning that it truly gives information about nothing at all.
>> It's like trying to rate a model of car through a formula which includes
>> its top speed and how much carrying capacity it's trunk has.
>
> Whatever the issues with the current rating system, this thread is
> only about trying to make it work, at a *technical* level.
A thread is about whatever aspect of the subject people choose to talk
about, as long as it's topical to the newsgroup. The previous poster, whose
text you carefully cut, was complaining about his inability to attend
tournaments in response to the complaint about the technical problems.
There's no expectation, in nettiquette, that posters must carefully check back
to the original poster's thrust when thinking about what they wish to add
to a thread.
You're not the only one in this newsgroup who seems to be confused about
that point. I wonder why?
Fred
Damnans
> "Shade" <shad...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177380311....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 23, 11:12 pm, Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Maybe - who knows? - one day something will be done...
>
> > On the plus side, at least you're getting to play tournaments! If I
> > want to play tournaments I'll have to fly to Australia which is a bit
> > further, and more to the point a whole lot more expensive, than
> > jumping on the train to Swansea :-)
>
> Which is the whole problem with the concept. It's not a VTES-playing
> skill rating system. It's a rating system that combines information about
> players by both their skill and their ability to attend tournaments at the
> same time -
Rating systems only rate players who attend tournaments.
> meaning that it truly gives information about nothing at all.
It gives information about tournament wins, game wins, victory points
players achieve in tournaments.
[...]
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Robert Goudie
> On May 29, 6:25 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > "Shade" <shad...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177380311....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Apr 23, 11:12 pm, Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Maybe - who knows? - one day something will be done...
>
> > > On the plus side, at least you're getting to play tournaments! If I
> > > want to play tournaments I'll have to fly to Australia which is a bit
> > > further, and more to the point a whole lot more expensive, than
> > > jumping on the train to Swansea :-)
>
> > Which is the whole problem with the concept. It's not a VTES-playing
> > skill rating system. It's a rating system that combines information about
> > players by both their skill and their ability to attend tournaments at the
> > same time -
>
> Rating systems only rate players who attend tournaments.
Fred isn't suggesting a rating system should rate those who don't
attend tournaments. Of course some amount of participation is
required.
The original modified-ELO system we used, given unlimited support
resources and a properly fine-tuned formula would be able to rate
player skill better than the current system. One additional problem
with the rating system we used is that it encouraged players not to
play once they'd reached the top of the ratings in order to maintain
their high rankings. The current system doesn't have that problem.
When we replaced ELO with the easy-to-maintain Game Win % stat, we had
a system that measured player ability. But again, that system didn't
encourage participation and after you had a lot of games under your
belt, it was hard to move your average. Imagine a veteran baseball
player trying to make his career batting average change in the last
game of his career. Yeah, right!
One major and intended component of the current rating system is that
it encouraged players to attend lots of tournaments. If people like
this aspect then so be it. The rating system achieves that intended
goal.
-Robert
Frederick Scott
news:1180462830....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Fred isn't suggesting a rating system should rate those who don't
> attend tournaments. Of course some amount of participation is
> required.
> One major and intended component of the current rating system is that
> it encouraged players to attend lots of tournaments. If people like
> this aspect then so be it. The rating system achieves that intended
> goal.
My point is greater than that, however. I'm also trying to point out that
the product of the rating system is ultimately a single number, which
in turn serves as the input for the ranking system. But the problem is,
you usually can't factor two different measurements into a single number
and get a measurement of anything coherent at all. People don't seem to
get that. It's true you can multiply width times height and get a
measurement of area or you can factor in wind speed with temperature and
get a measurement of wind chill (which has meaning in terms of how
cold your unprotected skin will feel outdoors). But in most cases, if
you factor two measurements together you get nothing meaningful at all.
This is certainly the case with this rating system. It may seem to
encourage attendance if you can get people to buy into caring about making
their number as big as possible. But if the number itself has no coherent
meaning, who cares? It doesn't actually measure attendance because skill
factors in. It doesn't actually measure skill because attendance factors
in. It measures...nothing. It's good for nothing.
Maybe White Wolf should give out Green Stamps in recognition of rating
points? Then at least they would have relevance to something.
Fred
Emiliano Imeroni
> "Emiliano Imeroni" <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I might have used words that created misunderstandings.
Nowhere in my post I wanted to imply that you are not
welcome to reply with whatever comment you like.
I was just trying to stress there might be a reason to discuss
the faults of the system irrespectively of its perceived value.
Emiliano
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Which is the whole problem with the concept. It's not a VTES-playing
> skill rating system. It's a rating system that combines information about
> players by both their skill and their ability to attend tournaments at the
> same time - meaning that it truly gives information about nothing at all.
> It's like trying to rate a model of car through a formula which includes
> its top speed and how much carrying capacity it's trunk has.
Oh, Fred.
Hey--you need a Victor? I hear I'm giving them out free now!
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
Frederick Scott
news:pdb6-6E91BF.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com...
> Oh, Fred.
>
> Hey--you need a Victor? I hear I'm giving them out free now!
I hear a bunch of people of people lodged complaints against
you on EBAY for giving out Victors free and undercutting their
sales. You shouldn't believe everything you hear, Peter.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
> news:pdb6-6E91BF.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com...
> > Oh, Fred.
> >
> > Hey--you need a Victor? I hear I'm giving them out free now!
>
> I hear a bunch of people of people lodged complaints against
> you on EBAY for giving out Victors free and undercutting their
> sales.
Bwahahaha! I strike a blow against capitalism!
> You shouldn't believe everything you hear, Peter.
Well, ya know, at least on the part about me giving them away free, I
gotta a pretty reliable source :-)