As I wasn't really been paying close attention to the discussion that lead
up to the new rating system (see official VTES web site), I was wondering:
-What are the advantages of this particular system as opposed to the old one
(I'm not saying that there aren't advantages, I just don't know what they
are)?
-Are all the old rating being wiped out putting everyone at zero, or are
they being converted somehow?
Thanks!
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give
back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush
administration."
-Fat Mike, http://www.punkvoter.com
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> -Are all the old rating being wiped out putting everyone at zero, or are
> they being converted somehow?
The V:EKN currently maintains no ratings, so there are no old ratings
to wipe.
Before the current stat system, there had been a numerical rating
system. But that was dropped some time ago.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ:
> The V:EKN currently maintains no ratings, so there are no old ratings
> to wipe.
Ok. The VEKN or some such organization has rankings of some sort, as
indicated on the official web site. People have ratings of some sort.
Are these to be completely erradicated?
>
> Before the current stat system, there had been a numerical rating
> system. But that was dropped some time ago.
There is some sort of rating system on the VTES web site. Maybe those
ratings are "stats". Maybe they are "ratings". I don't really know the
difference, which is why I was asking the question in the first place.
Whatever those stats/ratings are, that are currently on the VTES web
site. Are those going to have any impact on the new system, or is the
current system going to be wiped out, and everyone is going to start
from a zero point?
Thanks,
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Ok. The VEKN or some such organization has rankings of some sort, as
> indicated on the official web site. People have ratings of some sort.
> Are these to be completely erradicated?
No. The stats that are current kept will continue to be kept, as
advertised.
> Whatever those stats/ratings are, that are currently on the VTES web
> site. Are those going to have any impact on the new system, or is the
> current system going to be wiped out, and everyone is going to start
> from a zero point?
Those stats do not translate into an 18-month rolling points accumulation
system.
The actual tournament reports from the previous 18 months may be used to
provide the "initial" point accumulation under the new system, however, as
resources permit.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
> LSJ:
> > The V:EKN currently maintains no ratings, so there are no old ratings
> > to wipe.
>
> Ok. The VEKN or some such organization has rankings of some sort, as
> indicated on the official web site. People have ratings of some sort.
> Are these to be completely erradicated?
>
> >
> > Before the current stat system, there had been a numerical rating
> > system. But that was dropped some time ago.
>
> There is some sort of rating system on the VTES web site. Maybe those
> ratings are "stats". Maybe they are "ratings". I don't really know the
> difference, which is why I was asking the question in the first place.
OK, first terminology. (Not suggesting you don't know this, Peter, but
just pointing it out for discussion purposes for everyone's benefit.)
"Rankings" = an ordered list of players, beginning with 1st (best) and
on down to Fred (worst). (Well, sometimes it feels that way...) Usually,
people are only interested in the top twenty list or the top fifty list
or whatever. The list is ordered by each player's rating, usually
contingent on some minimum number of results in order to be on it at all.
"Ratings" = a number intended to give some approximate idea of how good
each individual player is. Thus a player's skill "goodness" number.
(At least conjectured as such. Whether it is or not is always opinion.)
"Statistics" = any number calculated from recorded results. May be
interesting or not, depending on your point of view. May measure skill
"goodness" or not, depending on your opinion.
So originally - years ago - we had a system of ratings and rankings based
on an "ELO" ratings system, originally used in chess and picked up by the
DCI for use in Magic, modified for use in a multiplayer game. The number
generated is intended to measure skill level by comparing your current
number with the current ELO ratings of the other players in your current
game, estimate how likely it is you'll beat each player, and then adjust
each of your ratings based on how the game actually came out. (I.e. you
get a smaller boost for beating a lower rank player and a larger one for
beating a higher ranked player. The losing player loses precisely the
same number of points that the winning player gains - so it's a zero sum
calculation.)
One problem with that system was that its constants were very poorly chosen,
resulting in wild results that fluctuated all over the place. If you won
three or four straight games, your rating would take off. If you got ousted
without a victory point several times in a row, a high rating would plunge
to below average. Had better constants been chosen, the ratings might have
been much more meaningful. As it was, they were useless.
There was also a logistics problem caused by the necessity that tournament
results needed to be entered in order. According to WW, this was driving
the volunteers insane. No sane volunteers = no ratings/ranking system of
any sort, so ELO had to go. This led to the current system of statistics
that you see on the website right now. Contrary to what Scott is saying,
they are using one of those statistics (I believe it's game wins divided by
games played) as an unlisted rating with which to rank players. I believe I
also recall there being some tie-breaker, such as victory points divided by
games or something but I'm not sure.
Since there's no correction of any sort for the difficulty of competition,
I've always felt this system of ranking was always meaningless. Apparently
I'm not the only one, because last month Steve Wieck and others brought
forth a system very similar to what's posted (not sure if it's exactly the
same having not examined the two proposals rigoursly) under the new web
page's link to "Rating System" for discussion on the Prince's conclave.
Despite my rantings advocating an improved ELO system instead, White Wolf
has chosen to go with the system they've posted. There was also some
discussion about how to rate large tournaments vs. small and continental
championships vs. regional qualifiers vs. "mundane" tournaments.
So there you have it: the history of ratings in VEKN. My feelings about the
system proposed is that it undoubtably will give advantage to players who
play more tournaments, despite the sliding limit of 8 tournament results
contributing to each player's rating number. Some feel this is good, as it
will encourage more participation in tournaments which is true.
However, to some extent it will also reflect the number of tournaments
players CAN attend since the number of convenient, close-by, and timely
tournaments varies widely by a player's location. This will certainly
affect how many tournaments each player attends, no matter what his level
of enthusiasm for the game and for tournaments is.
Still, it's an improvement over the current system. That's a good thing.
> Whatever those stats/ratings are, that are currently on the VTES web
> site. Are those going to have any impact on the new system, or is the
> current system going to be wiped out, and everyone is going to start
> from a zero point?
I suspect every will start from a zero point but I don't know. Someone
else will have to give a definitive answer to that.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Still, it's an improvement over the current system. That's a good thing.
Excellent summary, Fred. Thanks!
[ quoted text not captured ]
Frederick Scott wrote:
> that you see on the website right now. Contrary to what Scott is saying,
> they are using one of those statistics (I believe it's game wins divided by
> games played) as an unlisted rating with which to rank players.
The "rating" (GWpG) is listed on the player page, actually.
That is indeed the stat that is used for rankings currently.
[ quoted text not captured ]