LA Robbie Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) OK, here's an idea. Don't know if it's easy to set up on the website, or a practical idea, but let me know what you think. 2 problems with "rookies": 1) Often have to wait for a tournament to come round & lose interest 2) Have to stay on the classic waiting list kicking their heels & lose interest 3) Enter a tournament they're not really ready for, get slaughtered in their first few games and give up on it. Also, for the rest of us there's a long time between classics, meaning months of exhibitions & just wanting the tournament to come round already!!!! So what if there were a "ladder system" tournament, for GENS & SNES which was always ongoing, that everyone could play whenever they so wished? Say there's, I don't know, 500 (just a random number) active GENS players in the community right now. They all register for the "Ladder League", and they get ranked 1-500, based on their classic records. So the Classic champ would start as No.1, runner-up as No. 2, losing semi-finalists as 3 & 4 etc etc etc. When a new guy joins he automatically gets added to the bottom of the list (In this case he'll be ranked 501st). Best of 5 series. Higher ranked player has home advantage. You can only play a guy a maximum of 10 ranking points higher or lower than you. Only the 2nd-5th placed guys can challenge the No.1. (This stops people challenging a high ranked player who's 100 places above them, winning through luck of the day and gaining 100 ranking points in one go, leaving a guy ranked far lower than he should be.) If you beat a higher ranked player you swap places with him. If you lose to a higher ranked player you lose one ranking place. You must play a lower ranked player at least once every 14 days. If you don't you lose 10 ranking places. You can use any team you want for a single series. You don't always have to be the same team every time you play, but you do have to use the same team for every game of the same series. There are no limits to how often you can play, but if you don't play for 3 weeks you get kicked out of the league. If you join again, you come in at the bottom. You can "book" a month off from the tournament each year without losing ranking places. You are not required to play during Classics if you're signed up for Classics, but you can play if you want to. Guys on the Classic waiting list can use the tournament to play competitive games, without having to get slaughtered by guys much more experienced than them in mismatch after mismatch, because they can only challenge those a maximum of 10 places higher than them in the rankings. Using this system there's always a competitive league of sorts running to keep people interested, and you've always got something to aim for in terms of improving your ranking. My question is: Is it easy enough to set up an automated system for this on the site, so that one guy doesn't have the responsibility of keeping track of it all, so, if you win a series both coaches input it on the 94online.com site and the rankings automatically update. The system would also have to prevent guys with differences of more than 10 places playing. .................It's a decent idea right? Edited August 2, 2011 by LA Robbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I think it's a great idea to have an ongoing ladder, but I'm not crazy about the "switch positions" way of ranking. One unlucky matchup and you can lose 10 spots. Sometimes a guy just has your number due to playing styles. I think it would be better to move guys up/down a certain number of places based on the relative places of the two players. If they are 10 spots apart and the lower guy beats the upper guy, maybe move them up/down 3 spots each. Or maybe move them both to the middle but put the winner above the loser. Another, more complicated, option is to use the chess Elo ranking system, which is a probability based system: http://en.wikipedia....matical_details In Elo, the average player will have a rating of about 1500. if a player with a rating of 1500 plays against a player with a rating of 1300 (200 points difference), then 75% of the time, the player with 1500 should win. A 200 point difference is equivalent to a 75% chance of winning. When you beat a player, you get some of their ratings points, and they lose some, based on some formula... EDIT: this could be automated on the site, given time (programming it up) and maintenance (adding new players..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 It would be interesting to also factor in which teams you are using to play with, so if you use a weaker team than the other guy, the reward for winning is greater. Another thing to keep in mind is that when it comes to playing league games, it would be necessary for the coaches to agree ahead-of-time if the game is going to count in the ladder rankings. It should count, but for whatever reason the coaches might not want it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Robbie Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) I think it's a great idea to have an ongoing ladder, but I'm not crazy about the "switch positions" way of ranking. One unlucky matchup and you can lose 10 spots. Sometimes a guy just has your number due to playing styles. Well I have no problem with your suggestion of a ranking system based on points etc, but I also like my idea because A) it's simple - "If I beat him i'll be 32nd" for example, like in boxing: "If I beat this guy i'm No.1 contender", "If I beat the champ, i'm the champ", but B ) because you can only challenge the guys ranked close to you (10 up, or 10 down) you don't lose or gain that much from a loss or a defeat, so if you win 1 just 'cos your style doesn't suit an opponent you may not continue progressing afterwards. If you lose one for the same reason you're still ranked around other similar level players and have the chance to quickly advance again. I also like that a new guy, who's an advanced player could quickly shoot up the rankings, by beating the guys above him, and not be having to play mismatches against other, less experienced noobs to build his ranking points up. It was basically meant to be a simple idea to get noobs playing competitive games without major pressure, to gain experience and stop them losing interest, and also a simple way to keep everyone ticking over & interested between Classics, as i'm just dying for it to start right now, and there's still like 6 weeks to go or something?!!! It wasn't meant to be a major important title that would be the be-all and end-all, but rather a way to play some competitive games between the ones that really do matter. Me, I like the "beat the champ to be the champ" way of doing things. It's clean and simple, and would be less set up I imagine? but hey, that's why I posted this. To start the debate. Comments appreciated. Edited August 2, 2011 by LA Robbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingraph Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 This, of course, would be great (along with updating the main page on the site). A paging system would be cool too. For example, instead of looking at my next 10 potential opponents and hoping I catch them online, I can click on their name and send a "request to play" or something, with some proposed times. I'll also be able to see received requests. This can also be used to monitor activity -- no responses to requests lower your ranking, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carse Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 ya I like the idea of being rewarded based on the team you use as well.. maybe if we ranked the teams in order of best to worst, with some teams being given the same rating if they are viewed as equal.. then factor that into the formula? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingraph Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 ya I like the idea of being rewarded based on the team you use as well.. maybe if we ranked the teams in order of best to worst, with some teams being given the same rating if they are viewed as equal.. then factor that into the formula? Good idea -- as an aside, it would be great to get a bunch of people to rank the teams (or top 15) and compile that data to see what the consensus says. Has this been done in the past? If not, I may do this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 ya I like the idea of being rewarded based on the team you use as well.. maybe if we ranked the teams in order of best to worst, with some teams being given the same rating if they are viewed as equal.. then factor that into the formula? I think that by using past gdl/blitz results and creating some Elo ratings (with the assumption that GDL teams are equal and Blitz teams are fairly equal), then creating Elo ratings with classic results, we could infer the relative strengths of the different teams. oh wait.. gdl results.. deleted.. We'd need separate Line Changes ON and Line Changes OFF ladders, due to depth differences in the teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Robbie Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Wow this is gettin complicated! lol. People's brains have reallt started ticking over as to the possibilities. In my idea it would just be playing classic rules, so as to prepare noobs, and everyone else ahead of classics. If the guy you're gonna play picks Edmonton & you go ahead and select Chicago he has the right to say "Hang on, i'm gonna change my team then, cos I don't like that match up & wouldn't want that to count to my ranking". I like how this has got people thinking, but for me I was just thinking purely of an easily accessible, easy to understand, straightforward ladder tournament to get new guys playing and up to speed, and experienced guys ticking over before classic seasons start. Maybe my idea works well for noobs and pre-classic warm-up, and there's the scope there for an extra something more full-on for you hard-core guys in addition too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 It could be possible to have both systems active at the same time. A challenge ladder, and Elo ratings. They could be programmed into one thing. For the normal ladder (not Elo ratings), then it could just take into account the teams to say how many spots you gain, and if you beat a guy above you, but you're using a better team, then obviously you shouldn't get to move ahead of him. You need to beat him with an equal or lower team to move ahead (although there could be some wiggle room, where if the teams are within 3 rankings of each other, it counts as an equal team). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingraph Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Based on the "Building Lines with AJ" rankings, I took AJ's ratings for forwards, defensemen, and goalies [i filled in QUE (6.5) and WSH (3.0) goalies as the write-ups are not complete], weighed them 3,2,1, respectively, and spit out this result. Just for fun: CHI 9.00 DET 8.75 BUF 8.25 MTL 7.67 CGY 7.67 VAN 7.42 TOR 7.42 BOS 7.33 DAL 7.25 WPG 6.92 QUE 6.75 EDM 6.42 LA 6.33 NYR 6.08 PHI 6.00 HFD 5.50 PIT 5.42 WSH 5.17 STL 5.17 NJ 5.00 NYI 4.75 SJ 3.58 TB 3.08 FLA 3.00 OTW 1.75 ANH 1.33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I also like that a new guy, who's an advanced player could quickly shoot up the rankings, by beating the guys above him, and not be having to play mismatches against other, less experienced noobs to build his ranking points up. If the site/algorithm could place new players fairly accurately, this wouldn't be a problem. Since Elo is probability-based, this isn't tough. If you win a series 3-2, then you start out with slightly more points than the guy you beat.. sweep him 3-0 then you start with around 200-250 points more than him. (since 200 points is equivalent to an expected winning chance of 75% each game, and a single sweep corresponds to having about an 80% chance of winning each game..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Based on the "Building Lines with AJ" rankings, I took AJ's ratings for forwards, defensemen, and goalies [i filled in QUE (6.5) and WSH (3.0) goalies as the write-ups are not complete], weighed them 3,2,1, respectively, and spit out this result. Just for fun: CHI 9.00 DET 8.75 BUF 8.25 MTL 7.67 CGY 7.67 VAN 7.42 TOR 7.42 BOS 7.33 DAL 7.25 WPG 6.92 QUE 6.75 EDM 6.42 LA 6.33 NYR 6.08 PHI 6.00 HFD 5.50 PIT 5.42 WSH 5.17 STL 5.17 NJ 5.00 NYI 4.75 SJ 3.58 TB 3.08 FLA 3.00 OTW 1.75 ANH 1.33 Good idea. I also have a set of stats based off me and a buddy playing with all the teams ~19 times each (we were going to do 25, to get all the matchups, but never ended up finishing the schedule): Team GP W(OTW) L OTL T PTS PTS% CHI 38 27(2) 9 1 1 56 0.737 MTL 38 26(2) 10 1 1 54 0.711 WPG 37 24(3) 11 1 1 50 0.676 DET 38 23(1) 13 1 1 48 0.632 EDM 38 23(3) 13 1 1 48 0.632 TOR 38 23(3) 14 0 1 47 0.618 BOS 38 20(1) 11 6 1 47 0.618 QUE 38 21(2) 14 2 1 45 0.592 DAL 38 21(1) 15 1 1 44 0.579 PIT 38 20(0) 15 2 1 43 0.566 PHI 38 19(2) 14 4 1 43 0.566 NYI 37 20(4) 16 1 0 41 0.554 VAN 38 20(4) 17 0 1 41 0.539 LA 38 19(3) 16 3 0 41 0.539 CGY 39 19(0) 19 1 0 39 0.500 WSH 39 18(4) 18 2 1 39 0.500 BUF 38 18(2) 19 1 0 37 0.487 SJ 37 16(3) 19 2 0 34 0.459 TB 38 16(0) 20 1 1 34 0.447 HFD 38 15(1) 19 2 2 34 0.447 STL 38 15(2) 20 3 0 33 0.434 NYR 37 14(2) 20 2 1 31 0.419 ANH 38 13(2) 22 2 1 29 0.382 NJ 38 12(2) 22 3 1 28 0.368 OTW 38 11(0) 22 3 2 27 0.355 FLA 40 10(1) 25 4 1 25 0.313 Funny thing you might notice is how low Buffalo is. They are notorious for having chemistry issues. However, when I split up the games into 3 'seasons', BUF is actually 5th in the 3rd season, so it seems we got much better with BUF as we became better players.. Here are the results if I weight the results 1/2/3 by 'season,' so the last season is worth 3 times as much as the first: Team GP Pts PTS% MTL 77 115 0.747 CHI 77 108 0.701 DET 77 104 0.675 WPG 74 98 0.662 TOR 77 97 0.630 BOS 77 96 0.623 EDM 77 96 0.623 QUE 77 91 0.591 DAL 77 89 0.578 PIT 77 89 0.578 PHI 77 87 0.565 VAN 77 83 0.539 NYI 74 79 0.534 BUF 77 81 0.526 WSH 80 84 0.525 LA 77 78 0.506 CGY 80 79 0.494 SJ 74 71 0.480 HFD 77 71 0.461 STL 77 70 0.455 TB 77 64 0.416 OTW 77 62 0.403 NYR 74 57 0.385 ANH 77 58 0.377 FLA 83 50 0.301 NJ 77 46 0.299 obvoiusly something funny is going on if NJ is last.. it could be that the matchups weren't totally fair (NJ played tougher teams in the 3rd season perhaps). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Robbie Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 It could be possible to have both systems active at the same time. A challenge ladder, and Elo ratings. They could be programmed into one thing. For the normal ladder (not Elo ratings), then it could just take into account the teams to say how many spots you gain, and if you beat a guy above you, but you're using a better team, then obviously you shouldn't get to move ahead of him. You need to beat him with an equal or lower team to move ahead (although there could be some wiggle room, where if the teams are within 3 rankings of each other, it counts as an equal team). I think it's fair just to say, if both players agree to play, it counts. Again, simple and accessible for the benefit of newbies. Don't scare people away with too many rules etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingraph Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Good idea. I also have a set of stats based off me and a buddy playing with all the teams ~19 times each (we were going to do 25, to get all the matchups, but never ended up finishing the schedule): Great stuff -- I like the idea of using actual game data to generate results. SOOOO, I took the results of the classic regular seasons (Spring'08 - Spring'11) and aggregated the data: Team GP W L T Win % NYI 40 29 11 - 0.725 CHI 491 340 151 - 0.692 MTL 392 240 150 2 0.612 DET 503 307 196 - 0.610 BUF 486 281 204 1 0.578 TB 98 54 43 1 0.551 VAN 474 256 217 1 0.540 BOS 333 178 155 - 0.535 LA 394 209 183 2 0.530 WSH 36 19 17 - 0.528 DAL 412 217 193 2 0.527 NYR 316 150 165 1 0.475 CGY 472 223 247 2 0.472 TOR 304 141 159 4 0.464 EDM 107 47 60 - 0.439 WPG 379 166 212 1 0.438 OTW 32 14 18 - 0.438 QUE 439 176 261 2 0.401 NJ 68 25 43 - 0.368 HFD 131 48 83 - 0.366 PIT 312 112 200 - 0.359 SJ 145 48 97 - 0.331 STL 171 49 122 - 0.287 PHI 253 71 181 1 0.281 ANH 38 8 30 - 0.211 FLA - - - - - It's pretty obvious that the NYI are the best team in the league . That was one season played by IceStorm, a top ranked A player (lost in semis to Carse's CAL). Not surprisingly, the expected teams are on top (CHI, MTL, DET, BUF). Smoz, looks like Buffalo is just not for you . TB has two seasons, played by AngryJay and Zalex. I like TB a lot too, and would have expected them to be higher than their rankings suggest. Also interesting to note is CAL. I personally never do well with them, even though they are one of the better teams in the league, but I'm surprised they have a losing record. I guess it's just not me who doesn't do well with them. Edited August 3, 2011 by kingraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRoBob38 Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Let's just use the BCS Ranking system. That way there's no controversy at all Edited August 3, 2011 by PRoBob38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Let's just use the BCS Ranking system. That way there's no controversy at all Is that a handegg thing? How does it work? This "BCS explained" page totally did nothing for me even on wikipedia: "This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the section" EDIT: now realizing you were probably being sarcastic and BCS is known to be controversial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRoBob38 Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) It's a college "handegg" system that they use to determine rankings. It's extremely controversial and just about everybody hates it. It's what they use instead of playoffs... There are different "polls" that determine the rankings of teams. There's a computerized ranking system, and then I think the media poll and the coaches poll factors in as well. In other words, personal opinion and bias largely determines who the "best" team is. EDIT: AH, you got me on the edit... Edited August 3, 2011 by PRoBob38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Robbie Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 OK, here's an additional idea: Newbies automatically enter the ladder in the "C" division. Other guys are ranked in "A" or "B" divisions, depending on their classic records. Once in the top 10 of your division you can challenge players in the bottom 10 of the division above. Once you've won 2 series against 2 different higher division players you can join that division. There's no relegation though, so a "B" player who loses to a "C" player doesn't become a "C" player. Once you're considered a "B" player. or an "A" player you're always in that division for competitive games. A "B" player can't challenge a "C" player to a competitive game just to try to beat up on someone. Only the top 10 "C" players can challenge the bottom 10 "B" players. This way newbies start out only playing against newbies, and there's a clear "achievement" you have to gain to move up to playing tougher games regularly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I like it. There may be group 'inflation', though, since you can never go back down from a higher level to a lower level. might have to occasionally move the 'A' bar up so 'A' doesn't get too crowded and 'B' too small. Oh, and I'd say you have to win 2 out of your last x series (x=5?) to move up, not just 2 ever. however, this requires some history-keeping, adding some complication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRoBob38 Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 So this for everybody? I was thinking it was just for rookies. That makes things much more complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Robbie Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 So this for everybody? I was thinking it was just for rookies. That makes things much more complicated. For everybody, but with the aim of easily integrating newbies into online play. But it doesn't need to be complicated. Those vets that want something with complicated formulas and ratios and team ratings are welcome to push for it, but i'm just looking for a way that helps new guys practice, improve & stick it out until they reach a competitive level of play, like we did. I just wanna see a "beat him, swap places" system that new guys can use to enjoy playing, against their own level, and progress. Nothing fancy, nothing complicated, nothing that needs mountains of commitment, just a pick up & play, "hit this guy up for a game" type of thing that keeps new guys excited about playing 'cos they're not getting blown out of the water every game, and keeps the rest of us ticking over between classics. The only exception I like is the idea of divisions for the varied skill levels, and guys have to win a couple of series against a guy from the division above in a set amount of times to progress to the next division. Lets make it happen. I really think the community would benefit greatly & grow through this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingraph Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 I feel like the divisions would be redundant. One ladder, where you can challenge the 10 guys ahead of you is simple enough and self-dividing. Wouldn't divisions just be drawing lines in the ladder? The added work for creating and maintaining divisions doesn't seem to equal the benefit. Then again, I'm no programmer...so maybe its easier than I imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRoBob38 Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 Yeah, I kinda agree with the idea of just doing one giant ladder rather than using the different divisions. If some new guy comes in and is a world beater, let him work up the ladder as quickly as he can. Like kingraph said, seems like the divisions are just dividing the ladder and not really serving much purpose otherwise. Just my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcicon5148 Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 time to bring back those "belt challenges" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.