[V:EKN] Official Player Ratings Updated

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 -- Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net _________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization

In article <37C41BAF...@earthlink.net>, 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.

In article <7q1iks$br0$1...@nnrp1.deja.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 [ quoted text not captured ]

> 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

David M. Dávila wrote: > [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 [ quoted text not captured ]

"David M. Dávila" wrote: > > 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? > [snip] > 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? 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