64 coaches online • Server time: 00:37
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Hourly box activatio...goto Post CR system math detai...goto Post FUMBBL Cup XVI: Pick...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Do i set up a maximum of tourneys that count per coach/team and year?
Yes! 12 tourneys per coach and year it is enough
23%
 23%  [ 11 ]
Yes but i think the number of tournaments that count should be...
23%
 23%  [ 11 ]
No! leave it like it is now
21%
 21%  [ 10 ]
TOP25? Ranks? what the hell you are talking about? leave me alone!
31%
 31%  [ 15 ]
Total Votes : 47


sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 15:10 Reply with quote Back to top

**edit 24th June 2515

Hi all,

I have been contacted several times and kindly asked to explain the point allocation criteria for the TOP 25 rankings.

1. FUMBBL OFFICIAL TOURNAMENTS that qualify for the rankings are split in 4 categories as follows:

**FUMBBL CUP...Tier 1 tournament
**MAJORS...Tier 2 tournaments. This include WO, UI, GLT and LCH in Ranked division and WoC, BC and CoS in Box division.
**MINOR SERIES...Tier 3 tournaments. This include XFL and Ranked Minor in [R] division and Box Minor in Box division.
**STANDARD MINORS...Tier 4 tournaments. This include SMACK, Scheduled SMACK, RRR in [R] division and BRAWLS in Box division

9-0...FUMBBL CUP...2230 pts
9-0...MAJOR...2130 pts
9-0...XFL/B/R minors...2080 pts
***
8-0...FUMBBL CUP...1436 pts
8-0...MAJOR...1336 pts
8-0...XFL/B/R Minors...1286 pts
8-1...MAJOR...1246 pts
8-1...XFL/B/R minors...1241 pts
***
7-0...FUMBBL CUP...956 pts
7-0...MAJOR...856 pts
7-0...XFL/B/R minors...806 pts
7-1...MAJOR...766 pts
7-1...XFL/B/R minors...761 pts
***
6-0...FUMBBL CUP...596 pts
6-0...MAJOR...496 pts
6-0...XFL/B/R minors...446 pts
6-1...MAJOR...406 pts
6-1...XFL/B/R minors...401 pts
***
5-0...MAJOR...316 pts
5-0...XFL/B/R minors...266 pts
5-0...RRR...216 pts
5-1...MAJOR...226 pts
5-1...XFL/B/R minors...221 pts
***
4-0...XFL/B/R minors...158 pts
4-0...RRR...108 pts
4-0...BRAWL...108 pts
4-1...MAJOR...118 pts
4-1...XFL...113 pts
4-1...RRR...90 pts
***
3-0...XFL/B/R minors...95 pts
3-0...RRR/SMACKS/BRAWLS...54 pts
3-1...MAJOR...55 pts
3-1...XFL/B/R minors...50 pts
3-1...RRR/BRAWLS...45 pts
***
2-0...RRR/SMACKS/BRAWLS...15 pts
2-1...MAJOR...20 pts
2-1...XFL/B/R minors...15 pts
2-1...RRR/SMACKS/BRAWLS...10 pts


Last edited by sonrises on Jun 24, 2015 - 11:12; edited 5 times in total
uzkulak



Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 15:16 Reply with quote Back to top

12 seems like a very large number - active players get rewarded ahead of winning players with that many IMO - better off with 6.
SzieberthAdam



Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 15:18 Reply with quote Back to top

My opinion:

No limits on results.
FC should worth 2000 point no matter what. That is our Grand Slam!

_________________
"I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asketh: 'Am I a dishonest player?' - for he is willing to succumb."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra's Discourses, 4.
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 16:11 Reply with quote Back to top

uzkulak wrote:
12 seems like a very large number - active players get rewarded ahead of winning players with that many IMO - better off with 6.


Thx for the comments.

I thought of 8 too as this is the number of MAJORS we have per year. To go below that i don't like it because:

1. No All MAJORS would count.
2. If the limit is too low , this will benefit Coaches getting good MAJOR performances and limit the value of playing MINORS. And i really like the idea that all this motivate people to play more minors and not just the Majors.

Cya.
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 16:18 Reply with quote Back to top

SzieberthAdam wrote:
My opinion:

No limits on results.
FC should worth 2000 point no matter what. That is our Grand Slam!


Hi Adam!

Thx for the comments.

I really think that some limit should be in place. I voted 12 per year myself, but it is only my opinion and that's why this poll.

FC: I think i agree with you. i should value FC more. It is our "Grand Slam" Tourney. teams coming from Ranked and Box. this tournament it is Special and should be rewarded as that.

I won't change the point allocation system which it is based on wins but i can change the BONUS for winning. Let me give it a thought.

Cya.
DrDeath



Joined: Mar 27, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 17:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Yes you should definitely control number of tournaments - otherwise the rankings will be heavily biased towards players who just have the time to play in many tournaments, and be of little relevance/interest to players who can only enter the odd one.

Besides having a limit, why not work out the average points scored per tournament entered? That would be fair, provided you ALSO have a minimum number of tournaments played(otherwise somebody could enter 1 or 2, get a bit lucky in winning one and score way ahead of where they should be!).
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 17:06 Reply with quote Back to top

Yeah 8 max is good for all the majors.

_________________
Image
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 17:14 Reply with quote Back to top

The question is what you want:
- more games played (then no limit)
- measure skill level (then limit)

_________________
Image
"This is turning into the best thing on FUMBBL" - Seventyone
"THIS LEAGUE IS AWESOME!!!!" - Kummo
"Last league i would leave." - SpecialOne
BlueDevil420



Joined: Dec 19, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 17:29 Reply with quote Back to top

I voted for no limit, but I can see the sense in limiting it to a max of 8 for the majors. Guess I should have read first, then voted Wink
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 22:56 Reply with quote Back to top

DrDeath wrote:
Yes you should definitely control number of tournaments - otherwise the rankings will be heavily biased towards players who just have the time to play in many tournaments, and be of little relevance/interest to players who can only enter the odd one.

Besides having a limit, why not work out the average points scored per tournament entered? That would be fair, provided you ALSO have a minimum number of tournaments played(otherwise somebody could enter 1 or 2, get a bit lucky in winning one and score way ahead of where they should be!).


Hi,
Thx for you comments.
Average points scored per tournament entered: it is an interesting idea but not workable. The workload would be massive and out of my reach with the resources at my disposal.
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 23:42 Reply with quote Back to top

bghandras wrote:
The question is what you want:
- more games played (then no limit)
- measure skill level (then limit)


Hi,

Thx for the comments.

More gasmes played, it is important.

Measure skill level:It is not my point in doing all this.
How to explain this? Let me try. Maybe i am selling the whole idea very badly. Do you know the HUMAN LEAGUE PREMIERSHIP for example? They tell you, play human teams in the box and we keep track of your results. If you interested check our page and you will see how you stand against the other human teams.
This ranking idea pretends something like that. I try to convey this idea. Do you like to play Official tournaments? do you want to add fun to it?. Then, i will keep track of results. Take it as joining another league in fumbble where you don't need to apply. Just play official tournaments whenever you like and check the rankings thread from time to time to see where you stand against other coaches and teams.

If i am asking wheather to limit or not number of tournaments counted it is to find a score system that it is regarded as fair for all the coaches interested in joining this "League".

In any case i pretend the rankings to become a measure of skill as if this happen it would fail completly.

In one post, someone wrote and i fully agree with him: "this rankings are not telling you who the best coach is, they tell you what coach has done better this year in the official tournaments.That simple"

Thx again for your comments. I took the chance after your entry to try to explain this rankings better to everybody courious or interested in them. So double thx to you.

cya
Cocinero



Joined: Sep 14, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 14, 2013 - 23:57 Reply with quote Back to top

I think , because you're already inspired in the ATP ranking, that you could use their quota system. i.e. Include de FC, the best two Ranked Majors, the best 2 Box Majors, the 4 best SMACKS and so on. Obviously this numbers are just un example. Doing that, you could also take de Grand Slam point for the FC, the master for the majors, and so on.
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 15, 2013 - 00:17 Reply with quote Back to top

Cocinero wrote:
I think , because you're already inspired in the ATP ranking, that you could use their quota system. i.e. Include de FC, the best two Ranked Majors, the best 2 Box Majors, the 4 best SMACKS and so on. Obviously this numbers are just un example. Doing that, you could also take de Grand Slam point for the FC, the master for the majors, and so on.


Hi there,

Really good point there! I will really look into it.

Thx a lot.
sonrises



Joined: May 02, 2013

Post   Posted: Dec 15, 2013 - 11:20 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi there,

One last try before i let this post die! Wink

So far, i can conclude from the results that:

1. Some sort of limit should be in place to balance the weight of MAJORS and MINORS in the final results and in doing so avoiding that ones or the others weight too much.
2. FUMBBL CUP should weight more than any other tournament.
3. could it be a solution to mimic 100% the ATP Rankings?

So, if you interested in joining this "league", please express your opinion today.

cya.
Rabe



Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2013 - 00:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Cocinaro's suggestions sounds good to me! It's not easy to win several of the minors, so getting there would still motivate coaches to join a lot of them. Pretty much everyone would have a chance to improve by entering more majors (except for those back-to-back winners early in the year... but they have deserved it and will probably apply to the others anyway.
It's also nice for coaches that don't have vast amounts of time at their disposal, since getting good results in all tournament categories is still in reach. And once you have reached the optimal ranking in one of those categories, it also takes the pressure off a bit. I really like that.

_________________
.
Image 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
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits