22 coaches online • Server time: 07:57
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Theory-craft Leaguegoto Post On-spot substitution...goto Post Juggernaut as counte...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
SzieberthAdam



Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top

@thebursar: Yes RRR C tournaments are Minor/1/25-32. And IE might be the problem. Site was tested on Chrome and Firefox.

@Tricktickler: Thanks for the feedback. We could modify the points table to yield less points for minors.

Sonrises stacked up the wins and used a fixed pattern (0-10-45-90-180-360-720-1200-2000) plus an exotic bonus system. I dont say this full ATP point table is better than that but it could be adjusted to get better and it is transparent: one can predict how many point he could possibly get from the start.

There are hard situations: Death Guard Legion won WOC VI by winning 5 consecutive matches which is identcal to a bigger minor. Maybe they should be rewarded equally and sonrises almost did that: Death Guard Legion got 180 points + bonuses = 316 points for winnig a Major.

I felt like majors should scored higher than minors. Now that WOC VI worth 800 + 50 points.

Still lowering the rewards of minors (and thus, qualifiers) is a valuable suggestion.

I however don't believe in a system where there is an upper house of major winners and the rest goes to the lower house. In this game, luck is also a factor and we should reward the persistent good performance with at least the same weight as outstanding one-shot performances. So I still have the opinion that a potential top coach should have a very good minor record among some well done major results.

Even the best coaches usually fail in the first rounds of any majors. Still, there will be a major or two in a year where they can perform well and not more.

I don't like the concept of pinning those one-shot performances to the top for a year and not asking for anything else.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Last edited by SzieberthAdam on Jan 03, 2017 - 17:20; edited 5 times in total
pythrr



Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 17:04 Reply with quote Back to top

meh, all rankings are bollox

everyone knows [L] is where the real action is.

[L] for life

_________________
Image
Image
Verminardo



Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 17:31 Reply with quote Back to top

SzieberthAdam wrote:
I don't like the concept of pinning those one-shot performances to the top for a year and not asking for anything else.


Yeah this is a good point, a "Fumbbl Cup winner takes it all" situation is not desirable. And winning a four round Minor is not that easy. I think just tune down the three round Minors a little, though I fully take your point that it would be nice if the new ranking system gave a little boost to participation in the weekly formats.
Malmir



Joined: May 20, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 18:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Love the idea but at the moment all boxes are empty whether I click teams or coaches or whatever. The only thing I seem to be able to get is the page that explains the basic premise. Sounds like others are able to look at lists so what am I missing please? Keep the good work all involved as I love to see stuff like this on the site.
Verminardo



Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 18:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Are you perchance also using Internet Explorer Malmir?
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 19:23 Reply with quote Back to top

My 2 cents on this.

This first year I would not worry about the point system at all. Use the ATP scoring system and then evaluate what needs to be tweeked the following season.

Also the idea that you get more points, a few more, by losing in the first round of a brawl compared to a major, who cares.

ATP was a system that encouraged coaches to join all tournaments, regardless of size and points. Do you really think by changing up the points for a 1st round loss in a brawl compared to a major will encourage more coaches to play in majors? they get 8 more points in the ATP standings?

On the other hand did coaches flock to the Brawls/Smacks because they could garner more points for a first round loss? Did they even know this to begin with? Is there some git out there who earned a top 20 spot on the final standings last year because he lost in the first round in 10 smacks and that differential of points put him over the top?

The point of this: Do not worry about it. It is a side bar discussion that has 0 impact what so ever on a full year of tournament standings.

ATP worked perfectly fine for years. The coaches who care about this seemed to not complain.

The nice thing about this site upgrade will be that it might encourage more coaches to join the tournament scene at all levels.

_________________
Comish of the: Image
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 19:29 Reply with quote Back to top

pythrr wrote:

[L] for life


So at what point will I see you have retired all your R/B/S teams and live up to your moto of [L] for life?

Surprised Laughing Shocked Very Happy Wink

R/B/S is all bollocks I heard someone say, one time, well, maybe a few times over my 9+ years on this site.
Razz

_________________
Comish of the: Image
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 20:03 Reply with quote Back to top

SzieberthAdam wrote:

With losing in 10 brawls and doing nothing else currently you would end up around 150th. By winning FC alone, Nicodaz is at 23th.

And yes, majors yield smaller points first but a lot more later. And they have reserved slots so taking part in them is an only gain situation.

Maybe it was not a good idea to increase Initial points to 30 for a level 1 tournament.



Well, I think it was a good idea to raise the initial points to 30 for a Brawl/Smack. It encouraged coaches who care about these rankings to play in those tournaments.

Also lets just acknowledge one thing. Coaches who really care about these rankings will attempt to post scores across the board in all tournament action.

Most coaches, like myself, who do not participate in every Level 2 or 1 tournament will not reach their maximum point total possible.

This disparity is not caused by the # of points gained per tournament but a reflection of participation in the tournaments as a whole.

So the meta game for this ranking system is very easy. Apply every week to a brawl and smack, join every minor/XFL/RRR and apply to every R/B major. That way you have the best chance to post a very high ranking. If you get some luck and manage to win a few minors and a major, well, you are set.

But the system does allow a coach who does not do this to still have a chance at a high ranking on the performance in a few majors and minors and still post a respectable score.

So, it is not all about just flooding the Tournament scene and posting scores. At some point you do have to perform at a high level.

_________________
Comish of the: Image
SzieberthAdam



Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 20:20 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for your thoughts PainState!

My thinking was similar: Minor initial points do not matter for coach top 25 but they do for top 100 which could be also a nice target for many. And it could also matter for team top lists where majority of teams take part in 1-3 tournaments in a year instead of the possible 12.

Until today, a few cared to coach the top blackbox slann team which is currently yours, despite taking part in three tournaments only. I hope that there will be a higher competition for these places which implies less fluctuation of teams, and more familiar teams on long term. I hope that three tournaments wont be enough soon. And initial points could be a tool and an incentive here. They wont affect the coach top list but down there in the rosterial team rankings, they could be important.

_________________
ImageImageImage
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 20:21 Reply with quote Back to top

"Sonrises stacked up the wins and used an exotic bonus system"

Whatz?! What do you call "exotic bonus system"? All scientific stuff, young boy

Bah! Youngsters... back in my days... Wink

Pleasures of being retired from this...hehe...Really happy for warm wellcome to your Rankings Adam, keep it up and best of lucks.

P.D. If you ever need my opinion on any specific discussion...you know where to find me...but don't come too often as i might be busy lying on the beach!
SzieberthAdam



Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 20:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for your kind words mister, and best wishes to your RL stuff again!

_________________
ImageImageImage
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jan 03, 2017 - 23:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Excellent stuff SzieberthAdam, was wondering when this would re-appear in finished state after you posted a peek at it some time ago. Of course credit also to Sonrises, for the initial idea, persistence/devotion in carrying it out, and also I think for reaching out for help when he knew he could not continue - sometimes that in itself is hard enough.


Malmir: have you enabled cookies for the site? The github script seems to require them.

_________________
Image
Malmir



Joined: May 20, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 04, 2017 - 07:20 Reply with quote Back to top

I was on internet explorer - worked fine on a different browser.
SzieberthAdam



Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 04, 2017 - 07:42 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for the confirmation Malmir!

Known issues are now listed on the SR main page.

Fortunately I am not using Windows environments so I will not fix this myself.

Soon I will provide informations for developers who want to use the backend or the API, fix bugs or join with their projects.

_________________
ImageImageImage
zakatan



Joined: May 17, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 04, 2017 - 10:22 Reply with quote Back to top

I just stumbled on some funny stuff:

I was checking the Spanish best performers so I sorted coaches by "Number One Coaches by Total Number of Weeks". Rafadavila showed here with a solid 7th position and 32 weeks as #1. Then I checked by "Coaches at Top 3 by Total Number of Weeks" and the same rafadavila sports an impressive 159 weeks as top3 with a caveat:
best ranking: 2

So I'm not sure I'm reading this tables properly or maybe there is some kind of bug.

_________________
Image
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic