New league forming, "The SEIV PBW League"

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
13 league members already. Woo Hoo!

Well, remember Gryph is an "honorary" player and respected map assistant. So, let's call it 12.... .

[geoschmo]

I have updated the Game specific rules section of the league rules page. Please let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any suggestions.

Geoschmo

[Stone Mill]

Well, I signed up.

I'm not sure about the managing of the whole challenge thing- it seems like the players at the top will be constantly hounded for matches, since a victory against them reaps the greatest incentive and progress.

I guess the deterrent is that someone at the bottom will probably get their glutes kicked by the top players; so it is best to be realistic with whom you challenge.

I'm hoping there is an indicator that is assigned to your profile that displays you as "looking for a match" as opposed to "on hold" ...or the likelihood is there that your mailbox will be constantly flooded with challenges.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Well, I signed up.

I'm not sure about the managing of the whole challenge thing- it seems like the players at the top will be constantly hounded for matches, since a victory against them reaps the greatest incentive and progress.

If it becomes a problem, or perceived in advance to be a potential problem, a simple rule (like we used to have in a chess ladder I belonged to) could be made that says challenges can't be made over two rungs above you.

Of course, since there doesn't seem to be a formal challenge type thing going on here, maybe it won't be a problem. It's a bit strange as in KOTH, you have no choice. You play who you are matched up against and other than saying you're taking a break, you WILL be playing.

Also, let's consider the guy who is 3rd on the ladder (wants a chance to advance). He's waiting to play the guy who is 1st (who is currently in a game) and also receiving requests from "below" from other people who see him "inactive".

[ August 06, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Slynky ]

[geoschmo]

Hounding the top players can be a problem with large leagues, and the simple solution there is that to officially challange one fo the top ten players you have to be in teh top 25 yourself.

The likely small number of members may make that solution unworkable, but I am hoping it prevents the problem as well. Time will tell.

Another thing to remember is because the league is small, and because Se4 games take so long to finish, you really have no exact idea what rank the player you are playing is going to be when teh game ends. You could be above him, but by the time the game finishes he could have leapfrogged you by beating players above you.

The other thing to remember is the rankings aren't going to be worth a lot as a comparative value until we get several results per person at least. At first the only thing a high rank will indicate is you were one of the first people to complete a game. I really shold have started this a year ago.

Geoschmo

[Stone Mill]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

The other thing to remember is the rankings aren't going to be worth a lot as a comparative value until we get several results per person at least. At first the only thing a high rank will indicate is you were one of the first people to complete a game. I really shold have started this a year ago.

Geoschmo

Any consideration to "grandfathering" in the KOTH win/loss stats? That would get things going...

Hey and what do you know... hmm... isn't this a coincidence??? I'm tied for most wins in KOTH...

[geoschmo]

Is this idea going to even work? I am having second thoughts I guess. Is a ladder format like this just unworkable for games that take as long as Se4? It's going to be so heavily skewed towards players that finish their games early in teh life of the league. Those that get the top spots early are going to be nearly impossible to dethrone, and those that get a late start will be stuck at teh bottom for a long time.

I am starting to rethink this league thing. Does anyone have any brilliant ideas that would make for a more competative and dynamic league?
And still allow for games of different sizes?

Geoschmo

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:

The other thing to remember is the rankings aren't going to be worth a lot as a comparative value until we get several results per person at least. At first the only thing a high rank will indicate is you were one of the first people to complete a game. I really shold have started this a year ago.

Geoschmo

Any consideration to "grandfathering" in the KOTH win/loss stats? That would get things going...

Hey and what do you know... hmm... isn't this a coincidence??? I'm tied for most wins in KOTH...

---

Hmmmm, then we need to do something about that..... :

Try these rankings by win percentage: (note * indicates less than 3 games played)

Rollo 5 5 0 100.00%
Mark 4 4 0 100.00%
BBegemott 2 2 0 100.00% *
Grandpakim 1 1 0 100.00% *
RexTorres 8 7 1 87.50%
Asmala 8 6 2 75.00%
Preacherman 4 3 1 75.00%
Grazic 4 3 1 75.00%
Georgig 4 3 1 75.00%
1FSTCAT 4 3 1 75.00%
Stone Mill 11 8 3 72.73%
Kazarp 12 8 4 66.67%
Slynky 6 4 2 66.67%
Krsqk 3 2 1 66.67%
Imperator Fyron 3 2 1 66.67%
Primitive 8 5 3 62.50%
Roanon 5 3 2 60.00%
Lord Chane 5 3 2 60.00%
Zarix 7 4 3 57.14%
Cheeze 9 5 4 55.56%
Geoschmo 11 5 6 45.45%
Sparhawk 9 4 5 44.44%
Tescosamoa 8 3 5 37.50%
Mathias_Ice 6 2 4 33.33%
GozGuy 6 2 4 33.33%
Pablo 3 1 2 33.33%
EMPerror 3 1 2 33.33%
Thermodyne 11 3 8 27.27%
Gandalph 11 3 8 27.27%
Phoenix-D 8 2 6 25.00%
Warlord Ragnarok 9 2 7 22.22%
Gecko 6 1 5 16.67%
Nodachi 6 0 6 0.00%
Dreiko 3 0 3 0.00%
Rambie 2 0 2 0.00% *
Quikngruvn 1 0 1 0.00% *
Parabolize 1 0 1 0.00% *
DarkHorse 1 0 1 0.00% *
CombatSquirrel 1 0 1 0.00% *
Chocolatefro 1 0 1 0.00% *
Tbontob 0 0 0 0.00% *
Taera 0 0 0 0.00% *
Rojero 0 0 0 0.00% *
Master Belisarius 0 0 0 0.00% *
Katchoo 0 0 0 0.00% *
Joachim 0 0 0 0.00% *
Deccan 0 0 0 0.00% *

[Chronon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Is this idea going to even work? I am having second thoughts I guess. Is a ladder format like this just unworkable for games that take as long as Se4? It's going to be so heavily skewed towards players that finish their games early in teh life of the league. Those that get the top spots early are going to be nearly impossible to dethrone, and those that get a late start will be stuck at teh bottom for a long time.

Geoschmo

Geo, I think your league idea is good as it stands!

It might be difficult for a newbie to climb the rankings, but not impossible. As long as the top players are relatively active, there will be chances for others to defeat them. And just one win in such a game could propel the newbie well up the ladder.

If we start having problems with entrenched players at the top, then perhaps we could go to winning percentage, or change the inactivity rules. But for now, why not go with your original idea, and adjust only if necessary?

[Slynky]

I suppose this is going to "freak" people out and have some say, "It's TOO complicated", but all it needs is a spreadsheet.

So, create the league. Everyone who joins gets a provisional (starting) rating (as described below...but it doesn't have to be 1,000).

Then calculate Ratings using the USCF method:
------------------------------------------------
First of all, a "rating" is a "Performance Average". USCF uses 2 formulas -- one for provisional Ratings and one for established Ratings. A provisional rating is given to a player who has played less than 20 rated games. If the player defeats an opponent, he gets the opponent's rating plus 400 points; if the player loses to an opponent, he gets the opponents rating minus 400 points; if the player draws with an opponent, he gets the opponents rating. (For calculation purposes, unrated opponents are considered by USCF to be rated 1000.) All of these numbers are added together and averaged, and that is the rating. Expressed mathematically, the formula is:

............W - L (400)
R = Y + -----------
..............G

Where R is the rating, Y is the average rating of all opponents, W is wins, L is losses, G is the number of games played. [NOTE: Each draw is equal to half-a-win plus half-a-loss.]

Once a player has played his 20th rated game, his rating becomes "established", and is calculated on a logarithmic scale called an "expectancy curve". The basic formula looks simple enough:

R = P + K(W - W')

R is the new (post-event) rating, P is the old (pre-event) rating, W is wins, W' is the "win expectancy", and K is a constant whose value depends on the player's rating (K=32 for 0-2099, K=24 for 2100-2399, K=16 for 2400-3000).

The formula for calculating the "win expectancy" is somewhat more complicated:

W' = 1 / {10 ^ [(y - x) / 400] + 1}

W' is the win expectancy, x is the player's rating, y is the opponent's rating. [NOTE: the little "^" indicates an exponent.]

For established Ratings, the points gained (or lost) depends on the rating difference between the two players but cannot be less than 1 point, nor more than 32 for any given game. If a player rated 1600 plays against an opponent rated 1500, the "win expectancy" is 0.640 -- meaning, in the long run, the 1600 player should win about 64% of the time against the 1500 player. Let's say for the sake of argument that the 1600 player defeats the 1500 player. How many points would he gain? Plug the numbers into the formula:

R = P + K(W - W')
R = 1600 + 32(1 - 0.64)
R = 1600 + 11.52
R = 1612

So the answer would be 12 points gained by the 1600 player, 12 points lost by the 1500 player.
-------------------------------------------------
Now, the provisional rating wouldn't necessarily be needed and we could go straight to the regular way of doing it.

Multiplayer games would have the new Ratings figured against everyone who played when the game was over. So, in a game with 4 people, the winner would do 3 computations using his rating -vs- the rating of the other 3. 2nd place would then do the same (winning against two people and losing against one).

Anyway, there's an alternate suggestion. And, it would be a simpe webpage to show.