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

[Meat Grinder]

@Lethal The biggest reason we switched to the ELO system was our old ranking systems were flawed, and basically awarded points such that the player who played the most games during the year won the ladder. Long story short, the old ranking systems awarded points for wins, bud did not deduct points for losing, so the players who played more games naturally acquired more points.

The new ELO system is far superior, IMO, in that it awards points for winning, and deducts points for losing, and uses a "sliding scale" for points awards and deductions based on the current rankings of the players. This is a tried and true ranking system that has been used in the chess world for decades.

I invite you to browse back and read this thread from the very start.

Can it be improved? Certainly. But any attempt to go back to "he who plays the most games wins" will be met by fierce resistance from yours truly. Winners should win points, and losers should lose points.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep, I agree with @Meat Grinder for sure. BTW this is the first year for ELO and several people lobbied for it - so it definitely has support. Lets give it a few years (the old way, had what a 10 year run) and see what people think.

 

[Lethal]

Thx CCat for the info.

How does the ELO system avoid the 'he who plays the most games win" situation?
No ranking system will fix that! And what is wrong with rewarding players who participate more, that is what the club is all about I would have thought.

Why would a high ranked player play a low ranked player with the risk of losing more than what can be gained? The system actively discourages what we should be encouraging!

I think CMx2 has more similarities to horse racing than chess - different classes, different conditions, - ie far more variables.

But, OK, I tread where angels fear to tread! I will tip-toe out of the minefield with as much grace as I can muster!

 

[Gnarly]

Maybe i wont post updates to the ladder here anymore, and leave sleeping minefields alone...

 

[Bootie]

 

[Meat Grinder]

How does the ELO system avoid the 'he who plays the most games win" situation? No ranking system will fix that!

Simple. You move up the ladder by winning. You move down the ladder by losing. You can play 100 games, but if you lose most of them, your ladder rank will decrease.

And what is wrong with rewarding players who participate more, that is what the club is all about I would have thought.

Well that's just a difference in philosophy I suppose. Everyone gets a ribbon who participates in the ladder, so there's your "participation trophy". ;-)

Why would a high ranked player play a low ranked player with the risk of losing more than what can be gained? The system actively discourages what we should be encouraging!

I constantly have at least four PBEMs going (currently five), and every player I play is a lower ranked player. I play because I enjoy the games and I like the competition.

I think CMx2 has more similarities to horse racing than chess - different classes, different conditions, - ie far more variables.

Perhaps, and if there were a way to do it, I wouldn't mind seeing more points awarded for a Total Victory than a Minor Victory, etc., while keeping the ELO system, but that would probably require a *lot* of work from someone who can code. For now, the current system is far, far superior to what we had before, IMHO.

But, OK, I tread where angels fear to tread! I will tip-toe out of the minefield with as much grace as I can muster!

Nothing wrong with honest discussion.

Here is more information on how an ELO system works. It's really quite fascinating, and was invented by a man far smarter than I am:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Just adding a little to what @Meat Grinder already said.

Simple. You move up the ladder by winning. You move down the ladder by losing. You can play 100 games, but if you lose most of them, your ladder rank will decrease.

Clearly playing more games is an advantage on some level. If you learn from your games it can mean you improve and do better. Plus there still is a factor that a player with a really solid 70% win rate who plays 50 games will do better than a player who also has a solid 70% win rate but only plays 10 games. But given the unbalanced number of games there is little that can be done there. At least the system rewards successful players who win more then the loose.

I constantly have at least four PBEMs going (currently five), and every player I play is a lower ranked player. I play because I enjoy the games and I like the competition.

Exactly! The serious competition *is* part of what is fun.

Perhaps, and if there were a way to do it, I wouldn't mind seeing more points awarded for a Total Victory than a Minor Victory, etc., while keeping the ELO system, but that would probably require a *lot* of work from someone who can code. For now, the current system is far, far superior to what we had before, IMHO.

For sure that is a possibility. The Blitz has been using both ELO and straight participation points on their ladder for a while now. The version of ELO used there does reward more points for total victory vs minor victory and it rewards more for larger sized battles.

What we have now is much better than just participation scoring. I have seen ladders "won" by prolific players that had really poor results and even abandoned games but they played so many that the just kept wracking up the points. Quite frankly *that* is discouraging for those of us that want the competition.

Nothing wrong with honest discussion.

Amen to that. @Shane don't worry it's all good

 

[Ithikial]

Yep, I agree with @Meat Grinder for sure. BTW this is the first year for ELO and several people lobbied for it - so it definitely has support. Lets give it a few years (the old way, had what a 10 year run) and see what people think.

Nah only about 3 or so. The ladder before that was built into the site itself and was prone to crashing. The previous system that we finished up last Christmas was at the same time collecting data on each you, such as what games you play and the size of the battle etc. This material was going to be used to set up a player database of sorts so you could search for opponents that played the games and battles you liked to play. Became clear neither Bootie or myself would have time to do implement fully.

The current ELO system is imported from a Chess club so we have little control on tailoring it for FGM purposes without breaking everything.