Ranking/Rating System

Hello All, I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl I have several complaints with the current system: - The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the players (as far as I know.) - The ranking/rating system means nothing to most players (as far as I know.) - The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a table is also important. - There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament games, so why bother? - Most importantly, the current system doesn't recognize the difference between these two situations: 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 vs 5-0-0-0-0, assuming you're not the player who got 5 VPs. That is, in both situations you would be given a "loss" in the ranking system, but one situation is much worse than the other. I realize the ranking system isn't an issue with a simple answer; we care about the likelihood of winning an individual game, and also the likelihood of winning an entire tournament. The current system focuses greatly on Table Wins, and I think it overlooks other aspects of good play. As a solution, I propose the following: ************************************* * Go back to the old rating system. * ************************************* That solution solves all of the above problems, and gives an elegant, all-encompassing formula for all games. I think the only drawback of the rating system is that it didn't overly stress Table Wins. Perhaps other people can come up with a better hybrid solution. Finally, please note that I am currently the #1 ranked player in the world, so I'm only writing all this because I really think the system is flawed and I'd like to see it improved. No one can accuse me of saying the system is bad simply because I'm not doing well. :) Ira Fay V:EKN Prince of Pittsburgh i...@digitalfreaks.org

>I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: > >http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl I think it's awful, but ... > I have several complaints with the current system: > >- The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the >players (as far as I know.) > >- The ranking/rating system means nothing to most players (as far as I >know.) > >- The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd >place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's >important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a >table is also important. > >- There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited >Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 >person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament >games, so why bother? > >- Most importantly, the current system doesn't recognize the >difference between these two situations: 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 vs >5-0-0-0-0, assuming you're not the player who got 5 VPs. That is, in >both situations you would be given a "loss" in the ranking system, but >one situation is much worse than the other. The rating system was changed because the old one wasn't managable. The new one, supposedly, is. > I realize the ranking system isn't an issue with a simple answer; we >care about the likelihood of winning an individual game, and also the >likelihood of winning an entire tournament. The current system >focuses greatly on Table Wins, and I think it overlooks other aspects >of good play. I would rather that people were ranked by VPs per game. Not much better but TWs are overemphasized. Better even would be a system that tracks tournament placement rather than game results. See many, many posts on this subject in earlier threads.

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com... > Hello All, Hi Ira, > I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: > > http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl > > I have several complaints with the current system: > > - The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the > players (as far as I know.) The system implemented was inspired by some of the discussion/suggestions at the time. > - The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd > place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's > important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a > table is also important. The amount of importance that should be placed on VPs is subjective. We've relegated VPs to a tie-breaker and game wins as the primary rating element. > - There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited > Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 > person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament > games, so why bother? This was implemented because it was requested by many of the players. In fact, I don't recall anyone ever complaining about this before. > As a solution, I propose the following: > > ************************************* > * Go back to the old rating system. * > ************************************* I can't imagine you'll find much support for this solution. The old rating system was nearly impossible to maintain and has many of the same problems the existing rating system does. > I think the only drawback of > the rating system is that it didn't overly stress Table Wins. The old system overly stressed VPs--the first tie-breaker when determining table finalists. The old system was also incredibly difficult to maintain. That's a lot of trouble to go to just to measure the quality of opponnents when there isn't generally a lot of cross-polination of players. Like the current system, doing well in your own closed area could generate a very high rating. All that said, we're always open to suggestions. As was stated in the Conclave list that you already posted to, some players are experimenting with some alternate systems. -Robert

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com... > Hello All, Hi Ira, > I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: > > http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl > > I have several complaints with the current system: > > - The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the > players (as far as I know.) The system implemented was inspired by some of the discussion/suggestions at the time. > - The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd > place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's > important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a > table is also important. The amount of importance that should be placed on VPs is subjective. We've relegated VPs to a tie-breaker and game wins as the primary rating element. > - There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited > Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 > person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament > games, so why bother? This was implemented because it was requested by many of the players. In fact, I don't recall anyone ever complaining about this before. ??? > As a solution, I propose the following: > > ************************************* > * Go back to the old rating system. * > ************************************* I can't imagine you'll find much support for this solution. The old rating system was nearly impossible to maintain and has many of the same problems the existing rating system does. > I think the only drawback of > the rating system is that it didn't overly stress Table Wins. The old system overly stressed VPs--the first tie-breaker when determining table finalists. The old system was also incredibly difficult to maintain. That's a lot of trouble to go to just to measure the quality of opponnents when there isn't generally a lot of cross-polination of players. Like the current system, doing well in your own closed area could generate a very high rating. All that said, we're always open to suggestions. As was stated in the Conclave list that you already posted to, some players are experimenting with some alternate systems. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

Vekn Paris have created a ranking system, that emphasise on winning tournament. Take a look at www.parisvekn.com KS

Hi there, I agree the surrent system, well er...could be improved. That's why in Europe(France, Belgium, Germany, and I think Greece and maybe some other places) we're sort of trying to set up a system which does please the general tournament playing scene. Of course, this is completely unofficial yet, but there are plans to propose to WW to take this system into account once it's been decently tested and adjusted. If you feel like it, Stéphane Lavrut has it on the Parisvekn site.So go take a look. I agree also that there is at this point no system which takes into account when you got ousted,apart from the tournament points. also, I don't particularly like this system, since dramatic upheaval, kinrded restructure and life boon are not takne into account. But then again, such a system would be extremey complex, and IMHO nearly impossible to work with.. Greetz Jo

> also, I > don't particularly like this system, since dramatic upheaval, kinrded > restructure and life boon are not takne into account. Why should it? Could you expand on why you think these three cards should be taken into account and no others? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a perfect ratings system, but as you say it has to be logistically plausable. Introducing specific cards into the equation is not only overly complex but also puts great emphasis on playing or not playing (depending on card) these cards as a blunt mechanic for increasing your rating. Rob -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

> - There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited > Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 > person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament > games, so why bother? I bother. Probably because I am the one person who has 9+ games ?!? :-) It feels so good to be number 1 of 1... No, seriously, this will change in the future because people will play more games and the list will fill up and change. The problem is that the new system was introduced only a year ago and limited tournaments do not happen that often. It愀 just a matter of time. johannes walch

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com>... > ...please note that I am currently the #1 ranked player in the > world, so I'm only writing all this because I really think the system > is flawed and I'd like to see it improved. Ira, confess. You're only writing this because it's seemingly more modest than writing in with, "I'm the #1 ranked player in the wooooorld! Kiss mah butt!" :)

"robtreasure" <robtreasure....@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<2076...@web2news.com>... > > also, I > > don't particularly like this system, since dramatic upheaval, kinrded > > restructure and life boon are not takne into account. > > Why should it? Could you expand on why you think these three cards > should be taken into account and no others? Don't get me wrong, I'm all > for a perfect ratings system, but as you say it has to be logistically > plausable. Introducing specific cards into the equation is not only > overly complex but also puts great emphasis on playing or not playing > (depending on card) these cards as a blunt mechanic for increasing your > rating. > With pleasure: First: If I'm not mistaking here, I thought the "tournament points" were originally meant to determine how long a player lasts at a table, ie if you can resist untill the end/longer, you're supposedly a better player, or should I say "have played a better game", than the ones that get ousted before you.Hence, you get more TP. However,it don't work that way. The reason I think DU, KR and maybe Life boon could be the cards to take into account here, is because the table situation gets changed, without that showing up anywhere in the "paperwork results". Tournament point calculation doesn't change, regardless of whether seatings have been changed. Hence, in a system which takes into account the time you get ousted, or how long you last, this is something that I believe deserves to be looked at. But actually, I kinda like the test system (the one I mentioned previously)quite well, and it doesnt take any of this into acount due to logistically nearly impossible. Greetz Jo (BTW I probably won't be able to continue this discussion over the next couple of days, but I'll try to pick up on it by the end of the week.)Or just email me directly.

Hello All, I appreciate Robert's response; I didn't realize that the previous system was unmanageable. I'm surprised that was the case since chess players have been doing it for a long time, but I'll simply accept it as true. Most of my complaints have been addressed, but I do have one that remains: - The current system doesn't take into consideration the difference between: a) No table win for me, and someone else gets the Table Win b) No table win for me, and no one gets the Table Win In a tournament setting, there is a big difference between (a) and (b). The current system considers both an equally bad loss, when in fact one is much worse than the other. Therefore, I propose the following change to the current rating system: *************************************************************** * If a player places first or tied for first at a table but * * doesn't earn a table win, that game is counted neither as a * * win nor a loss for that player. Career Games and VPs are * * increased, but his Games and Wins do not change. * *************************************************************** I think the above change addresses my primary complaint with the system, and actually balances it better to reflect skillful play at a tournament. Also, I think the Paris rating system has some good ideas, but I think it will need to be playtested and balanced quite a bit. Also, it heavily favors players who play in big tournaments often, and not everyone is able to do that. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The reason I think DU, KR and maybe Life boon could be the cards to >take into account here, is because the table situation gets changed, >without that showing up anywhere in the "paperwork results". >Tournament point calculation doesn't change, regardless of whether >seatings have been changed. Hence, in a system which takes into >account the time you get ousted, or how long you last, this is >something that I believe deserves to be looked at. Then again, cross-table actions may be another thing that affects the amount of time in which you get ousted. Say for example that you're playing the deck that's labeled as "the big threat" so all four Dementation decks at the table are bleeding you with Kindred Spirits. Don't you think that might also be a factor if it's important to note how long you last in the game? Halcyan 2

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com>... > - The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd > place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's > important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a > table is also important. I don't think this is really quite so relevant. If you're playing a slow, wall type deck and your prey plays Setite S&B, chances are the S&B deck is going to start rolling, perhaps sweeping. Taking second place (being last person ousted), says nothing about how well you played, just how lucky you got in table seating. If you get 1 VP, that is normally sufficient to show you earned 2nd place. Isn't that enough? > - Most importantly, the current system doesn't recognize the > difference between these two situations: 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 vs > 5-0-0-0-0, assuming you're not the player who got 5 VPs. That is, in > both situations you would be given a "loss" in the ranking system, but > one situation is much worse than the other. As above, this flaw has less to do with the ratings system itself, but with time limits imposed on games. Anyone can "stall" out a game, or play defensively to preserve their position "earning" 0.5 VPs. You know much less about the outcome of a game seeing a string of 0.5 VPs than a sweep with 5 VPs (obviously, since the game never "really" concluded). > I realize the ranking system isn't an issue with a simple answer; we > care about the likelihood of winning an individual game, and also the > likelihood of winning an entire tournament. The current system > focuses greatly on Table Wins, and I think it overlooks other aspects > of good play. I personally think "Game Wins" are very important. I understand this even more after playing Assamite combat exclusively in tournaments (4-5 constructed plus 3 storylines), for the past 8 months. There's almost no way an Assamite deck can be expected to sweep a table. It does happen, but almost always requires a quirk of seating arrangements to be remotely possible. There are a handful of occasions where I took Game Wins at 5-player tables with only 2 VPs. In fact, most combat decks will end up splitting VPs with someone else at the table as a matter of course. Until I played combat extensively, I didn't realize how crucial "table management" is success with a non-weenie combat deck. Of the proposals I had seen in other threads, the ones I liked most did not require a arbitrary points scale (e.g. 10 points for 1st, Triple points for "big" events). The best ones seemed to have some sort of "bonus" inherent to the number of participants in the event. That often is a better indicator of the quality of play at an event, though of course, where there is wheat, there is chaff. I think a couple of factors could be added to the current ranking system which would give it a bit more credibility. 1) Calculate an average "Tournament Points" per game. Like you mention above, this gives you some information about how a player finished individual games. I still wouldn't over-emphasize this metric since table seating affects this one most greatly, IMO. 1) Calculate an average # of participants for each player based on the tournaments they attended. You could generalize that all else equal, the player who participated in bigger events is more skilled than the person who was in smaller events. 2) Continuously raise the bar for "career games" in order to achieve a ranking. If you filtered the "Top Ranking" on those with 20+ or 30+ career games, you'd probably get a better picture of who performed the best on a consistent basis. I'd venture that 50+ games is probably where you'd have to be for the impact of individual games to have minimal impact on a player's ranking, and this should probably be the largest number on which to filter. On the web site, there could also easily be a filter for "all rated players" who had 10 or more career games so everyone could see where they stand. 4) Calculate a parallel rank for "Premiere Events" or perhaps "Invitational Events." These would be all the Regional/Country qualifiers or continental championships. The only problem doing this is (particularly for Invitationals) is that there simply aren't a lot of data points since these events are infrequent. If White Wolf decides to use rankings for invitations, all of the above measures, as well as those on the web site should be temporally filtered based on whatever arbitrary time frame they choose (I'd pick 2 years). This will give players plenty of time to establish their ratings and it would take into account changes in a person's skill level (or VTES collection!) over time. Overall, I don't think the system needs to be radically changed, but I do think there is lots of information available in the tournament results that can give us a better idea of how a person ought to be ranked. It's just a matter of crunching the numbers.

On 25 Mar 2003 10:08:57 -0800, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote: >Overall, I don't think the system needs to be radically changed, but I >do think there is lots of information available in the tournament >results that can give us a better idea of how a person ought to be >ranked. It's just a matter of crunching the numbers. And there's the problem. Who is going to spend the time to "crunch" those numbers? The more sophisticated and/or complicated you want the ratings to be, the more work the event organizers and the Ratings volunteer have to do. More Archons still come in incomplete than come in correct as it is. If it can't be managed from the Archon, there is almost no possibility of using that information for ratings. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Who has the power to make changes to the ranking/rating system? And what does that person/group of people think about the following proposal: *************************************************************** * If a player places first or tied for first at a table but * * doesn't earn a table win, that game is counted neither as a * * win nor a loss for that player. Career Games and VPs are * * increased, but his Games and Wins do not change. * *************************************************************** I think that's a straightforward improvement with little to no drawbacks. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira wrote: > Who has the power to make changes to the ranking/rating system? The V:EKN -- 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/

> >Overall, I don't think the system needs to be radically changed, but I > >do think there is lots of information available in the tournament > >results that can give us a better idea of how a person ought to be > >ranked. It's just a matter of crunching the numbers. > > And there's the problem. > Who is going to spend the time to "crunch" those numbers? > > The more sophisticated and/or complicated you want the ratings to be, > the more work the event organizers and the Ratings volunteer have to > do. > > More Archons still come in incomplete than come in correct as it is. > > If it can't be managed from the Archon, there is almost no possibility > of using that information for ratings. > Well, there is the DIY way. That involves, of course, an additional element such as a client-server application in order to local princes upload their data automatically to a well prepared database. Of course, I'm not suggesting WW should work this way, because it involves some kind of investment that isn't really necessary. But there are different ways to upload the information than is currently. I'm currently working in a "local" system. I've suggested Damnnans' and a few other spaniards to asume a parallel ranking (adopting the french system, btw) and i'm testing currently an application in order to mantain it. Once the VEKN members should be "on", putting in a 30 players tournament should "cost" only 15 minutes. Will post results if it works fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

I think there is some loss of perspective here. Rather than complaining to the VEKN that we don't like their ratings system, we probably should take some time and be thankful that V:TES has an organization at all that's willing to provide player support on the level that it does. Maybe I have it wrong, but I can't see the VEKN as an organization that exists soley to maintain ratings on VTES players, and yet, that's how it's treated, and it's what I see the most complaining related to it about here on the NG. The tourments that it sanctions and facilitates are a formal way to bring players together under a consistent rules set and provide formal recognition for success in that environment. To wit: it's job is to support and perpetuate the playing of VTES in an official capacity, and the fact that it's willing to provide and maintain ratings in any form at all is a courtesy we should be grateful for, regardless of whether or not we agree with the methods used to obtain those ratings. If the folks who maintain the ratings have done something to make their job easier, more power too them, better that than them getting frustrated because it's so much work and deciding to provide no ratings at all. Hear that VEKN facilitators and Princes? Not all of us are ingrate whiners. Your work *IS* appreciated. ;) Just my thoughts. -Matt

> > Who has the power to make changes to the ranking/rating system? > > The V:EKN Thanks, LSJ. :-P Aren't we all the members of the V:EKN ? Or is there some council or a single person (Robert Goudie?) who can actually make the change? I think small changes are more likely to get accepted than big ones, and I think my proposal above is both small and pretty much all good. Perhaps others disagree or agree? On a related note, it would be nice if the ways that changes occur was published. For instance, if the rating system is going to change again, what is the process used? Or if the tournament rules change? I think the answer is "some group of people (LSJ, Robert Goudie, etc.) get together and decide." I'm not passing judgement on that method of decision making, but it would be nice if it was public knowledge *how* the decisions are made. Personally, I think trusting a small, wise group of people to make decisions for the masses is sometimes an excellent choice. For instance, I think it's absolutely awesome that LSJ is *the* source for rules questions. That makes this game awesome, and I'd be surprised if there were many people that disagreed. I'm willing to accept a similar solution for tournament rules and rating systems, but I'd like to know who specifically to contact. Then again, this forum is pretty darn good for getting a response. Overall, I'm quite happy, and I think this game and organization is awesome! Ira, who only recently discovered this newgroup. V:EKN Prince of Pittsburgh i...@digitalfreaks.org

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com>... > > > Who has the power to make changes to the ranking/rating system? > > > > The V:EKN > > Thanks, LSJ. :-P > > Aren't we all the members of the V:EKN ? Or is there some council or > a single person (Robert Goudie?) who can actually make the change? Here's the V:EKN: http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/vekn.html > *************************************************************** > * If a player places first or tied for first at a table but * > * doesn't earn a table win, that game is counted neither as a * > * win nor a loss for that player. Career Games and VPs are * > * increased, but his Games and Wins do not change. * > *************************************************************** > > I think my proposal above is both small and pretty much all good. > Perhaps others disagree or agree? The main thing I dislike about this change is that it would give players an incentive *TO NOT WIN* which can only be a bad thing. If there is an incentive to stall, some players will. Currently, garnering 0.5 VPs is enough for some, and allowing them to keep their ratings intact would only increase that incentive. I pretty much figure the V:EKN is providing a major service to the players and not getting a whole heck of a lot out of it other than headaches. :) It's the way of organizations that enthusiastic "outsiders" may have ideas to change and improve the way things are done, but change often takes a *LONG* time to implement, and usually it must be initiated by an "insider" (or Inner Circle member perhaps?) before things happen. Don't get me wrong. I have no relation to the V:EKN other than as a player, so I'm not trying to speak for them. But I just know from sheer frustration with dealing with other organizations that things take time, and those which you care about the most probably cause the most frustrations as well. I tend to think that the best thing to do is throw ideas up on the drawing board, publicly thrash them, and put the pieces back together to build something stronger. The best that can be hoped for is that these discussions will be archived for future reference. I have faith that when it becomes a particular issue with the V:EKN Inner Circle, that they'll have a lenghty discussion and decide on a plan of action. It just doesn't seem like the time is ripe for that right now. ;)

Hey Jeff, Thanks for the response. > Here's the V:EKN: > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/vekn.html But that description doesn't really define who is in the organization. It lists a few people specifically (Robert, LSJ, Carl, Robyn, Peter), but it doesn't say what defines a member, and how the rules of the organization change. I'm pretty confident that anyone can be a member of the VEKN (simply get a VEKN number), and that the rules of the organization change at the consense of Robert Goudie, LSJ, Carl P, Robyn T, and Peter. If that's wrong, someone please correct me. Therefore, I again propose the most-vps-but-no-table-win addendum to the rating system. > The main thing I dislike about this change is that it would give > players an incentive *TO NOT WIN* which can only be a bad thing. First, stalling is against the rules (and is poor sportsmanship, and is just plain annoying and boring.) Second, there is always an incentive to win, and to prevent other players from winning. The most-vps-but-no-table-win addendum doesn't change that incentive, and only recognizes a situation that is currently under-recognized by the rating system. It's always better to get the table win, and prevent other people from getting the table win. If I'm in a tournament, and I'm at a table where I'm certainly going to lose, I'm will try to prevent everyone else from getting a table win, too. That's just the smart play. > I pretty much figure the V:EKN is providing a major service to the > players and not getting a whole heck of a lot out of it other than > headaches. :) We keep referring to "the V:EKN" but who is that really? I'm a Prince, does that make me the V:EKN? WE ARE ALL THE VEKN. The decision makers happen to be Robert, Carl, LSJ, Robyn, and Peter. But we are all members of the organization. That organization just happens to be run by a small group of dedicated individuals with all the power to make changes. Fortunately for us (and this one thing that makes the game great), that group of people listens carefully to the players and makes changes based on that, tempered by their wisdom. Additionally, all of the decision makers are also players of the game, which is good. > It just doesn't seem like the time is ripe for that right now. ;) Jeff, I enjoyed your eloquent writing, but what the heck are you talking about?! :) I'm proposing a change, and it should be considered, and decided on. If the Inner Council chooses to reject my idea, it's certainly their perogative, and I'd simply request a reasonable explanation. Thanks, Ira Fay [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira wrote: > But that description doesn't really define who is in the > organization. It lists a few people specifically (Robert, LSJ, Carl, > Robyn, Peter), but it doesn't say what defines a member, and how the > rules of the organization change. ? Omission doesn't imply inclusion. > I'm pretty confident that anyone can be a member of the VEKN (simply > get a VEKN number), and that the rules of the organization change at > the consense of Robert Goudie, LSJ, Carl P, Robyn T, and Peter. If > that's wrong, someone please correct me. No. The V:EKN number identifies you as a player. Like a DCI number identified you as a player. Neither makes you a member of the respective organizational body. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com... > > > Who has the power to make changes to the ranking/rating system? > On a related note, it would be nice if the ways that changes occur was > published. For instance, if the rating system is going to change > again, what is the process used? Or if the tournament rules change? > I think the answer is "some group of people (LSJ, Robert Goudie, etc.) > get together and decide." I'm not passing judgement on that method of > decision making, but it would be nice if it was public knowledge *how* > the decisions are made. You have pursued your request in an appropriate manner. Making your suggestion to the Prince list was fine as was posting it here. I don't think we've revised our initial V:EKN charter in years. I'll take a look at updating that and adding feedback instructions. > Personally, I think trusting a small, wise group of people to make > decisions for the masses is sometimes an excellent choice. For > instance, I think it's absolutely awesome that LSJ is *the* source for > rules questions. That makes this game awesome, and I'd be surprised > if there were many people that disagreed. I'm willing to accept a > similar solution for tournament rules and rating systems, but I'd like > to know who specifically to contact. Generally, we look for individual suggestions (in our email boxes and public forums) that we think are good ideas and discuss them among ourselves. Additionally, if a suggestion garners a significant amount of support in a public forum, we will take a look at it as well (even in we don't initially think it is a good idea :). [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com>... > > I pretty much figure the V:EKN is providing a major service to the > > players and not getting a whole heck of a lot out of it other than > > headaches. :) > > We keep referring to "the V:EKN" but who is that really? I'm a > Prince, does that make me the V:EKN? WE ARE ALL THE VEKN. The > decision makers happen to be Robert, Carl, LSJ, Robyn, and Peter. But > we are all members of the organization. That organization just > happens to be run by a small group of dedicated individuals with all > the power to make changes. There's the key. > Fortunately for us (and this one thing that makes the game great), > that group of people listens carefully to the players and makes > changes based on that, tempered by their wisdom. Additionally, all of > the decision makers are also players of the game, which is good. > > > It just doesn't seem like the time is ripe for that right now. ;) > > Jeff, I enjoyed your eloquent writing, but what the heck are you > talking about?! :) I'm proposing a change, and it should be > considered, and decided on. If the Inner Council chooses to reject my > idea, it's certainly their perogative, and I'd simply request a > reasonable explanation. It seems to me that this forum (r.g.t-c.j.) is appropriate for discussions by the *general public* regarding changes they'd in the game, new strategies, cards or vampires they want to see, ideas for expansions, VEKN ratings changes, etc. I tend to think that the Inner Circle keeps its own counsel when making decisions which might really change the game. I don't remember seeing the Inner Circle saying "Hey, we want to change the ratings system in this way. What do you guys think?" When you openly solicit advice, you always get more than you bargained for. Robert Goudie has responded to this thread giving some background on the decision that the VEKN Inner Circle made, and LSJ has given a very brief answer about who can make changes. But, I think their "high-level" discussions will never be aired publicly. So, I would guess the best you could expect is "We'll consider it." which Goudie has already stated. Perhaps there's more discussion on the Conclave list, but I'm not privvy to it (nor do I really care to be right now). Keep tossing out ideas, they'll get filed away until the Inner Circle is ready to make the next series of changes to the ranking/ratings system. It seems like they do this on a yearly basis ("VEKN Tournament Rules: 2003 Season, Effective January 1, 2003") so...the time isn't yet ripe. I'm not trying to be a naysayer or pessimist, just a realist since change does take time. I hope some of your ideas become actualized. ;)

Ira wrote: > Hello All, > > I appreciate Robert's response; I didn't realize that the previous > system was unmanageable. I'm surprised that was the case since chess > players have been doing it for a long time, but I'll simply accept it > as true. I think this is the most common reply I hear to the V:EKN discarding the ELO system. To whit: "Chess players use it, so it can't be too bad". While the systtem ain't so bad, maintiaining it is a bear for an org as small as V:EKN. a) the ELO system is a real-time based system. In other words, no one's rating gets updated until the oldest sanctioned tournament gets entered. If a prince is lagging, or is not communicating with the ratings czar, then no ones rating gets updated, anywhere in the world. This was a previous big complaint incidentally. b) The USCF, or US Chess Federation is a huge organization compared to the V:EKN. Huge to the point where I imagine there are employees who are paid to update the ratings, and where venues/tournament organizers will receive monetary or future sanctions if they don't report their tournament results. As such, it is much easier to make sure that the results get in on time - if you don't, you lose cash money, not to mention International Grand Masters being pissed at you. I'm pretty sure that you have to pay dues of some sort or another too... c) V:EKN is not the USCF, and has no paid minions entering results, etc. Although Robyn deserves payment for her unselfish time and devotion to Tatu, errm I mean to updating the ratings for the rest of us. All that being said, I do agree that maybe the ratings need tweaks and improvements. As long as they do not involve Robyn having to do more work, I think any improvements are good ones. Personally, I think uploading the results via a web form, with Princes using a password to access that particular area would be a good improvement. That way if a player doesn't see their rating improving from success at a local tournament, they can just turn to Prince Chris (or whomever) and light him up! best - chris (see you at the Pacific qualifier?) -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

"Chris Shorb" <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:3E83C81B...@vtesinla.org... [clip] > All that being said, I do agree that maybe the ratings need tweaks and > improvements. As long as they do not involve Robyn having to do more > work, I think any improvements are good ones. Personally, I think > uploading the results via a web form, with Princes using a password to > access that particular area would be a good improvement. That way if a > player doesn't see their rating improving from success at a local > tournament, they can just turn to Prince Chris (or whomever) and light > him up! While a web form upload is technically possible, we decided that it wasn't wise to allow organizers to upload their own results. (Actually, I believe Robyn uploads the results to a web form currently.) In addition to concerns about some unscrupulous individuals intentionally uploading incorrect data, nearly all of the Archons Robyn receives require some amount of correcting before she can even process them. Last I heard, she was spending two hours per night working on all this stuff. Until all us event organizers can put some extra effort into submitting good data to Robyn, we really can't even begin to consider any kind of user uploads. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<WAEga.22056$jA2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... . > > You have pursued your request in an appropriate manner. Making your > suggestion to the Prince list was fine as was posting it here. I don't think > we've revised our initial V:EKN charter in years. I'll take a look at > updating that and adding feedback instructions. > > > Generally, we look for individual suggestions (in our email boxes and public > forums) that we think are good ideas and discuss them among ourselves. > Additionally, if a suggestion garners a significant amount of support in a > public forum, we will take a look at it as well (even in we don't initially > think it is a good idea :). > > -Robert > Hi again, Sounds indeed like you're doing the smart thing, and IMO the only logical thing to do when trying to manage such an organisation. The only thing I ever wonder about (and don't take this wrong, it's NOT meant to criticise, just a thought that pops up into many european players heads every once in a while) is how you guys do it to keep in touch with the European (or for that matter the Australian, or South American) way of playing, other than by mail. Sometimes it seems like the USA way is taken as a standard for this game, nopun intended. I've always found it very important to keep things in perspective, regarding metagame and culture, when saying things about this game. So I imagine it must be really difficlt to get a real feel for the styles of play outside US? Because I don't imagine you travel to Europe a lot (personally I've only seen LSJ and Carl on 1 tournament, and The Lasombra twice, and I do a lot of tournaments all over Europe) (So really: tell us, come clear, and admit you have this crystal ball with which you overlook all VTES activities! That's why I always feel like someone's watching behid my back now isn't it?) Would be happy to know how you do that, that's al. Greetz Jo

wolflord wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I *am* playing in Europe, Austria. :) Carl

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message > > I'm pretty confident that anyone can be a member of the VEKN (simply > get a VEKN number), and that the rules of the organization change at > the consense of Robert Goudie, LSJ, Carl P, Robyn T, and Peter. If > that's wrong, someone please correct me. As one of the folks mentioned, all I can say is that I am a "Inner Circle" member only by virtue of being vaguely the guy who vaguely organizes the clan newsletters. I have no input (or no more than any player) in the decisions of the VEKN. I suspect that decisisons are made by Robert and whomever he hangs out with more than anything else. There really isn't an "inner circle" as far as I am aware. -Peter

>As one of the folks mentioned, all I can say is that I am a "Inner >Circle" member only by virtue of being vaguely the guy who vaguely >organizes the clan newsletters. I have no input (or no more than any >player) in the decisions of the VEKN. I suspect that decisisons are >made by Robert and whomever he hangs out with more than anything else. > >There really isn't an "inner circle" as far as I am aware. That's what *you* think Peter. Next time I see you, remind me to teach you the "secret handshake." =P Halcyan 2 watch out! the Illuminati are watching...

Ira wrote: > > Hello All, > > I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: > > http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl > > I have several complaints with the current system: > > - The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the > players (as far as I know.) > > - The ranking/rating system means nothing to most players (as far as I > know.) > > - The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd > place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's > important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a > table is also important. > > - There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited > Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 > person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament > games, so why bother? > > - Most importantly, the current system doesn't recognize the > difference between these two situations: 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 vs > 5-0-0-0-0, assuming you're not the player who got 5 VPs. That is, in > both situations you would be given a "loss" in the ranking system, but > one situation is much worse than the other. ...and besides everything else, the *worst* complaint - in my estimation - is that this ranking system doesn't care whether you play the four best players in the world or four hamsters, as long as the hamsters can manage to fill out the form correctly. No, you're right. It's a terrible system and you would be lying if you called a "ranking" or "rating" system. So don't. Just accept the fact that Jyhad/VEKN doesn't have a rating system and don't bother going to the web page. By way of history, what we had before was also a pretty bad rating system. It used to bounce up and down rapidly depending mainly on what you did in your last two or three games but could have been converted to a pretty reasonable system had some fairly modest modifications been made to certain coefficients used in the ratings calculations. After talking about it for a couple of months, all of sudden the powers that be suddenly junked the whole thing and replaced it with what we have now, citing certain logistics problems. It didn't make a lot of sense at the time as the logistics problems had always been there (the conversions being discussed would have neither fixed nor aggravated any of the logistics of entering tournament results into the system) but that's the company line and they're sticking to it. So, (shrug)... The only reason I care about tournaments being VEKN tournaments now is the prizes. Promo cards are nice. Fred

wolflord wrote: > If I'm not mistaking here, I thought the "tournament points" were > originally meant to determine how long a player lasts at a table, ie > if you can resist untill the end/longer, you're supposedly a better > player, or should I say "have played a better game", than the ones > that get ousted before you.Hence, you get more TP. However,it don't > work that way. No, as far as I can tell, you are mistaken. Tournament points are just an arbitrary tie-breaker system that measures nothing except gives certain finishing positions which score the same number of victory points in a game an edge over certain other finishing positions in which the same number of victory points were score. For example, a player finishing with zero victory points in a game ending with the winning player sweeping (5-0-0-0-0) gets more tournament points than a player who finishes with zero victory points in a game in which someone else besides the winning gets at least one victory point (4-1-0-0-0). That's all tournament points ever did, as far as I know. Fred

Robert Goudie wrote: > > "Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com... > > Hello All, > > Hi Ira, > > > I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: > > > > http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl > > > > I have several complaints with the current system: > > > > - The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the > > players (as far as I know.) > > The system implemented was inspired by some of the discussion/suggestions at > the time. Oh, geez, I have to object to this characterization. There were a few posts which advocated the system we have now but I personally didn't see very many. I could probably have counted the people who were actually in favor of making the change you wound up with on one hand. Frankly, I think the reason you didn't see much discussion of the new system before it was implemented was because no one was warned that this change was actually being contemplated. That prevented the idea from receiving much scrutiny as not many people really took it very seriously. Also, if you say that the order that tournament results are entered into the system can't matter (which seems to be the overriding constraint that shitcanned the old system), that makes it very difficult to suggest anything that works as a true comparative rating system. Without comparisons of the quality of opponent you're playing against, it's pretty much hopeless to "rate" anything at all. (Keep statistics if you like. But I'm still amused at the concept of "rating" people by them.) > > As a solution, I propose the following: > > > > ************************************* > > * Go back to the old rating system. * > > ************************************* > > I can't imagine you'll find much support for this solution. The old rating > system was nearly impossible to maintain and has many of the same problems > the existing rating system does. Now, come on, Robert - that's not entirely straightforward! First of all, the general public does not care how *hard* a system is to maintain as long as it gets maintained. The *maintainers* may care - and that's legitimate, especially if the system was about to collapse anyway. But don't tell us this was a good reason for its lack of support. And I think almost everyone who participated in the discussion of the old rating system agreed that it's problems were completely solvable by merely making some modifications to way that the ratings were calculated. And, in any event, I completely reject the statement that, "the old rating system... has many of the same problems the existing rating system does". It had problems that were of a completely different nature. Certainly, the old system addressed the original poster's principal complaint. > All that said, we're always open to suggestions. As was stated in the > Conclave list that you already posted to, some players are experimenting > with some alternate systems. As I noted above, it's very difficult to overcome the issue of order of tournament result submission. The one obvious means of doing it is to develop software that maintains tournament result history and goes back and recalculates all the numbers when an out-of-order tournament is entered. Possibly would be a CPU-eater, though certain kinds of intelligent optimizations would help quite a bit. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3E87982D...@removethis.com... > Robert Goudie wrote: > > The system implemented was inspired by some of the discussion/suggestions at > > the time. > > Oh, geez, I have to object to this characterization. > posts which advocated the system we have now but I personally didn't see > very many. I could probably have counted the people who were actually in > favor of making the change you wound up with on one hand. I'm not sure how this conflicts with the implementation of a rating system that "was inspired by some of the discussion and suggestions at the time". I hardly said the system was generated via newsgroup consensus. > Also, if you say that the order that tournament results are entered into > the system can't matter (which seems to be the overriding constraint that > shitcanned the old system), that makes it very difficult to suggest anything > that works as a true comparative rating system. Without comparisons of > the quality of opponent you're playing against, it's pretty much hopeless > to "rate" anything at all. (Keep statistics if you like. But I'm still > amused at the concept of "rating" people by them.) If you are happier calling them "statistics" then feel free to do so. I've used the term myself. Despite your amusement, it isn't unheard of to "rate" people by their statistics. No, the statistics/ratings don't prove who the best players are. They are what they are and people can argue about what it all means (for a refresher, read the recent lengthy and passion-filled posts about whether or not Rob Treasure is the 'best player in the world'). > > I can't imagine you'll find much support for this solution. The old rating > > system was nearly impossible to maintain and has many of the same problems > > the existing rating system does. > > Now, come on, Robert - that's not entirely straightforward! I've received proposals for new rating systems or even modifications to the old system but this was the first time that I recall a suggestion to just put the old system back in place. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Some weaknesses are shared. Seems a pretty straightforward response to someone who said to bring back the old system because "the only drawback of the [old] rating system is that it didn't overly stress Table Wins.". > First of all, > the general public does not care how *hard* a system is to maintain as long as > it gets maintained. Sure, the consumer doesn't care how hard it was to make the product--as long as the production difficulties don't affect the product's quality or the ability for the product to continue to exist at all. The old system wasn't really being adequately maintained despite the hard work of the people supporting it. There were plenty of complaints about why people who'd played in tournaments X months ago were not showing on the website, etc, etc. With an increase in the number of tournaments, it was sure to get worse. > The *maintainers* may care - and that's legitimate, > especially if the system was about to collapse anyway. But don't tell us > this was a good reason for its lack of support. I suppose the "goodness" of the reason depends on who you are and what kinds of things you care about. If you, even though you aren't a maintainer, do care about the difficulties in maintenance or may have been affected by it, then feel free to assign some "goodness" to the reason I gave. If you don't care then ignore my point. > As I noted above, it's very difficult to overcome the issue of order of > tournament result submission. The one obvious means of doing it is to > develop software that maintains tournament result history and goes back and > recalculates all the numbers when an out-of-order tournament is entered. > Possibly would be a CPU-eater, though certain kinds of intelligent > optimizations would help quite a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if the Elo system Magic uses does just that. I'm sure that a multiplayer version would be more complex but still possible. However, I doubt that the V:EKN's really equipped to do something like this. Maybe one day White Wolf will be making so much money on V:TES that they'll hire their own staff to do this kind of thing. :) In the meantime, one of the requirements for a player ranking system is that we have to actually be able to implement and maintain the system we use, now and some time into the future. [ quoted text not captured ]

Carl Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message > > > Actually, I *am* playing in Europe, Austria. :) > > Carl Hiya Carl, Yes, I know you're playing in Austria. That's exactly my point. You're playing "in Austria", and the American guys are playing in USA I suppose, but I wonder how you guys try to get a feel of the game OUTSIDE of your local playgroups. Because if you follow that logic, that would mean you interpret only the austrian and USA metagame/opinions, but you're missing the rest of the world. This would mean that you don't get a first hand account of what happens in the rest of Europe, nor Australia or South America. And I for one don't believe that just mailing around and reading the NG's give you an accurate idea of what's happening in the field. Then again, since I'm not a prince, I don't have access to the princely forum, so I honestly wouldn't know how much information is traded around there.Maybe that's the trick? Please still realise that this is not meant to criticise/attack your current way of working at all. I'm just intrigued, cause I wouldn't know how to solve this problem myself.. Jo

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.03033...@posting.google.com... > Carl Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message > > > > > Actually, I *am* playing in Europe, Austria. :) > > > > Carl > > Hiya Carl, > Yes, I know you're playing in Austria. > That's exactly my point. > You're playing "in Austria", and the American guys are playing in USA > I suppose, but I wonder how you guys try to get a feel of the game > OUTSIDE of your local playgroups. The "American guys" consist of alot of different playgroups. I have played in 15 of those groups. You should know that metagames and playstyles vary wildly from group to group. I consider myself to be an average player but the metagame dictates how you do when visiting a group. In fact, I think it has a much more powerful effect than any one player's deck. But metagame has no effect on ranking. Most tournaments as far as I know, pull players from a variety of playgroups, each with their own metagame. So metagame doesn't determine a individual's success at a tournament. Individual performance does. That is what we rank by and that is why. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<v8gsvpf...@corp.supernews.com>... > "wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message > news:88f9561d.03033...@posting.google.com... > > Carl Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message > > > > > > > Actually, I *am* playing in Europe, Austria. :) > > > > > > Carl > > > > Hiya Carl, > > Yes, I know you're playing in Austria. > > That's exactly my point. > > You're playing "in Austria", and the American guys are playing in USA > > I suppose, but I wonder how you guys try to get a feel of the game > > OUTSIDE of your local playgroups. > > The "American guys" consist of alot of different playgroups. I have played > in 15 of those groups. You should know that metagames and playstyles vary > wildly from group to group. Hi Norm, You're missing my point here. When I'm talking about the "American guys" =>being the North American members of the Inner Circle, and the people who make the VEKN decisions, as well as the WW people themselves. I would imagine that some (most) decisions on where this game goes, and how it evolves (both from the developers point of view as from the VEKN orginasitional one) depends on the view they get, and the ideas they get about the game, how it's played and what people like (or dislike). But I would also see these decisions being heavily influenced by personal experience.Hence, I'm wondering how they do it to take all different countries and playstyles into account, when none of them visits the european (or australian or south american)events on a really regular basis. And I can assure you that there are some MAJOR differences between the continents regarding the VTES scene culture. > I consider myself to be an average player but the metagame dictates how you > do when visiting a group. In fact, I think it has a much more powerful > effect than any one player's deck. I partly disagree: assessing the metagame you'll be in is more important than the metagame itself. > > But metagame has no effect on ranking. Most tournaments as far as I know, > pull players from a variety of playgroups, each with their own metagame. So > metagame doesn't determine a individual's success at a tournament. > Individual performance does. That is what we rank by and that is why. Here I'd like to make a small remark: most tournaments draw players from different playgroups you say. But one of the problems concerning the ranking IMHO, is that you get very little crossover between fundamentally different locations. It's for example perfectly possible to be the top ranked player in let's say Timbuktu (nu pun intended for the Timbuktu players ;-), with a ranking that blows a hole in the sky. However, chances are, that if you were to play in UK, Europe mainland, Australia or US, you'd be wiped out.Same goes in among these regions. This game has evolved totally differently in different regions from the beginning. Hence, this creates(I think) sort of a discordance in measuring performances in the same ranking, when you're not playing "in the same league" so to speak (no relation to quality of play here, just to differentiate between diferent evolutions, if you know what I mean). Am I even making sense here, or is this too complex? Anyway, I'd still like to know out of curiosity how they do it to get a feel for the mentality in the rest of the world.Carl?LSJ? Anyone? Greetz Jo

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message >But one of the problems concerning >the ranking IMHO, is that you get very little crossover between >fundamentally different locations. Yes, this is a difficulty with rating systems. > Anyway, I'd still like to know out of curiosity how they do it to get > a feel for the mentality in the rest of the world.Carl?LSJ? Anyone? We read the public and private forums and the email we receive. The prince list is especially helpful when it comes to understanding opinions of players around the globe. If I remember correctly, the Rules Team has representation outside of the U.S. LSJ probably has playtesters from around the globe too. Typically, I don't think people are too shy about letting LSJ know what they like and don't like and I am certain that parts of the tournament rules are there specifically because of comments and suggestions of some European contributors. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> "wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message > > Hi Norm, > You're missing my point here. > When I'm talking about the "American guys" =>being the North American > members of the Inner Circle, and the people who make the VEKN > decisions, as well as the WW people themselves. > I would imagine that some (most) decisions on where this game goes, > and how it evolves (both from the developers point of view > as from the > VEKN orginasitional one) depends on the view they get, and the ideas > they get about the game, how it's played and what people like (or > dislike). > But I would also see these decisions being heavily influenced by > personal experience.Hence, I'm wondering how they do it to take all > different countries and playstyles into account, when none of them > visits the european (or australian or south american)events on a > really regular basis. Could not agree here more. We fell of our collective chair in the UK when Delaying Tactics acquired a cost, not massively far reaching but clearly a response to opinion (local, national?) that the card was undercosted for effect or was being abused?? When I asked a number of players (not just UK based) why they thought Delaying Tactics was changed, every single person was of the opinion that is was being abused in the US. What flamin' good is that to everyone else (see rest of world)?? I realise that we are ultimately limited by geographical and media related constraints but I would be far happier with a greater level of player involvement in decision making. Odd really, from the UK game POV - if something is dominating a metagame then 9 time out of 10 the metagame adapts to handle this. If votes, s+b, whatever are dominating, players pack more rush, Deflection, vote defence etc. Not just talking about single cards here. I feel that changes ARE being made based on not all the facts/opinion. > Am I even making sense here, or is this too complex? Totally making sense. > Anyway, I'd still like to know out of curiosity how they do it to get > a feel for the mentality in the rest of the world.Carl?LSJ? Anyone? I don't think that does happen to a great extent. Herein lies the problem that I have with the current thinking behind 'change' (of whatever description) in the game. Player involvement and consultation is minimal. Rob -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vBcia.2562$ey1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message > > >But one of the problems concerning > >the ranking IMHO, is that you get very little crossover between > >fundamentally different locations. > > Yes, this is a difficulty with rating systems. Let me add that the crossover issue is, IMO, a bigger flaw in rating systems that attempt to compare the quality of the opponents. Why go to the trouble of measuring the quality of opponents when we know that, in some areas, the same 5 people play against each other over and over again? Under the current system, the statistics ignore the quality of opponents. This is similar to some professional sports statistics. Things like baseball's lifetime batting averages don't take into account the quality of the opponents in that division or league or whether or not the player played most of their games against lesser teams. Baseball stats not only ignore geography and quality of opponent but also ignore time. Players active, retired, and long deceased all appear on the same list of top performance statistics. Many people take those stats at face value and declare the "statistically best" player as "the best player" whereas others will argue that someone further down the list as the best. -Robert

"robtreasure" <robtreasure....@web2news.net> wrote in message news:2237...@web2news.com... > Could not agree here more. We fell of our collective chair in the UK > when Delaying Tactics acquired a cost, not massively far reaching but > clearly a response to opinion (local, national?) that the card was > undercosted for effect or was being abused?? I'm just playing Devil's advocate here 'cause I don't know how Scott makes these types of design decisions but, no, I don't think the design changes are done as group decisions or responses to local opinion. I suspect that outcry from any region or group or even a private email probably brings cards to his attention. If he agrees that a change is needed then he probably goes ahead. I suspect it is as you stated above that, in his opinion, Delaying Tactics simply gave too great a benefit for the cost. I personally can't think of many cases of DT abuse but I could imagine that it is too powerful in the hands of a dedicated Anarch Revolt deck. If LSJ got wind of that happening (via whatever media or by personal experience) and felt the card was undercosted, why would it matter how many other regions hadn't experienced the problem? I doubt I'm being too clear but I think there's a difference between reacting to whatever wave of feeling there is about what card is most powerful at the time and analyzing cards for balance when someone (anyone and anywhere!) claims there's a problem. LSJ seems more like the kind of guy to do the latter. > When I asked a number of players (not just UK based) why they thought > Delaying Tactics was changed, every single person was of the opinion > that is was being abused in the US. What flamin' good is that to > everyone else (see rest of world)?? I realise that we are ultimately > limited by geographical and media related constraints but I would be far > happier with a greater level of player involvement in decision making. > > Odd really, from the UK game POV - if something is dominating a metagame > then 9 time out of 10 the metagame adapts to handle this. If votes, s+b, > whatever are dominating, players pack more rush, Deflection, vote > defence etc. Not just talking about single cards here. Well, sure. The game always adjusts--even to things that are wildly overpowered and undercosted. The fact that we can adjust doesn't mean that change isn't required. In an extreme example, I won plenty of tournaments without playing a lot of Return to Innocence myself but I damn well knew I had to build my decks knowing that there were some guys who owned a lot of them. > I feel that changes ARE being made based on not all the facts/opinion. I'm sure not all the opinions are being considered or requested. He's certainly not out there asking everybody whether or not Earth Meld should cost 1 blood or not. Thank goodness! :) If we want to think about the under-represented V:TES players whose opinions may be being overlooked, it is probably the people who aren't online. Frankly, I view this group as a region of its own. Anybody posting here is in LSJ's local region and has a fair shot at being heard. -Robert

> I'm just playing Devil's advocate here 'cause I don't know > how Scott makes these types of design decisions but, no, I don't >think the design changes are done as group decisions or responses to >local opinion. Not being funny but if they are not made 'as a group decision' how are they made? > I suspect that outcry from any region or group or even a > private email > probably brings cards to his attention. If he agrees that > a change is needed > then he probably goes ahead. Wow, is it just me or does that (method, not your reply:o) seem a little blinkered and autocratic? > I suspect it is as you stated above that, in his > opinion, Delaying Tactics simply gave too great a benefit > for the cost. I personally can't think of many cases of DT abuse but I > could imagine that it is too powerful in the hands of a dedicated >Anarch Revolt deck. If LSJ got wind of that happening (via whatever >media or by personal experience) and felt the card was undercosted, >why would it matter how many other regions hadn't experienced the >problem? Local games will IMO always produce local problems. It can't have been seen within that region, playgroup or country as *that* big a problem as a 1 pt cost does not really stop the deck you mention or others like it. > I doubt I'm being too clear but I think there's a > difference between reacting to whatever wave of feeling there is >about what card is most powerful at the time and analyzing cards for >balance when someone (anyone and anywhere!) claims there's a problem. >LSJ seems more like the kind of guy to do the > latter. And for my money that analysis should include stuff like : "is anyone else having a problem with this" or "what are your (princes, experienced players worldwide etc etc) thoughts on this possible errata?" >> Odd really, from the UK game POV - if something is >> dominating a metagame >> then 9 time out of 10 the metagame adapts to handle this. >> If votes, s+b, >> whatever are dominating, players pack more rush, Deflection, vote >> defence etc. Not just talking about single cards here. > > Well, sure. The game always adjusts--even to things that are wildly > overpowered and undercosted. The fact that we can adjust > doesn't mean that change isn't required. > > In an extreme example, I won plenty of tournaments > without playing a lot of Return to Innocence myself but I > damn well knew I had to build my decks knowing that there were some > guys who owned a lot of them. Agreed but I was really talking about metagame shifts to compensate/allow for a prevalence of a certain deck type rather than certain individual cards blasting a hole until players respond. >> I feel that changes ARE being made based on not all the >> facts/opinion. > > I'm sure not all the opinions are being considered or > requested. He's > certainly not out there asking everybody whether or not > Earth Meld should cost > 1 blood or not. Thank goodness! :) That would be the ideal situation but would indeed result in a huge unproductive battle. IMO the game needs something in between this and what we have now. > If we want to think about the under-represented V:TES > players whose opinions > may be being overlooked, it is probably the people who aren't online. > Frankly, I view this group as a region of its own. > Anybody posting here is in > LSJ's local region and has a fair shot at being heard. This is a big problem, always has been, always will be. I know of a local playgroup to me that refuse to play with most of the errata. Very interesting to see how their insular metagame has evolved. They would argue that their game is the better one. Not sure I agree :o) but I do see where they come from on that. [ quoted text not captured ]

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.03040...@posting.google.com... > I would imagine that some (most) decisions on where this game goes, > and how it evolves (both from the developers point of view as from the > VEKN orginasitional one) depends on the view they get, and the ideas > they get about the game, how it's played and what people like (or > dislike). > But I would also see these decisions being heavily influenced by > personal experience.Hence, I'm wondering how they do it to take all > different countries and playstyles into account, when none of them > visits the european (or australian or south american)events on a > really regular basis. Not to state the obvious (which I'm about to ;-) there _are_ playtest groups across the globe. Note that this does not affect those changes made to existing card text/costs. In my experience as a playtester, such considerations weren't within the scope of the job. I'd guess that another body of individuals was instrumental in determining those changes. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, robtreasure wrote: > Local games will IMO always produce local problems. It can't have been > seen within that region, playgroup or country as *that* big a problem as > a 1 pt cost does not really stop the deck you mention or others like it. I really have no idea what Scott bases his decisions on, but I can give you my opinion of the card, and why I *think* it was changed, and why that change was good. Living in weenie hell like I do, I've spent a lot of time building non-weenie decks that can stand up to weenies. As I'm sure you're aware, pound for pound, the best anti-weenie cards are votes. Weenie decks also tend to take advantage of Anarch Revolts, or if they don't, they'd probably be a better deck if they did. These two facts combined mean that, IMO, any good weenie deck packs Delaying Tactics. As I've watched my own weenie lovin' playgroup improve their skills as well, I've seen those two cards, AV and DT, become almost standard features of every last one of them. It was too ubiquitous, and too powerful, and weenies were the problem. Sounds like the kind of thing slapping a one blood cost on would just about fix. It's one blood. Who else is it going to hurt? Yes, paying one blood can be a game-breaker for anyone, but I don't consider that to be a factor... it just drops out on analysis. David Cherryholmes

> > Could not agree here more. We fell of our collective chair in the UK > > when Delaying Tactics acquired a cost, not massively far reaching but > > clearly a response to opinion (local, national?) that the card was > > undercosted for effect or was being abused?? > I suspect that outcry from any region or group or even a private email > probably brings cards to his attention. If he agrees that a change is needed > then he probably goes ahead. I suspect it is as you stated above that, in his > opinion, Delaying Tactics simply gave too great a benefit for the cost. I > personally can't think of many cases of DT abuse but I could imagine that it > is too powerful in the hands of a dedicated Anarch Revolt deck. If LSJ got > wind of that happening (via whatever media or by personal experience) and felt > the card was undercosted, why would it matter how many other regions hadn't > experienced the problem? It would matter, because in those other regions, you wouldn't be solving a problem, but creating one, or, in their eyes maybe making a bad change. But anyway, I'm not gonna start on which card changes I think are/were good/bad. Thanks for clarifying Robert. > > When I asked a number of players (not just UK based) why they thought > > Delaying Tactics was changed, every single person was of the opinion > > that is was being abused in the US. Again, this is an impression, very likely to the point I was making earlier, based on their local and personal experience. Sure,I'm sorry they changed the card, but it doesn't make it unplayable, and it still is a mountain of a card. > > I feel that changes ARE being made based on not all the facts/opinion. Must agree, but maybe that's just because A) still the majority of players (I know) do not have access to NG's, forums etc) B) maybe we just don't vent it, but keep it to ourselves, and indeed change our way of playing instead of changing the game. C) It is as I believe, that indeed you can't grasp it all when you're not "in the field". Which doesn't mean they aren't doing a hell of a job already keeping this game on the road. So maybe it's time to start out on the VTES PROTour of The World, of course fully sponsored by WW (hotels, travel expenses etc) and a prize of 1 Million Euros? :-)) As to the original post about the ratings: would it be a good idea to have geographically split rankings? BTW: I think a system which takes into account the quality of your opponents would be fantastic, but completely logistically unmanageable. Greetz Jo

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.03040...@posting.google.com... > > > Could not agree here more. We fell of our collective chair in the UK > > > when Delaying Tactics acquired a cost, not massively far reaching but > > > clearly a response to opinion (local, national?) that the card was > > > undercosted for effect or was being abused?? > > I suspect that outcry from any region or group or even a private email > > probably brings cards to his attention. If he agrees that a change is needed > > then he probably goes ahead. I suspect it is as you stated above that, in his > > opinion, Delaying Tactics simply gave too great a benefit for the cost. I > > personally can't think of many cases of DT abuse but I could imagine that it > > is too powerful in the hands of a dedicated Anarch Revolt deck. If LSJ got > > wind of that happening (via whatever media or by personal experience) and felt > > the card was undercosted, why would it matter how many other regions hadn't > > experienced the problem? > > It would matter, because in those other regions, you wouldn't be > solving a problem, but creating one, or, in their eyes maybe making a > bad change. But anyway, I'm not gonna start on which card changes I think are/were > good/bad. I disagree. Well, partly. If you are fixing a card that is undercosted, you are not making a bad change. I do understand that you are risking a bad feeling from the people who haven't experienced any problems or who disagree with the "undercosted" assessment. > Thanks for clarifying Robert. Hey, just some guesses. Please don't think I've outlined the exact process. :) > As to the original post about the ratings: would it be a good idea to > have geographically split rankings? > BTW: I think a system which takes into account the quality of your > opponents would be fantastic, but completely logistically > unmanageable. Greetz The rankings are done by geographic area. -Robert -- [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03032...@posting.google.com>... > Hello All, > > I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the ranking system: > > http://206.65.59.246/VTES/member.tpl > > I have several complaints with the current system: > > - The system was changed without soliciting ample feedback from the > players (as far as I know.) > > - The ranking/rating system means nothing to most players (as far as I > know.) > > - The current system very poorly reflects the difference between 2nd > place and last place at a table. In a tournament setting, it's > important to get Table Wins, but 2nd place compared to last place at a > table is also important. > > - There is an entirely separate ranking system for Limited > Tournaments; I guess that's good, but there is apparently only 1 > person in the world who has played more than 9 Limited tournament > games, so why bother? > > - Most importantly, the current system doesn't recognize the > difference between these two situations: 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5 vs > 5-0-0-0-0, assuming you're not the player who got 5 VPs. That is, in > both situations you would be given a "loss" in the ranking system, but > one situation is much worse than the other. > > > I realize the ranking system isn't an issue with a simple answer; we > care about the likelihood of winning an individual game, and also the > likelihood of winning an entire tournament. The current system > focuses greatly on Table Wins, and I think it overlooks other aspects > of good play. > > As a solution, I propose the following: > > ************************************* > * Go back to the old rating system. * > ************************************* > > That solution solves all of the above problems, and gives an elegant, > all-encompassing formula for all games. I think the only drawback of > the rating system is that it didn't overly stress Table Wins. > > Perhaps other people can come up with a better hybrid solution. > > Finally, please note that I am currently the #1 ranked player in the > world, so I'm only writing all this because I really think the system > is flawed and I'd like to see it improved. No one can accuse me of > saying the system is bad simply because I'm not doing well. :) > > Ira Fay > V:EKN Prince of Pittsburgh > i...@digitalfreaks.org Hello all, Being new to the groups this is the first opportunity I have had to post, and a subject I have thought about alot lately. The system as I see it is not flawed per se but the biggest weakness I see is it doesnt really tell how good a player truely is. I live in the middle of nowhere (Elko, Nv) and while we have a pretty good size group of players here and have regular tournaments this does not reflect how well I play on a global scale. Now according to the rankings I am rated 4th in the US but have only played in tournaments here in Elko. I dont know how well i would play against Ira, HALYCON, or any other player out there until i travel to those other tournaments(or we get lucky and they travel to us, hint hint guys). Dont get me wrong I like seeing my name so High on the list but if i happen to be the best out of the 12-15 people here in Elko I dont think that nescicarily makes me so highly ranked nationaly. NOw as to how to fix the ranking system? I dont know if anything can be done to really make a national or world ranking system really work without a pro tour or some such thing that would be near impossible. But then again that what world championship tournaments and qualifiers are for. So guys like i think it was said before the ranking should be looked at more as stats or guidelines because until ya sit downa cross from the other guy youll never know how good he really is! PS hoping to go to the southwest qualifier and prove my ranking!! Hope to see lots of new people there!

Robert Goudie wrote: > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:vBcia.2562$ey1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > "wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message > > > > >But one of the problems concerning > > >the ranking IMHO, is that you get very little crossover between > > >fundamentally different locations. > > > > Yes, this is a difficulty with rating systems. > > Let me add that the crossover issue is, IMO, a bigger flaw in rating systems > that attempt to compare the quality of the opponents. I strongly disagree. The only real problem is to systems that *don't* compare quality of opponents. > Why go to the trouble > of measuring the quality of opponents when we know that, in some areas, the > same 5 people play against each other over and over again? I'm really confused about the issue you have with it. The ELO system (and I assume others, though I'd have to analyze the system in question to decide for myself) certainly is no worse off for lack of crossover. And it will correct for differential ability to the extent it can. If you've got a totally isolated group of players who have never played outside their population, then ELO can do nothing about reckoning the quality of one set of players vs. the others and will spit out ratings based on how well players do within their own group. I don't really see the problem with this as long as everyone understands the limitations of the system. (Obviously, you can't make predictions about a thing if you have zero relevant data to work from.) To the extent there is cross-play, ELO will correct for it - permanently draining points out of a worse-than- average group of players and permanently sucking points into a better- than-average group. Again, if the amount of cross-play is low then the relative ratings may not get corrected as much as they should but what can you do? So to answer your question directly: normally, the same five people do *not* play against each other over and over again so measuring the quality of opposition is a highly worthwhile endeavor. And with regard to the degenerate case, you do it anyway because that's how the system works and it's more work than it's worth to simplify it for situations that are rare exceptions. > Under the current system, the statistics ignore the quality of opponents. > This is similar to some professional sports statistics. Things like > baseball's lifetime batting averages don't take into account the quality of > the opponents in that division or league or whether or not the player played > most of their games against lesser teams. Frankly, I think that's a pretty lousy analogy. Although in a technical sense, it's possible that some batter may only ever bat against the mop up relievers and never the ace starters or the closers, that never happens in real life. At least, not for players who play for very long. Professional sports leagues are rather homogenous in terms of talent and each team plays all the others on a regular basis so all the players will generally face a representative cross-section of the talent in their league. Not so VEKN tournaments. One player may play only against his rather modestly-talented local group for years while another may travel to all the most competitive tournaments in the world - and this precisely identifies the problems with your statistics. In any case, the comparison thus fails in a very substantive way. Fred

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3E8A1E06...@removethis.com>... > > > Why go to the trouble > > of measuring the quality of opponents when we know that, in some areas, the > > same 5 people play against each other over and over again? > Indeed > I'm really confused about the issue you have with it. The ELO system > (and I assume others, though I'd have to analyze the system in question > to decide for myself) certainly is no worse off for lack of crossover. > And it will correct for differential ability to the extent it can. If > you've got a totally isolated group of players who have never played outside > their population, then ELO can do nothing about reckoning the quality of > one set of players vs. the others and will spit out ratings based on how > well players do within their own group. I don't really see the problem > with this as long as everyone understands the limitations of the system. > (Obviously, you can't make predictions about a thing if you have zero > relevant data to work from.) To the extent there is cross-play, ELO > will correct for it - permanently draining points out of a worse-than- > average group of players and permanently sucking points into a better- > than-average group. Again, if the amount of cross-play is low then the > relative ratings may not get corrected as much as they should but what can > you do? Would everyone PLEASE stop comparing the VTES ranking/rating system to the ELO system?? ELO was designed for one-on-one play in Swiss format, whereas VTES is neither a one on one but a multiplayer game(as everybody should know:-), and the tournaments are not played in Swiss, simply because in multiplayer this makes no sense whatsoever.(believe me, we've tried in the early days of Jyhad) (and on top of that, it is generally considered Swiss only works from about 6 or 7R up) > So to answer your question directly: normally, the same five people do *not* > play against each other over and over again so measuring the quality of > opposition is a highly worthwhile endeavor. In the case of a game that has a smaller amount of frequent tournament players (like VTES), who are, on top of that, strongly local, they *do*. Which is exactly the point. BTW: maintaining a system which takes into account the quality of your opponents is a noble endeavour, but I'm sure many (like ourselves) have tried, but so far no one (to my knowledge)has ben able to come up with a system which both does that and remains remotely logistically manageable, without losing a lot of other qualities that are a higher priority for a rating system. If I'm wrong here, will the real creator of such a system please stand up? I have no personal experience with baseball, so I'm gonna leave it at that. //Jo

wolflord wrote: > > Would everyone PLEASE stop comparing the VTES ranking/rating system to > the ELO system?? Confusing. What "VTES ranking/rating" system has VEKN ever had that was not ELO? The current system only keeps various statistics. It uses one of them to "rate" people but it's hardly worth paying any heed to it, for reasons that have already been given. Of all the systems proposed so far, only ELO has any potential to rate or rank people with any kind of accuracy. > ELO was designed for one-on-one play in Swiss format, whereas VTES is > neither a one on one but a multiplayer game(as everybody should > know:-), and the tournaments are not played in Swiss, simply because > in multiplayer this makes no sense whatsoever.(believe me, we've tried > in the early days of Jyhad) I'm not sure who you are or what you're talking about, but an ELO system was in use up until last spring. Would have worked fine, too, had decent coefficients been chosen. The problem you refer to is hardly insurmountable. The answer used was to rank each player in a game in order of victory points scored and create player-pair results by comparing the number of victory points each scored. So if a game ended 3-1-1-0-0, the player finishing with three points "won" against the other four players, the two players scoring one point apiece "lost" to the player scoring three points, "won" against the two players scoring zero points, and tied one another. The two players ousted without a victory point tied each other and lost to the other three. (Thus, in a five player game, 10 player-pair results were scored. In a four player game, 6 player-pair results would be scored.) That part worked just fine. The logistics were the real issue, as discussed elsewhere. > > So to answer your question directly: normally, the same five people do *not* > > play against each other over and over again so measuring the quality of > > opposition is a highly worthwhile endeavor. > > In the case of a game that has a smaller amount of frequent tournament > players (like VTES), who are, on top of that, strongly local, they > *do*. No they don't. Not the *same* five players over and over. Even small local areas usually have more than five players or it's not worth bothering with tournaments. Since different games have different sets of players, player quality needs to be taken into account or you have (as we do now) meaningless numbers. As for Jyhad, it's not all that "strongly local". Players travel all the time and even limited contact allows the ELO system to adjust for strong areas and weak areas. Fred