[V:EKN] Official Player Ratings Updated
Robert Goudie
Antediluvian Awakening Lisbon '99 and the U.S. Championships held at
GenCon '99.
The ratings can be viewed at:
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net/madness_vekn_playerrating.html
The top 10 rated players are:
NAME RATING GAMES CITY
===================== ====== ===== =============
Marcus Mock 3306 7 Vienna
Robert Goudie 3249 18 Los Angeles
Alex Woisetschlaeger 3207 4 Vienna
Jarett Welch 3199 8 GenCon '99
Alex Harmon 3186 11 Los Angeles
Branislav Baco 3179 15 Kosice
David Korejtko 3171 7 Prague
Joao Marques 3169 12 Lisbon
David M. Davila 3155 11 Atlanta
Francisco Alpalhao 3154 8 Lisbon
--
Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
_________________________________________________________________
The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization
David M. Dávila
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The Official V:EKN Player Ratings have been updated with the results
> of Antediluvian Awakening Lisbon '99 and the U.S. Championships held
> at GenCon '99.
>
> The ratings can be viewed at:
>
> http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net/madness_vekn_playerrating.html
>
> The top 10 rated players are:
>
> NAME RATING GAMES CITY
> ===================== ====== ===== =============
> Marcus Mock 3306 7 Vienna
> Robert Goudie 3249 18 Los Angeles
> Alex Woisetschlaeger 3207 4 Vienna
> Jarett Welch 3199 8 GenCon '99
> Alex Harmon 3186 11 Los Angeles
> Branislav Baco 3179 15 Kosice
> David Korejtko 3171 7 Prague
> Joao Marques 3169 12 Lisbon
> David M. Davila 3155 11 Atlanta
> Francisco Alpalhao 3154 8 Lisbon
Just curious, Robert, but does the player rating take into account the
number of tournaments that each player has won? Or does it just measure
the ratio of victory points to games? Is there a way to incorporate
tournament wins into the formula, or list the number of tournament wins
in a separate column?
Thanks,
David
--
David M. Dávila
Creator of the Elder Library Deck Builder©
http://intj.home.mindspring.com/eldb/eldb.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
carl.pi...@philips.com
David M. Dávila <david...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <37C41BAF...@earthlink.net>,
> Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snipped]
>
> Just curious, Robert, but does the player rating take into account the
> number of tournaments that each player has won? Or does it just
measure
> the ratio of victory points to games? Is there a way to incorporate
> tournament wins into the formula, or list the number of tournament
wins
> in a separate column?
I think if a player wins a high number of tournaments, this is
reflected in a high rating. Also keep in mind that the higher a
player's rating is, the more points he loses if he doesn't make the
VP's he's supposed to make. :)
But, I think the number of *games* played could be incorporated into
the ratings. Our mathematician told me that a VP is roughly 32 points
"worth", so if a player doesn't get a VP he's supposed to, he loses 32
points. What we can do now is give a penalty to players with less than
a given number of games.
E.g. in our league we play one-off games. We use the VEKN rating
system, and if a player has less than 12 games, he gets 32 points
subtracted for every game less than 12. This really works good, as it
was developed by said mathemtatician. :)
However, I could also imagine not a fix penalty per game less than
limit, but also increasing the penalty the less games a player has
played. What do you think?
That way we wouldn't have to carry the number of games around *in the
rating*.
Carl
David M. Dávila
> I think if a player wins a high number of tournaments, this is
> reflected in a high rating. Also keep in mind that the higher a
> player's rating is, the more points he loses if he doesn't make the
> VP's he's supposed to make. :)
I do not believe that this is *necessarily* true. Take, for example, my
recent rise in player rating. This is due to my playing a weenie night
moves deck at Dragon*Con99 and accumulating a ton of victory points to
make it into the finals. In the final round, however, I didn't stand a
chance. Another example is Rob Grau's Dragon*Con99 deck. He had more
vp's than I did going into the finals and he was ousted before his deck
could do anything.
The player that won (Ben Peal) entered the finals with half the vp's
that Rob did, but he won the tournament. Do you see what I mean?
> But, I think the number of *games* played could be incorporated into
> the ratings. Our mathematician told me that a VP is roughly 32 points
> "worth", so if a player doesn't get a VP he's supposed to, he loses 32
> points. What we can do now is give a penalty to players with less than
> a given number of games.
> E.g. in our league we play one-off games. We use the VEKN rating
> system, and if a player has less than 12 games, he gets 32 points
> subtracted for every game less than 12. This really works good, as it
> was developed by said mathemtatician. :)
> However, I could also imagine not a fix penalty per game less than
> limit, but also increasing the penalty the less games a player has
> played. What do you think?
>
> That way we wouldn't have to carry the number of games around *in the
> rating*.
I think that the player rating is fine as is, but I am just trying to
make the point that we ALSO need to see how many tournaments a given
person has won. And, for that matter, how many final round the player
has played in. Yeah, I think that the number of final round appearances
is a better indicator of player ability than tournament wins.
So, perhaps we could have a player ratings table that included the
following information:
Player name, Rating, Games played, Final rounds, Tournament wins
What do other people think?
Thanks,
David
--
David M. Dávila
Creator of the Elder Library Deck Builder©
http://intj.home.mindspring.com/eldb/eldb.html
Robert Goudie
>
[clip]
> What do other people think?
Before anyone gets too carried away I just want to remind everyone that
the DCI said they would do the V:TES ratings. I got tired of waiting
and rolled-out the current system but I don't expect it to be a
permanent solution. So, anything we decide we want to track might need
to be tracked manually since the DCI won't track finals appearances,
etc. for us. There have been some recent stirrings at the DCI about the
ratings. A final resolution to this issue seems imminent. It may even
be resolved in the next week or so.
-Robert
LSJ
> > I think if a player wins a high number of tournaments, this is
> > reflected in a high rating. Also keep in mind that the higher a
> > player's rating is, the more points he loses if he doesn't make the
> > VP's he's supposed to make. :)
>
> I do not believe that this is *necessarily* true. Take, for example, my
> recent rise in player rating. This is due to my playing a weenie night
> moves deck at Dragon*Con99 and accumulating a ton of victory points to
> make it into the finals. In the final round, however, I didn't stand a
> chance. Another example is Rob Grau's Dragon*Con99 deck. He had more
> vp's than I did going into the finals and he was ousted before his deck
> could do anything.
>
> The player that won (Ben Peal) entered the finals with half the vp's
> that Rob did, but he won the tournament. Do you see what I mean?
> I think that the player rating is fine as is, but I am just trying to
> make the point that we ALSO need to see how many tournaments a given
> person has won. And, for that matter, how many final round the player
> has played in. Yeah, I think that the number of final round appearances
> is a better indicator of player ability than tournament wins.
>
> So, perhaps we could have a player ratings table that included the
> following information:
>
> Player name, Rating, Games played, Final rounds, Tournament wins
>
The current system gives more weight to the tournament winner just by
the fact that the winner's opponents in that final round have gained
several VPs in the preceding three rounds, therby increasing their
ratings. By winning at a table filled with players of higher ratings
(like the "final round" table), a players score goes up more than
winning at an "average" table. (And the "losing" finalists lose fewer
points for losing at "final round" table than they would at an
"average" table).
--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp