Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

FGM Ladder 2017...let's discuss possible changes

Hedgehog said:
I can't see me any where on charts......Surely I must be some where !!!!! @Ithikial
Click to expand...
Nah, Bootie and I just felt your presence on the ladder was to much for the regular membership to handle so we removed your games to give all the other players a fighting chance. ;) (It's only a small cutout from a very long list - you're there... just a touch lower).

Meat Grinder said:
Probably, but Drop Bears aren't gonna cut it. :)
Click to expand...
Oooh shots fired.
enhanced-buzz-24432-1381119510-0.jpg
 
Frack this thread was hard to find!!!! ;D

A few requests/comments Deputy Dawg @Ithikial or Supreme Boss @Bootie :

1/. Can the overall ELO ladder here http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/ladder/ have a prominent date stamp, so it is immediately obvious on looking at that page as to when is was last updated?

2/. I presume there will eventually be a current year specific version of this (or am I totally wrong, as I know nothing about ELO (and don't care either way...)

3/. Will there be a 2016 Ladder player ribbon? ;) I like shiny things!

Chuz!
 
Gnarly said:
1/. Can the overall ELO ladder here http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/ladder/ have a prominent date stamp, so it is immediately obvious on looking at that page as to when is was last updated?
Click to expand...

Built into the website? That's Bootie. I tend to break things if I fiddle with the website design controls.

Gnarly said:
2/. I presume there will eventually be a current year specific version of this (or am I totally wrong, as I know nothing about ELO (and don't care either way...)
Click to expand...
Doable but it's a few extra steps and extra work each time we have to do it. The ELO workbook wasn't built by me from scratch and is designed to be suitable for an ongoing Chess club. The older system that was in place was using a system I built from scratch and we could slice and dice the data more readily and easily. Probably do an annual cut every six months but nothing is set in stone on this front.

Gnarly said:
3/. Will there be a 2016 Ladder player ribbon? ;) I like shiny things!
Chuz!
Click to expand...
The limits of my artistic ability.... are limited. Yeah Bootie again.
 
I'm not exactly sure what Gnarly is asking for, but I would definitely rather not have the ladder reset every year. Now, if there is a way to see just the results for a single year (example: see just the results for 2017 sometime in January, 2018 so we can declare a 2017 ladder champion), then yea, that's a good thing. The ladder itself, however, should never reset, IMO.
 
Ithikial said:
Doable but it's a few extra steps and extra work each time we have to do it. The ELO workbook wasn't built by me from scratch and is designed to be suitable for an ongoing Chess club.
Click to expand...

Be careful if it is built for a chess club, because in the formula there is an advantage to being 'black', since 'white' gets to go first... I researched a whole ton of this stuff back in 2013 when I was running the ladders at FGM... most of the ELO systems didnt fit a Gaming Club environment, and the ones that did where custom built, i.e 'The Bllitz', AoE3, etc...

IIRC, the best one I found was sourgforce or something like that... alas all that info is gone because it was on me old dead machine... RIP old machine... I miss your HD everyday... :(

This ladder seems to work well and fits for what the club does... Members have to remember, we only have a hundred or so players, so something needs to be easy to use, we cannot have Herr @Bootie working 20 hours a month just on ye old'e ladder, he must have some time so he can drink a few pints... :)
 
Meat Grinder said:
I'm not exactly sure what Gnarly is asking for, but I would definitely rather not have the ladder reset every year. Now, if there is a way to see just the results for a single year (example: see just the results for 2017 sometime in January, 2018 so we can declare a 2017 ladder champion), then yea, that's a good thing. The ladder itself, however, should never reset, IMO.
Click to expand...

:D
Definitely not suggesting resetting the calendar each year; I presume the overall ELO ladder is essentially 'timeless' (kinda the point of ELO?).

But as @Meat Grinder suggests, I also presume we'd see a 2017 results/battles-only subset (once there are sufficient results!) in order to track the 2017 'competition'?
 
Gnarly said:
But as @Meat Grinder suggests, I also presume we'd see a 2017 results/battles-only subset (once there are sufficient results!) in order to track the 2017 'competition'?
Click to expand...

Yes but I have to slice and dice manually. It's messy compared to the old system. I'll do it once every six months or so and keep you in suspense between then. ;)
 
Ithikial said:
Yes but I have to slice and dice manually. It's messy compared to the old system. I'll do it once every six months or so and keep you in suspense between then. ;)
Click to expand...

What? The Excel Master (neigh, the Guru!!!!) has to slice and dice manually???? Surely a pivot table or two, a workbook connection, some statistical formula and a mail merge, linked into an Access Database, would solve the issue automatically??? :D


Kidding! No worries @Ithikial at all.
 
Always an interesting discussion! I would guess that the most popular encounter would be a Meeting Engagement - QB. Ranking is an obvious goal of a ladder. It can also be used to encourage different types of play or introduce riskier plays. Personally, I would like to see a "Stonewall Jackson" incentive for defenders. For example, a meeting engagement/medium map has a score of 10 for the winner. In an assault on a medium map, the attacker would get 10 for a win, a win for the defender would get that plus bonus points, ie 10 plus bonus. I tend to think players are more comfortable in the offensive role where they have the initiative but less so on defence.
Also to encourage the use of larger maps, a bonus of sorts could be calculated for this - so not in ratio to smaller maps, but ratio plus bonus points.
Maybe to introduce more chance in a scenario, have a bonus factor for using aircraft. Plenty of interesting ideas out there to mix it up a bit.
Just a suggestion when constructing the 2018 ladder.
 
Lethal said:
Always an interesting discussion! I would guess that the most popular encounter would be a Meeting Engagement - QB. Ranking is an obvious goal of a ladder. It can also be used to encourage different types of play or introduce riskier plays. Personally, I would like to see a "Stonewall Jackson" incentive for defenders. For example, a meeting engagement/medium map has a score of 10 for the winner. In an assault on a medium map, the attacker would get 10 for a win, a win for the defender would get that plus bonus points, ie 10 plus bonus. I tend to think players are more comfortable in the offensive role where they have the initiative but less so on defence.
Also to encourage the use of larger maps, a bonus of sorts could be calculated for this - so not in ratio to smaller maps, but ratio plus bonus points.
Maybe to introduce more chance in a scenario, have a bonus factor for using aircraft. Plenty of interesting ideas out there to mix it up a bit.
Just a suggestion when constructing the 2018 ladder.
Click to expand...
Exactly what part of the crowd here didn't want after two years of discussion. The old system meant you got points for battle size and also scale of victory, now it's an ELO system with only wins vs losses. (Like a chess club).

Running a CM club ladder - you can't win and please everybody. :rolleyes:
 
@Lethal I believe @Shane & @Ithikial are now using chess ranking software (otherwise known as the "ELO" system) to keep track of the ladder rankings. This type of system only allows two possible results: one player wins the game, or a Draw. So, level of victory or type of game no longer have any meaning in the rankings. The good thing about ELO systems is it awards more points for winning (or drawing) against higher ranked opponents. It also deducts points for losing. You lose less points for losing to higher ranked opponents.
 
Hi Guys,
I am sure a lot of blood, sweat and tears has gone into the ELO decision. I hate to state the obvious, but CMx2 is not a binary game like chess. It seems a very raw method of ranking CMx2 and offers no incentive for players to explore the dimensions of the game. I certainly take Ithikial's point re "not pleasing everybody!" - such is the nature of leadership in the world currently in any field.

But is the membership happy with the ELO style of ranking? (now that it has been in use for 2 years(?))
From the results obtained what does it encourage/discourage?
ie how about a review?

Appreciate this is a can of worms, but surely we can get something more representative of CMx2 performance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top