| From | Message |
hollcana
2/06/2007
17:23:49
[ report this post ] |
 Subject: A Different Way to Rate Teams!!
Message:
I see that "GameKnot" has made the teams compete in a new system. I'm wondering how Captains and players like this new "Ladder rating". Also will it interest members that have not been on a team yet, or have left a team?
|
tag1153
2/06/2007
17:55:22
[ report this post ] | Is there.........
Message:
.......a posting of how this new feature works?
tag1153
|
chilliman
2/06/2007
18:32:21
[ report this post ] |
Message:
hopefully it will not encourage unfair team challenges being offered
|
nima_tal
2/06/2007
18:46:17
[ report this post ] | Message from Gameknot:
Message:
Notice from GameKnot:
To all team captains:
As you probably already noticed, there is a new form of competition for teams on GameKnot now: team ladder (rules).
We've been working on it for the past few months and hope it will be a welcome addition to GameKnot. Only the team matches started after January 15, 2007 are considered for the ladder. If you have any comments or questions please don't hesitate to contact us.
Good luck with your team matches and enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old rating system is still in place. This is just an addition. This could be a fun addition specially because since many captains dont like the rating system, now they can compete in the new table. Rules of the new system are same as "Ladder system" in many other games/websites...
My only suggestion is that teams be given a choice if hey want to compete in ladder system and have the ladder ranking on their page or not...
|
nima_tal
2/06/2007
22:20:26
[ report this post ] | 2 Comments:
Message:
1.When some body clicks on the teams he will see this page:
[ Team ladder ]
[ Team table | All teams ]
[ Send a message to everyone on the team ]
[ See your team's challenges ]
[ See your team's active games ]
[ Team captains currently online ]
Putting the "Team ladder" alone implies it is the most important ranking , more important than Team table. I dont think that is the intent. I suggest the following arrangment:
[All teams ]
[ Team table | Team ladder ]
[ Send a message to everyone on the team ]
[ See your team's challenges ]
[ See your team's active games ]
[ Team captains currently online ]
2. When somebody is looking at team table page:
-> gameknot.com
He will see a link to team ladder but it doesnt work the other way. I think there should also be a link to team table page on top of team ladder page :
-> gameknot.com
Any inputs?
|
skipslot
2/07/2007
05:31:51
[ report this post ] |
Message:
I'm still trying to figure out why my team is not listed, I have read the rules a dozen times and we have challenges against some of them teams on there and they have finished with the last month.
I agree Nima, it definately gives the perception of an important ranking system when it is listed on the top. Side by side would be better, to make it equal to, I guess. I know I played around with the ladder system on another site once, I can't really say I cared for it much, but having it as a team option gives a bit of a different aspect to it.
|
maca
2/07/2007
07:07:20
[ report this post ] | Team Ladder
Message:
I'm so excited about this feature! This is just what I've been waiting for! Not only we get a new way to rate the teams, but now you can actually view the match set-up after the start of the match, which makes managing ongoing matches a lot easier for captains, especially if the team is big.
Best thanks for the webmaster for implementing this great feature!
MaCa.
|
nima_tal
2/07/2007
10:06:18
[ report this post ] | Bob!
Message:
I think the reason your team is not listed is that non of the matches your team started after Jan 15 has finished yet...
|
skipslot
2/07/2007
10:26:03
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Oh, I see. I clicked on the new Team Matches link in my profile and the finished games on the ladder page and its starting to sink in now :) Interesting indeed.
Thanks!
|
docstrange
2/07/2007
12:37:53
[ report this post ] | Ladders
Message:
I like it a lot, BUT when a higher ranked team loses, they should not switch positions on the ladder: the winning team should move to the rung one step above the losing team.
If my team is at #5 and we lose to a team ranked at #66, that does not mean that we're now a "worse" team than all those in-between, it only means that the team formerly at #66 deserves to be rated above mine.
All the other rules seem correct, and these rankings should be less volatile than the present team elo. Also I think it will encourage more intra-team cameraderie.
|
nima_tal
2/07/2007
13:17:29
[ report this post ] | .
Message:
I agree with docstrange...
|
chilliman
2/07/2007
13:37:42
[ report this post ] |
Message:
only challenge the first team and hope that you beat them - just hope they don't lose a challenge to the last team before your challenge ends!
|
docstrange
2/07/2007
15:25:10
[ report this post ] | ladders
Message:
right, chilliman - I think that sort of volatility could make ladders meaningless
|
grandphish
2/09/2007
10:15:55
[ report this post ] | New team ladder
Message:
I think the concept of a team ladder is a good one, however, I think the implementation is seriously flawed. I agree with docstrange that the current system is far too volatile primarily due to the switching of places if the lower ranked team wins the match. This volatility makes the concept far less meaningful and entertaining.
I propose a different set of rank changes:
1. If the higher ranked team wins the match by 2 games, i.e. 4W - 2L, then the winning team moves up the winning margin (2) and the losing team moves down by the losing margin (2). If the higher ranked team wins the match by 3 games, i.e. 4.5 - 1.5, then the winning team moves up 3 and the losing team moves down 3.
2. If the lower ranked team wins the match by 2 games, i.e. 4W - 2L, then the losing team moves up 2X the winning margin (4) and the losing team moves down 2X the losing margin (4). If the lower ranked team wins the match by 3, i.e. 4.5 - 1.5, then the lower ranked team moves up 6 and the higher ranked team moves down 6.
3. If the match is drawn, the lower ranked team moves up one rank and the higher ranked team moves down one rank.
I believe a more stable system such as this would make the team ladder much more entertaining and meaningful.
Comments??
|
zmeyko
2/09/2007
17:25:03
[ report this post ] | Comment...
Message:
on what grandphish said. Rung change based on wins minus losses might be indeed an improvement to simple switching of places, but it will inevitably favor larger teams, much in the same way as the score-based competition.
A well-determined team of 50 can field more players in every match and thus achieve better results in a given period of time than a well-determined team of 20; that's in addition to the simple fact that the larger team will play and finish more matches than the smaller one in the same period of time.
Of course, nobody prevents the smaller team from growing larger. However, there is a number of smaller teams which prefer to stay smaller (including the one of which I'm a proud member). I think they are likely to disregard the system disadvantageous to them. As a result, the team competition will become even more diluted, now with 3 different systems. In professional boxing multiple systems are the promoters' way to make more money; but what are they for in corr. chess?
I am sincerely grateful for the fact that GameKnot constantly introduces new features and improvements to existing ones. I'm also aware that both rating-based and score-based team competition systems have their drawbacks, including the one chilliman mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Is the ladder going to cure the situation? I am not sure.
Respectfully,
Z.
|
chuckventimiglia
2/10/2007
07:22:17
[ report this post ] | There should be just....
Message:
1 way to rate teams. More than 1 way seems to
me to be ridiculous. Do you pick the one you
like?
|
chilliman
2/10/2007
14:34:09
[ report this post ] |
Message:
is there a way to topple the team sitting at the top of the ladder if they cease playing team challenges?
|
chilliman
2/10/2007
14:53:24
[ report this post ] |
Message:
I should have read the new rules before my last post, 2 rules cover this situation:
If the winning team already has the higher position, it is moved one position up and the losing team is moved one position down; and,
If a team has no current team matches in progress, and has not finished a team match in the last 30 days, it is removed from the ladder forfeiting its current position; the team can rejoin the ladder later on if they finish new matches in the future starting with the last position again.
I think the new rules will prove to be much fairer and more widely acceptable. the ladder in effect is a type of ELO positioning for teams.
|
grandphish
2/16/2007
13:26:40
[ report this post ] | zmeyko
Message:
zmeyko said: "Rung change based on wins minus losses might be indeed an improvement to simple switching of places, but it will inevitably favor larger teams, much in the same way as the score-based competition."
I can't explain the mechanics of why this is happening, but the current system seems to favor larger teams as well. I took the 156 teams listed as of this writing and divided them into 5ths by ranking. The first 31 teams have an average of 40.8 players, teams 32-62 average 31.2 players, 63-93 25.1 players 94-124 24.6 players and the bottom 32 teams average 20.9 players per team. So the bias toward large teams is built into the system somehow.
|
zmeyko
2/20/2007
16:24:56
[ report this post ] |
Message:
2 chuckventimiglia
"There should be just 1 way to rate teams." Wholeheartedly agree! One way, and such a one that wouldn't give advantage to the larger, the smaller, the fast-playing or the slow-playing. Otherwise people are bound to pick the one they like, if you ask me.
2 grandphish
I understand by "current system" you meant the Ladder when you mentioned 156 teams. That's only about one half of all active teams. I don't know if this sample is representative enough or not, but, for example, the team I'm in is not in the Ladder yet :) Anyway, if your analysis is correct, and the current Ladder rules do favor larger teams, then either the rules must be changed or ... hmm, smaller teams will be effectively driven out, looks like.
|
zmeyko
3/11/2007
17:27:30
[ report this post ] | A possible flaw...
Message:
in the Ladder system, noticed by my teammate docstrange - currently the outcome of a team match affects the standings after all games in the match are finished, instead of immediately after this outcome is determined.
Let's say team A occupies the top rung of the Ladder, and team B - the bottom rung. Let's say these teams are playing a 5 vs 5 match with each other. Let's say team B leads 8 to 1, with only one game remaining. If the remaining player of team B resigns immediately (even in a winning position), by the current rules, team B instantly goes halfway up the Ladder! If this player shows good sportsmanship and integrity and plays the game to its logical conclusion, there is a risk of team A losing another match (or several) in the meantime, thus diminishing the winning award for team B.
So perhaps the current rules should be changed so that the outcome of a team match affects teams' standings immediately after this outcome becomes clear. Unless I'm missing something :)
|
grandphish
3/12/2007
04:30:56
[ report this post ] | zmeyko
Message:
I thought perhaps you had discovered the reason for the ladder system favoring large teams, i.e. the sample was not representative and the smaller teams were not yet in the sample. It certainly sounded logical to me.
So I waited for more teams to enter the ladder. Now there are 257 teams in the ladder out of 310 or so teams. I have again divided the team ladder standing into quintiles, and here is the results:
top 1/5 - average team size 40.6 players
2nd 1/5 - average team size 29.0 players
3rd 1/5 - average team size 20.3 players
4th 1/5 - average team size 19.0 players
last 1/5 - average team size 17.3 players
I don't claim to know why, but the evidence seems irrefutable - the ladder system favors large teams.
|
zmeyko
3/12/2007
21:20:46
[ report this post ] | grandphish
Message:
Thank you for the analysis. It does seem irrefutable, if you ask me, the ratio you have found is as consistent as can be!
I see 3 options for small teams then: cease to exist as such, ignore the Ladder standings, or try and beat the odds. Truly, GK is a fascinating place! :)
|
heinzkat
3/15/2007
09:24:06
[ report this post ] |
Message:
The top teams are the most active ones. Look at the bottom teams, they just don't have an active team captain and consequently no team matches running. I think that's the main explanation.
|
chuckventimiglia
3/16/2007
13:23:43
[ report this post ] | A % won would not....
Message:
favor large, medium or small teams. Simply
one system that ranks teams by their win %.
Draws do not count for or against.
If a team wins 3 out of 4 games they would
have a .750 etc.
But this has been discussed ad infinitum. I never knew why
if we were adding or changing the way teams were ranked
why GK never adopted that system is beyond me to
understand.
So now you have a ladder system, plus other systems. Whichever
you like that is the one you look at. Seems ridiculous!!
A ranking by % Wins does not favor any team size or any
new team that may join in the middle of the year. They would
begin with the % of their wins.
Anyhow, I no longer play on any team because I never
could figure out the goal. Some say it is the nice to
be part of a team. Well I guess the same can be accomplished
by the Clubs that GK has. They have the option to have club games.
|
zmeyko
3/18/2007
00:49:16
[ report this post ] | Win percentage...
Message:
would be a perfect parameter of measuring team (or player) performance _only_ if applied to closure-oriented competition, like monthly tournaments or annual championship. Otherwise the eternal team king of GK would be a team which won its first 6 games and then quit... Well, perhaps it wouldn't be that radical, but you get the picture.
Actually seasonal team tourneys would be cool! Not sure how to implement them though...
Anyway, anyone else is interested in amending the Ladder rules as I described 6 posts up? Comments, corrections?
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
