Rankig of Vtes Debate

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Hi My name is Israel Barbero, I´m from Madrid (Spain).
I guess that Ranking of Vtes hasn´t a really utility. In fact I will
ask you. what do you make with the ranking?. In other games, the best
ranking players, may access a closed torneys, won a lot money, free
travel and material of the game. But in Vtes?. In deed which is the
finality of ranking of Vtes?
Must we always thinking in grew up the game. For it, it´s necessary
to increase the sponsor of championship on vtes
Finally I meet your opinion over Ranking of Vtes.
Thanks and best reguards
182 answers Last reply
More about rankig vtes debate
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    kanglor wrote:

    > I guess that Ranking of Vtes hasn´t a really utility.

    Like what? It tells you how good people are relative to each other. What
    else should it do?

    > In fact I will
    > ask you. what do you make with the ranking?. In other games, the best
    > ranking players, may access a closed torneys, won a lot money, free
    > travel and material of the game.

    Well, this isn't one of those games. When you play VTES tournaments, you
    don't win ten thousand dollars, either. We have a ranking system 'cause
    people like seeing how they are doing compared to other good players around
    the world. Other than that, I'm unconvinced that a ranking system should do
    anything else.

    >But in Vtes?. In deed which is the
    > finality of ranking of Vtes?
    > Must we always thinking in grew up the game. For it, it´s necessary
    > to increase the sponsor of championship on vtes

    We have plenty of players and high profile, very successful contental
    championships. I'm not quite sure what else you are looking for, or how the
    ranking system wold do this. As it stands, the ranking system is a fun
    adjunct to the game, which is fine.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
    news:BF068966.20DBC%pdb6@lightlink.com...
    > kanglor wrote:
    >
    >> I guess that Ranking of Vtes hasn´t a really utility.
    >
    > Like what? It tells you how good people are relative to each other.

    Not really. Since access to tournaments is a huge issue in getting
    a high "ranking" number, it doesn't really say that much about how
    good players are, let alone how good they are relative to each other.

    Basically, it's a system for putting a number of some sort on how
    well you've done in how many tournament in the last 18 months.
    Little more.

    > What else should it do?

    Well, being called a ranking, some people might think it really
    _should_ tell you how good people are, releative to each other.
    But that debate is over.

    Fred
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In honesty, I'm not sure why the top X rated players don't get an
    invite to the appropriate championship tournament. Would it kill
    anyone if the top five or ten rated players in North America were
    invited automatically to NAC? I really don't see that as being an
    issue. Additionally, this would have the added benefit of encouraging
    people to run sanctioned tournaments, and I can't see a down side to
    that.

    TTFn
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "The Kaiser" <aleistre@stny.rr.com> wrote in message news:1122065110.799214.234820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > In honesty, I'm not sure why the top X rated players don't get an
    > invite to the appropriate championship tournament. Would it kill
    > anyone if the top five or ten rated players in North America were
    > invited automatically to NAC?

    It would be unfair. Some players play in areas where many tournaments
    are held, and hence have a leg up on building up a larger 'rating'
    number. Some players don't.

    Fred
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
    > news:BF06CBBF.20DD5%pdb6@lightlink.com...
    > > Frederick Scott wrote:
    > >
    > >> Not really. Since access to tournaments is a huge issue in getting
    > >> a high "ranking" number, it doesn't really say that much about how
    > >> good players are, let alone how good they are relative to each other.
    > >
    > > I dunno--I mean, like, access to tournaments is certainly a big factor (i.e.
    > > someone who wins 1 big tournament is going to have a smaller rating than
    > > someone who, like, attends 100 tournaments and gets a VP here and there),
    > > but overall, players that are good (who have ratings) have high ratings.
    > > Players who are less good have lower ratings.
    >
    > The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    > don't rank. Period. Even if there is some correlation between high
    > skill and high ratings. It's like saying you've invented a 'speedometer'
    > whose position on the gauge is determined in large part by how light
    > it is outside. There may still be a major element of the speed of the
    > car involved in its behavior but I sure wouldn't use it to figure out
    > if I was breaking the speed limit or not.
    >
    > A speedometer measures ONLY speed, not speed and light. Player rankings
    > are determined ONLY by player skill, not player skill and how many
    > tournaments they've attended.

    I think Fred is correct. ELO ratings handled this aspect well
    (downsides to ELO have more to do with resources required to maintain
    them). The current system's downside is that it doesn't solely measure
    skill. On the other hand, the current system has a lot to offer with
    respect to relatively easy maintenance. Also, a system that rewards
    attendance tends to attract attendees. :) I'm content with the curent
    system until such time that WW is filthy rich from the sale of the
    television rights to the *V:TES Superstars International* pro
    tournament series--then they can spring for a proper rating system! :)

    -Robert
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:

    > Not really. Since access to tournaments is a huge issue in getting
    > a high "ranking" number, it doesn't really say that much about how
    > good players are, let alone how good they are relative to each other.

    I dunno--I mean, like, access to tournaments is certainly a big factor (i.e.
    someone who wins 1 big tournament is going to have a smaller rating than
    someone who, like, attends 100 tournaments and gets a VP here and there),
    but overall, players that are good (who have ratings) have high ratings.
    Players who are less good have lower ratings.

    > Basically, it's a system for putting a number of some sort on how
    > well you've done in how many tournament in the last 18 months.
    > Little more.

    Sure. But there is still a certain amount of reativity involved.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
    news:BF06CBBF.20DD5%pdb6@lightlink.com...
    > Frederick Scott wrote:
    >
    >> Not really. Since access to tournaments is a huge issue in getting
    >> a high "ranking" number, it doesn't really say that much about how
    >> good players are, let alone how good they are relative to each other.
    >
    > I dunno--I mean, like, access to tournaments is certainly a big factor (i.e.
    > someone who wins 1 big tournament is going to have a smaller rating than
    > someone who, like, attends 100 tournaments and gets a VP here and there),
    > but overall, players that are good (who have ratings) have high ratings.
    > Players who are less good have lower ratings.

    The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    don't rank. Period. Even if there is some correlation between high
    skill and high ratings. It's like saying you've invented a 'speedometer'
    whose position on the gauge is determined in large part by how light
    it is outside. There may still be a major element of the speed of the
    car involved in its behavior but I sure wouldn't use it to figure out
    if I was breaking the speed limit or not.

    A speedometer measures ONLY speed, not speed and light. Player rankings
    are determined ONLY by player skill, not player skill and how many
    tournaments they've attended.

    Fred
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 22 Jul 2005 07:45:45 -0700, kanglor <asakoisra@yahoo.es> wrote:

    > Hi My name is Israel Barbero, I´m from Madrid (Spain).
    > I guess that Ranking of Vtes hasn´t a really utility. In fact I will
    > ask you. what do you make with the ranking?.

    Nothing really. In your local playgroup you already know who is good
    and who is not. The benefit of the ranking system IMHO is that if you
    aspire for a higher ranking, you need to attend more tournaments
    and - more importantly - always play to win. With larger events, it
    at least makes a difference between 0/0 and 1/9; neither will make
    the finals, but at least one earns you a few shiny points to make
    you feel better.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:

    > The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    > don't rank. Period.

    I guess the pertinent question then becomes, "Why is anyone bothering
    with a "ranking" system at all?" It seems rather like painting pictures
    for the blind or singing to the deaf...both are noble endeavours
    perhaps, but in the end they amount to very little.

    TTFn
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "The Kaiser" <aleistre@stny.rr.com> wrote in message news:1122079924.302370.130170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Frederick Scott wrote:
    >
    >> The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    >> don't rank. Period.
    >
    > I guess the pertinent question then becomes, "Why is anyone bothering
    > with a "ranking" system at all?" It seems rather like painting pictures
    > for the blind or singing to the deaf...both are noble endeavours
    > perhaps, but in the end they amount to very little.

    Well, gee...good question.

    To be fair, people had their reasons when it was still open for debate.
    I'm probably not the one to relate them since I wasn't in agreement and
    didn't understand the mentality that well, myself. I do recall a lot of
    people seemed mesmerized by the fact that under this system, there is an
    encouragement to attend as many tournaments as you can. Of course, if
    in doing so, the system becomes totally bogus and everyone stops caring
    about it BECAUSE it's totally bogus, then you lose the incentive you
    sought to gain from crafting a system that way. So I guess it depends
    on your attitude about why the rating and ranking numbers should be
    meaningful to people.

    Fred
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <aGdEe.46097$4o.43681@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott
    <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
    >The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    >don't rank. Period. Even if there is some correlation between high
    >skill and high ratings.

    You're arguing against a point that no-one is making. No-one is saying
    that, top to bottom, the rankings rank everyone accurately.

    Why dispute a point that isn't being made?

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:R3nnrO6JAX4CFwCP@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
    > In message <aGdEe.46097$4o.43681@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott
    > <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
    >>The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    >>don't rank. Period. Even if there is some correlation between high
    >>skill and high ratings.
    >
    > You're arguing against a point that no-one is making. No-one is saying
    > that, top to bottom, the rankings rank everyone accurately.
    >
    > Why dispute a point that isn't being made?

    Peter DID say that, way back when. ("It tells you how good people are
    relative to each other.") Of course, he didn't say quite as precisely
    as you did; I suppose there are nuances and everything. But, in
    essence, he did claim that the VEKN rankings actually rank people.

    Fred.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > ...the system becomes totally bogus and everyone stops caring
    > about it BECAUSE it's totally bogus...

    That doesn't seem to be the case, considering that people apparently
    disagreed with you when the system was implemented and are disagreeing
    with you now.

    John Eno
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122103589.522852.95270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Frederick Scott wrote:
    >> ...the system becomes totally bogus and everyone stops caring
    >> about it BECAUSE it's totally bogus...
    >
    > That doesn't seem to be the case, considering that people apparently
    > disagreed with you when the system was implemented and are disagreeing
    > with you now.

    You are completely changing the apparent meaning of what I wrote above
    by snagging a very misleading group of words egregiously out of context.

    The WHOLE quote reads, "I do recall a lot of people seemed mesmerized by
    the fact that under this system, there is an encouragement to attend as
    many tournaments as you can. Of course, if in doing so, the system becomes
    totally bogus and everyone stops caring about it BECAUSE it's totally
    bogus, then you lose the incentive you sought to gain from crafting a
    system that way. So I guess it depends on your attitude about why the
    rating and ranking numbers should be meaningful to people."

    If you want to engage in constructive debate, please be more care about
    your choice of quotes. This kind of thing just leads to snarky, vacuous,
    one-upmanship.

    Fred
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Peter DID say that, way back when. ("It tells you how good people are
    > relative to each other.") Of course, he didn't say quite as precisely
    > as you did; I suppose there are nuances and everything. But, in
    > essence, he did claim that the VEKN rankings actually rank people.

    Well to be honest, the ranking system does, in a way, actually *rank*
    people. Whereas I certainly agree the top 10 ranked may not actually be the
    top 10 best players, consider the following.

    Playing more tournaments, does make you a better player due to experience.
    You play more different people, learn to adept your deck to a local
    metagame, learn to talk yourself through tables with people you hardly know.
    It's a whole different ballgame than games with the local playgroup. Just
    looking at myself I pretty much own our local group regardless of what
    everyone plays. That doesn't make me an awesome tournament player.
    Especially the first couple were a tough learning experience.

    I attended a few more, got better, learned the above aspects and in all it
    made me a better player, as is being reflected by the ranking system.
    Judging from this place, the players I met at various tournaments it puts me
    around where I think I should be at this time.

    Finally, good players are also very involved in 'The Scene'. I meet people
    at tournaments that have made a 4 or 5 hour trip to be there. I've made a 3
    hour trip in the other direction so in effect our local groups are about 800
    km apart. For European standard, that's quite a distance. Good players DO
    play a fair share of tournaments, even if they're not conveniently organized
    at a 15 minute trip's distance. In fact, playing all those tournaments is
    what made them such good players in the first place.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Izaak havelaar klg nl>" <i<dotatdot> wrote in message news:42e1902c$0$9693$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl...
    >> Peter DID say that, way back when. ("It tells you how good people are
    >> relative to each other.") Of course, he didn't say quite as precisely
    >> as you did; I suppose there are nuances and everything. But, in
    >> essence, he did claim that the VEKN rankings actually rank people.
    >
    > Well to be honest, the ranking system does, in a way, actually *rank* people. Whereas I certainly agree the top 10 ranked may not
    > actually be the top 10 best players, consider the following.

    No, the ranking system does *not* "rank" in any way. The definition of
    ranking is *exactly* "placing the top 10 players (and all the other players
    it purports to rank) in their correct order of preference".

    Why do people keep trying to make lame excuses for this system? Just accept
    it: the VEKN ranking system doesn't rank. ("It doesn't rank them in house;
    it doesn't rank them with a mouse...") I mean, this is the system people
    wanted, assuming the VEKN conclave discussion of the matter was any
    indication. And I talked about this minor l'il problem until I was blue in
    the face at the time but this was the system most of them wanted. That's
    fine. But let's accept what it really does and doesn't do in all honesty.

    Fred
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:

    > Why do people keep trying to make lame excuses for this system? Just accept
    > it: the VEKN ranking system doesn't rank.

    Well, semantically speaking, it does rank players. It gives them a score,
    and places them in order according to that score (i.e. placing them in a
    rank order. Man. Say "rank" a lot. Just try it. It's kinda wacky...).

    That you don't think that the score it gives them is an accurate indication
    of players skill is mostly irrelevant to the system. It gives people scores,
    and ranks them accordingly.

    I suspect, in the long run, that the correlation between being highly ranked
    and being a good player is a healthy one, but certainly there is error in
    there, to the point that I certainly agree that it would be bad to give
    people prizes or invites or whatever based on the current ranking system
    (well, ok, I'd be prefectly happy with people getting, like, a cool free
    promo for getting a rating of X points or something which could be just as
    much a reward for playing a lot as it would be for being good, but I
    wouldn't want anyone getting anything significant based on the curent rating
    system) as access to tournaments is certainly a significant issue.

    But then, looking at the top 10 players in the system, you got:

    -Ben Peal (certainly a very good player. If not arguably the best)
    -Jay Krystoff (certainly a very good player)
    -Matt Morgan (also certainly a very good player)
    -Stefan Ferrenci (he won a European Championship, right?)

    And then a bunch of people I don't recognize one way or the other. But even
    then, I'm certainly willing to give the system the benefit of the doubt and
    buy into the idea that the relationship between a high VEKN ranking and play
    skill is probably a reasonable one, if certainly a flawed one.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
    news:BF075713.20E07%pdb6@lightlink.com...
    > Frederick Scott wrote:
    >
    >> Why do people keep trying to make lame excuses for this system? Just accept
    >> it: the VEKN ranking system doesn't rank.
    >
    > Well, semantically speaking, it does rank players. It gives them a score,
    > and places them in order according to that score

    OK, sure. You got me. It does rank people according to their "rating"
    score. It's just that their "rating" scores don't correlate to player
    skill in the way people tend to assume.

    > That you don't think that the score it gives them is an accurate indication
    > of players skill is mostly irrelevant to the system.

    Well tell that to the players. The thing _looks_ like a system for rating
    and ranking player skill and players tend to assume it is. If it's just something
    that invents arbitrary points, awards them, and ranks people by how many arbitrary
    points they get, it should be more honest. It should come up with some kind of
    whack name for the points or something to make it clear they have no direct
    correlation to skill rating/ranking or anything else. (Like call them "Dingo-Dango
    Points" or "Captain Bob Points" or "Weiner Polishing Points" or something. I don't
    care.)

    > I'm certainly willing to give the system the benefit of the doubt and
    > buy into the idea that the relationship between a high VEKN ranking and play
    > skill is probably a reasonable one, if certainly a flawed one.

    I'm not. The people you mentioned, though they may be incredible players, just
    aren't being compared apples-to-apples with any other players. No one is. You
    can't say anything from the scores because their significance is completely
    ambiguous.

    Fred
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > No, the ranking system does *not* "rank" in any way. The definition of
    > ranking is *exactly* "placing the top 10 players (and all the other players
    > it purports to rank) in their correct order of preference".

    So you think, it is possible to divide between top player and skill on
    the one side and atenndance on the other. What system could rank
    players without their attendance at tournaments?

    The actual system ranks players after their playing in tournaments.
    Your top 10 player, if he doesnt go to tournaments, will not be ranked.
    Where is the problem? So skill is only represented in the ranking
    system by showing that skill on many tournaments.

    Yes, i know, the system is not able to differentiate between different
    tournaments. So to be first in a twelve player tournament with bad
    players is ranked the same place as a twelve player tournament with
    good players. But because "bad" or "good" cannot be measured, if those
    players dont play together in one tournament, thats absolute valid.

    So the existing ranking system ranks players by the places they make in
    tournaments. What else should it do?
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Robert Goudie wrote:
    >
    > > The current system's downside is that it doesn't solely measure
    > > skill.
    >
    > That's okay because VTES doesn't rely solely on skill.
    >
    That's not a good way to think about it.

    Just because a game doesn't solely reward skill doesn't mean its okay
    to add in additional non-skill factors into a perfect rating system.
    Games that have luck involved (say Poker for example) can be accurately
    rated and over enough time, the luck evaporates and you are left with a
    rating that ranks people based on skill.

    Again, like in Poker, an amateur can get lucky and win a VTES
    tournament against high-caliber players--even the NAC. But over the
    course of 1000 NACs, we'd be damned sure the player who won 200 of them
    is a great player.

    Like in Poker, the luck eventually evaporates and the most skilled can
    be identitied. But just because there's some luck involved in Poker,
    doesn't mean it would be okay to add in attendance into a ranking of
    the world's best poker players based on the rational that its okay
    because "Poker doesn't rely solely on skill".

    All that said, let me say again that I'm talking about a perfect rating
    system run by a company with a lot of financial resources. I think the
    current rating system is great for where we are now in that it has some
    correlation to skill and is easy to maintain.

    -Robert
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Finally, good players are also very involved in 'The Scene'. I meet people
    > at tournaments that have made a 4 or 5 hour trip to be there. I've made a
    > 3 hour trip in the other direction so in effect our local groups are about
    > 800 km apart. For European standard, that's quite a distance.

    Ha, Ha, Ha!

    800 km= "Quite a Distance" roflol

    Keep them coming. This is hysterical.


    --
    Comments Welcome,
    Norman S. Brown, Jr
    XZealot
    Archon of the Swamp
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <%ffEe.46407$4o.39219@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott
    <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
    >Peter DID say that, way back when. ("It tells you how good people are
    >relative to each other.") Of course, he didn't say quite as precisely
    >as you did; I suppose there are nuances and everything. But, in
    >essence, he did claim that the VEKN rankings actually rank people.

    And in the following post, he wrote:

    I dunno--I mean, like, access to tournaments is certainly a big
    factor (i.e. someone who wins 1 big tournament is going to have
    a smaller rating than someone who, like, attends 100 tournaments
    and gets a VP here and there), but overall, players that are
    good (who have ratings) have high ratings. Players who are less
    good have lower ratings.

    Thus acknowledging the problems of the system, but pointing to a general
    correlation (which you admitted was possible).

    Continuing to dispute the original point when it has already been
    conceded is, uh, odd. Trying to point out that there might only be a
    correlation (and not a strict ranking) when that has already been
    conceded is similarly odd.


    Consider:

    A: Well, it ranks people.
    B: No it doesn't.
    A: Well, yeah, there are problems, so it's not exact, but it sort of
    works as a rough measure, if you bear the problems in mind.
    B: IT DOESN'T RANK PEOPLE ACCURATELY. WHY ARE YOU SAYING IT DOES?

    See how weird this looks?

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:1jgueTKUjf4CFwnN@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
    > In message <%ffEe.46407$4o.39219@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott
    > <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
    >>Peter DID say that, way back when. ("It tells you how good people are
    >>relative to each other.") Of course, he didn't say quite as precisely
    >>as you did; I suppose there are nuances and everything. But, in
    >>essence, he did claim that the VEKN rankings actually rank people.
    >
    > And in the following post, he wrote:
    >
    > I dunno--I mean, like, access to tournaments is certainly a big
    > factor (i.e. someone who wins 1 big tournament is going to have
    > a smaller rating than someone who, like, attends 100 tournaments
    > and gets a VP here and there), but overall, players that are
    > good (who have ratings) have high ratings. Players who are less
    > good have lower ratings.
    >
    > Thus acknowledging the problems of the system, but pointing to a general
    > correlation (which you admitted was possible).
    >
    > Continuing to dispute the original point when it has already been
    > conceded is, uh, odd.

    No it's not. You're paraphrasing my objection to his reply and using
    an oversimplification of the exchange to wave your hand over any need
    to reply to it. You're entitled to your opinion about whether I had
    cause to continue it at that point but I'm entitled to mine. And
    since I did, I guess you know where I stand. In my book, it's far
    more bizarre to be picking a fight over that.

    > Consider:
    (James paraphrase ellided.)
    > See how weird this looks?

    Since I don't agree with how you've summarized things, it doesn't matter.

    Fred
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122103589.522852.95270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Frederick Scott wrote:
    > >> ...the system becomes totally bogus and everyone stops caring
    > >> about it BECAUSE it's totally bogus...
    > >
    > > That doesn't seem to be the case, considering that people apparently
    > > disagreed with you when the system was implemented and are disagreeing
    > > with you now.
    >
    > You are completely changing the apparent meaning of what I wrote above
    > by snagging a very misleading group of words egregiously out of context.
    >
    > The WHOLE quote reads, "I do recall a lot of people seemed mesmerized by
    > the fact that under this system, there is an encouragement to attend as
    > many tournaments as you can. Of course, if in doing so, the system becomes
    > totally bogus and everyone stops caring about it BECAUSE it's totally
    > bogus, then you lose the incentive you sought to gain from crafting a
    > system that way. So I guess it depends on your attitude about why the
    > rating and ranking numbers should be meaningful to people."

    That is definitely a danger in systems that reward something other than
    skill. I'd say the current system has been pretty successful at
    correlating to skill and hasn't become completely irrelevant on a large
    scale due to its rewarding of attendance. Sure, *you* probably don't
    look at it but it seems to be interesting to enough people.

    -Robert
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Robert Goudie wrote:

    > The current system's downside is that it doesn't solely measure
    > skill.

    That's okay because VTES doesn't rely solely on skill.

    Matt Morgan
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:08:19 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
    wrote:

    > Frederick Scott wrote:
    >
    >> Why do people keep trying to make lame excuses for this system? Just
    >> accept
    >> it: the VEKN ranking system doesn't rank.
    >
    > Well, semantically speaking, it does rank players. It gives them a score,
    > and places them in order according to that score (i.e. placing them in a
    > rank order. Man. Say "rank" a lot. Just try it. It's kinda wacky...).

    ....which isn't really what the original question was about. It ranks them,
    but that ranking obviously has more to do with tournament attendance than
    play skill. The fact that tournament attendance is somewhat related to
    player skill in a very indirect way does not change that the system does
    not rank players according to skill.

    [snip]

    > And then a bunch of people I don't recognize one way or the other. But
    > even
    > then, I'm certainly willing to give the system the benefit of the doubt
    > and
    > buy into the idea that the relationship between a high VEKN ranking and
    > play
    > skill is probably a reasonable one, if certainly a flawed one.

    I don't think the question is whether there are certain correlations
    between skill and rank. I'm saying that for the ranking system to be
    credible, it should be accurate. The current system is not a *ranking*
    system in the original sense; it is more like a reward *system* that
    hands out shiny points to those who attend tournaments a lot.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
    news:1122133982.320039.254320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    > Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
    >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Robert Goudie wrote:
    >>
    >> > The current system's downside is that it doesn't solely measure
    >> > skill.
    >>
    >> That's okay because VTES doesn't rely solely on skill.
    >>
    > That's not a good way to think about it.
    >
    > Just because a game doesn't solely reward skill doesn't mean its okay
    > to add in additional non-skill factors into a perfect rating system.
    > Games that have luck involved (say Poker for example) can be accurately
    > rated and over enough time, the luck evaporates and you are left with a
    > rating that ranks people based on skill.
    >
    > Again, like in Poker, an amateur can get lucky and win a VTES
    > tournament against high-caliber players--even the NAC. But over the
    > course of 1000 NACs, we'd be damned sure the player who won 200 of them
    > is a great player.

    The real factor is that the guy is 1000 years old since the NAC is only held
    once a year, and not only has he participated in 1000 of them, this guy has
    won 200 of them. :)


    --
    Comments Welcome,
    Norman S. Brown, Jr
    XZealot
    Archon of the Swamp
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel wrote:

    > ...which isn't really what the original question was about. It ranks them,
    > but that ranking obviously has more to do with tournament attendance than
    > play skill.

    Well, not really so much. You get:

    -5RP's for showing up to a tournament.
    -4RPs for every VP you score.
    -8RPs for every game you win.
    -90RPs (adjusted for players over or under 15) for every tournament you win.

    So while you do get points for just showing up, it is only 5 points.
    Assuming a 15 player, 3R+F tournament, the person who wins that is going to
    get, what, like, 163 RPs (4 rounds, 3 GW, 11 VPs--not an unreasonable record
    for winning such a tournament), including the 5 points just for showing up.
    So while someone could theoretically make up for bad performance by just
    going to a lot of tournaments, you'll have to go to 32 tournaments to make
    up for not winning that 1.

    So while I agree that the 5 points just for showing up certainly has some
    sort of effect on the rankings, it is much less that most of y'all seem to
    think it does.

    > The fact that tournament attendance is somewhat related to
    > player skill in a very indirect way does not change that the system does
    > not rank players according to skill.

    It ranks them according to total RP's. And there is certainly going to be a
    healthy correlation between total RP's and player skill. Yes, again, I
    accept that the 5 point bonus just for showing up has an effect on the
    validitiy of player rating vs player skill, say, Bean Peal isn't the number
    1 player in the world simply 'cause he showed up to 308 tournaments.

    > I don't think the question is whether there are certain correlations
    > between skill and rank. I'm saying that for the ranking system to be
    > credible, it should be accurate. The current system is not a *ranking*
    > system in the original sense; it is more like a reward *system* that
    > hands out shiny points to those who attend tournaments a lot.

    But again, the points you get for showing up are negligible compared to the
    points you get for winning a tournament.

    For arguments sake, I'll assume you get 150 points for winning a tournament
    (not an unreasonable base assumption). If you win 4 tournaments, you have
    600 points. Your friend, who goes to the same 4 tournaments, averages 2 VP's
    a tournament yet never wins a game is going to have 52 points. Does this
    somehow invalidate the 600 points you get for winning the 4 tournaments?

    I mean, like, again, yeah, you do get free points just for showing up. But
    they are pretty insignificant compared to the points awarded overall for
    playing well--showing up is basically just giving each player a free VP for
    playing in the event. Which is pretty insignificant, in a statistical sense.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > But then, looking at the top 10 players in the system, you got:
    >
    > -Ben Peal (certainly a very good player. If not arguably the best)
    > -Jay Krystoff (certainly a very good player)
    > -Matt Morgan (also certainly a very good player)
    > -Stefan Ferrenci (he won a European Championship, right?)
    >
    > And then a bunch of people I don't recognize one way or the other.

    I recognize the rest in the top 10:

    -Ruben Vidana Ramos, 2004 European Champion, scourge of Spain
    (he's about to be the #1 ranked player in the world, once one of
    my old tournament wins drops off)
    -Ruben Van Cauwenberghe, 2004 EC finalist, won 2 qualifiers last year
    -David Armaing, 2004 French National Champion, not affectd by 3GW
    curse
    -Martin Weinmayer, top notch and well-traveled player from Austria
    (I heard he also won a European Championship in the days before
    qualifiers and continental championships, anyone have info on this?)
    -Hugh Angseesing, 2002 UK National Cup winner, current scourge of UK
    -Gines Quinonero, madman trying to bring about the apocalypse from
    his
    remote island, won the Spanish qualifier this year

    > But even then, I'm certainly willing to give the system the benefit of the
    > doubt and buy into the idea that the relationship between a high VEKN ranking
    > and play skill is probably a reasonable one, if certainly a flawed one.

    Yeah, you can endlessly argue the particulars of who should be ranked

    where, but there's no doubt in my mind that the people listed in the
    top 10 or even the top 50 are all very skilled players.


    - Ben Peal
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Robert Goudie wrote:
    > Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
    > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Robert Goudie wrote:
    > >
    > > > The current system's downside is that it doesn't solely measure
    > > > skill.
    > >
    > > That's okay because VTES doesn't rely solely on skill.
    >
    > That's not a good way to think about it.
    >
    > Just because a game doesn't solely reward skill doesn't mean its okay
    > to add in additional non-skill factors into a perfect rating system.
    > Games that have luck involved (say Poker for example) can be accurately
    > rated and over enough time, the luck evaporates and you are left with a
    > rating that ranks people based on skill.
    >
    > Again, like in Poker, an amateur can get lucky and win a VTES
    > tournament against high-caliber players--even the NAC. But over the
    > course of 1000 NACs, we'd be damned sure the player who won 200 of them
    > is a great player.
    >
    > Like in Poker, the luck eventually evaporates and the most skilled can
    > be identitied. But just because there's some luck involved in Poker,
    > doesn't mean it would be okay to add in attendance into a ranking of
    > the world's best poker players based on the rational that its okay
    > because "Poker doesn't rely solely on skill".

    Um. I don't want to either run this analogy off the tracks or get too
    argumentative... but... :-)

    I really suspect that poker DOES in effect use attendance in its
    rankings. Golf too. Aren't these games typically ranked by money won
    per year and such? In both games, tournament purses usually vary based
    on the number of participants, don't they? (Especially in poker, where
    the purses are funded by the entry fees of the players themselves.)

    But even disregarding that, I would probably argue that VTES shouldn't
    be taken so seriously as to make a really sophisticated ranking system
    all that useful. In my experience, especially at the more competitive
    level, VTES is very much a game of manipulating perceptions and other
    players' actions, rather than a game of what's in the rulebook and on
    the cards. That part of the game (in my opinion) isn't worth rating.
    (And again IMO, isn't all that much fun to play, or maybe I'm just
    tired of playing it. :-)

    That is, it's not just luck that confounds VTES ratings. It's also
    random player behavior and skills that aren't the ones you're trying to
    rate. (Well, or maybe they are skills you also want to rate...)


    Josh

    check-folding my way to victory
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > "The Kaiser" <aleistre@stny.rr.com> wrote in message news:1122079924.302370.130170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Frederick Scott wrote:
    > >
    > >> The fact that access is a big factor at all means that the 'rankings'
    > >> don't rank. Period.
    > >
    > > I guess the pertinent question then becomes, "Why is anyone bothering
    > > with a "ranking" system at all?" It seems rather like painting pictures
    > > for the blind or singing to the deaf...both are noble endeavours
    > > perhaps, but in the end they amount to very little.
    >
    > Well, gee...good question.
    >
    > To be fair, people had their reasons when it was still open for debate.
    > I'm probably not the one to relate them since I wasn't in agreement and
    > didn't understand the mentality that well, myself. I do recall a lot of
    > people seemed mesmerized by the fact that under this system, there is an
    > encouragement to attend as many tournaments as you can. Of course, if
    > in doing so, the system becomes totally bogus and everyone stops caring
    > about it BECAUSE it's totally bogus, then you lose the incentive you
    > sought to gain from crafting a system that way. So I guess it depends
    > on your attitude about why the rating and ranking numbers should be
    > meaningful to people.

    You're such the contrarian, Fred. :-)

    I don't think the ratings are totally bogus. Such as they are. Yeah,
    they're not perfect,but having seen them in operation for a while, I
    think they are pretty good. They reflect, to a large extent, who the
    good players are, because good players win tournaments (and that's most
    of what the points get awarded for). And they win reasonably large
    numbers of tournaments, because good players almost all participate in
    tournaments pretty regularly.

    Sure, it's a priori possible that a really great player only gets to
    play in one tournament a year and will therefore never crack the top 10
    of the rankings. But I find it "somewhat unlikely" that this is
    actually happening.


    Josh

    not a coinflip situation
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    kanglor wrote:

    > Hi My name is Israel Barbero, I´m from Madrid (Spain).
    > I guess that Ranking of Vtes hasn´t a really utility.

    Well, it is a useful to see which players have won more
    tournaments in the last 18 months.

    > In fact I will
    > ask you. what do you make with the ranking?. In other games, the best
    > ranking players, may access a closed torneys, won a lot money, free
    > travel and material of the game. But in Vtes?. In deed which is the
    > finality of ranking of Vtes?

    I agree with you that it would be nice that the top ranked players
    got something else for being top ranked. But I strongly disagree on
    giving them money rewards, since playing for money would not make games
    fun, nor would it keep the current good mood in tournament play.

    Here is a list of some of the "prizes" that could be awarded to the
    top ranked players without ruining the fun:

    - Automatically qualifying for any Continental Championship
    - More VTES cards (promo cards, factory sets, booster packs, etc.)
    - VTES art
    - T-Shirts
    - Any other WW products...

    [...]

    --
    Damnans

    http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
    http://www.vtes.net
    http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:

    > OK, sure. You got me. It does rank people according to their "rating"
    > score. It's just that their "rating" scores don't correlate to player
    > skill in the way people tend to assume.

    Well, depends on what people assume. As I poitned out earlier, yes, you are
    correct that a high VEKN Rating does not *necessarily* equate high player
    skill--you could, theoretically, get a rating of 1000 by showing up to 200
    tournaments and yet not scoring a VP. But that is really unlikely. And the
    points you get for actually winning an event (about 150 for a 15 person 3R+F
    tournament) *vastly* outweigh the piddling 5 points you get for just showing
    up. I mean, like, yeah, it is certainly a factor to an extent, but probably
    not so much to declare the whole system null and void as a way to judge
    players relative to each other.

    > Well tell that to the players.

    Hey! Players! You reading this?


    > The thing _looks_ like a system for rating
    > and ranking player skill and players tend to assume it is.

    The rules (i.e. how rankings are determined) are clear as day and easy to
    find. And if you read them, you discover that:

    A) You get a lot of points for winning events, winning games, and getting
    VP's.

    B) You get a few token points just for showing up.

    So yes, still, the "free points for showing up" have an effect on your
    score, it doesn't have that much of an effect on your rank.

    Making up a random test guy who goes to 4 tournaments (all 15 people for the
    sake of argument) in a given year:

    Tournament 1: 3R+F. Guy gets 1 GW and 4 VPs. Total of 29 RPs
    Tournament 2: 3R+F: Guy gets 2 GW, 6 VPs, 3rd in final. Total of 75 RP's
    Tournament 3: 3R+F: Guy gets 1 VP. Total of 9 RP's
    Tournament 4: 2R+F: Guy gets 3 GW, 10 VP's, Wins final. Total of 159 RP's

    In those 4 tournaments, he's getting a total of 272 RP's, of which 20 are
    just from showing up. Which is, what, 7% of his total score.

    Is a rating system that is affected that little by the "just showing up"
    points that invalid as a way to measure relative player skill? I mean, yeah,
    another guy could just go to 55 tournaments, not score a single VP, and have
    a higher total of RP's. But that is *really* unlikely to happen.

    > If it's just something that invents arbitrary points, awards them, and ranks
    > people by how many arbitrary points they get, it should be more honest.

    But you *mostly* get he points by winning games and tournament--if, like,
    you got 5 points for winning a tournament and 100 just for showing up, then
    yeah, I'd see where you were coming from. But it isn't like that.

    Again, yes. The free "I just showed up" points have an effect on the
    validity of the rating system as a measure of player skill. But hardly a big
    enough one to justify throwing the whole thing out in a conceptual sense.


    > I'm not. The people you mentioned, though they may be incredible players,
    > just aren't being compared apples-to-apples with any other players. No one
    >is. You can't say anything from the scores because their significance is
    > completely ambiguous.

    But it isn't *completely* ambiguous. It is mostly a score based on winning
    games, VP's, and tournaments (the most concrete measure of player skill we
    have available). And it is slightly a measure of how often you can show up
    at tournaments. But I'd be willing to gamble that given a player with a high
    rating, like, less than 10% of their RP's are the result of "just showing
    up" and the rest of them are from winning stuff.

    I mean, like, yeah, when you get to the bottom of the rankings, the "just
    showing up" points become far more significant. But really, no one is that
    concerned about the validity of the scores of number 1203 and 1204, who both
    have 20 RP's.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Anthony Coleman wrote:

    > A player can easily be 'the best in his backyard' and amass a huge
    > amount of rating points, but be, relative to another playgroup, a poor
    > player.

    True. But highly unlikely. Unless they play in lots and lots of local,
    sanctioned tournaments vs the exact same really bad players over and over
    again are they going to amass a high score based on dubious opposition. But:

    -If everyone in the group is playing that much, someone *has* to be getting
    better.
    -You get more points for winning bigger tournaments.
    -You get more points for winning qualifiers.

    I mean, yeah, ok, it is possible that there is a group of exactly 15 players
    somewhere who play sanctioned tournaments on an otherwise deserted island
    every week, and the same dude wins every single tournament, giving that guy
    a huge score when, in fact, he is a very bad player who is playing against
    total idiots all the time. But it seems unlikely enough a situation to worry
    about it and how it affects the overall validity of the rating system.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    jtduffin@yahoo.com wrote:

    >
    > ...Sure, it's a priori possible that a really great player only gets to
    > play in one tournament a year and will therefore never crack the top 10
    > of the rankings. But I find it "somewhat unlikely" that this is
    > actually happening...

    And we flash to South Africa where we have access to maybe 3-4
    tournamnets per year. Total. Now if the points were weighted percentage
    wise towards the number of average VP/GW per Tournament, then maybe a
    somewhat truer picture would appear. Take for example the recent
    tournament at ICON. Jan has been playing for one year, and in that time
    he built the most evil bloody Ven deck you will ever see. (till
    legacies maybe...) It's called the three cheeses, and this thing,
    RATES. Now if an additional area could be added where the author's of
    tournament winning decks got allocated additional VP's for their deck
    being used, sort of like a "royalty" payment, that might be fairer.

    The problem with the rating is that internationally you cannot compare
    tournament ratings. On national or bloc scales, maybe.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    fudjo wrote:

    > Yeah, you can endlessly argue the particulars of who should be ranked
    > where, but there's no doubt in my mind that the people listed in the
    > top 10 or even the top 50 are all very skilled players.

    Which is a very reasonable assesment. In the end, the "top 10 players in the
    world" are unlikely to be rated like that due to playing the rating system
    (i.e. they aren't the "top 10 players in the world" by virtue of simply
    showing up to 300 tournament, getting the free points, but never winning
    anything), but far more likely to actually be the best (recognized) players
    in the world.

    I mean, yeah, as Ben points out, there is certainly wiggle room for who is
    *actually* the number 1 (or 3 or 5 or whatever) player at a given moment,
    but considering the way VTES works (i.e. you can't just claim "I'm the best
    player in the world" by working your way, win by win, to a final duel vs the
    current best player in the world, like this is Yu Gi Oh or whatever), a
    system that recognizes player skill (primarily) yet is slightly affected by
    punctual attendance seems a perfectly reasonable system. Especially if said
    system encourages tournament attendance.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:31:07 -0400, Peter D Bakija
    <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

    >you could, theoretically, get a rating of 1000 by showing up to 200
    >tournaments and yet not scoring a VP.

    No, you cannot.

    Only your best 8 tournaments scores are used.
    Otherwise the Tatus and I would be unassailable.

    "No more than 8 tournaments will count toward a player's rating. "

    and

    "For players who play in more than 8 tournaments during a given 18
    month period, only the 8 best tournament results for that player in
    that 18 month period are used."


    Everyone in this thread should really go read the system under
    discussion, as it is clear you do not understand it.


    Carpe noctem.

    Lasombra

    http://www.TheLasombra.com

    Your best online source for information about V:TES.
    Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
    of booster and starter box displays.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:38:18 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
    wrote:

    > Daneel wrote:
    >
    >> ...which isn't really what the original question was about. It ranks
    >> them,
    >> but that ranking obviously has more to do with tournament attendance
    >> than
    >> play skill.
    >
    > Well, not really so much. You get:
    >
    > -5RP's for showing up to a tournament.
    > -4RPs for every VP you score.
    > -8RPs for every game you win.
    > -90RPs (adjusted for players over or under 15) for every tournament you
    > win.
    >
    > So while you do get points for just showing up, it is only 5 points.
    > Assuming a 15 player, 3R+F tournament, the person who wins that is going
    > to
    > get, what, like, 163 RPs (4 rounds, 3 GW, 11 VPs--not an unreasonable
    > record
    > for winning such a tournament), including the 5 points just for showing
    > up.

    Meaning, on the average, if you're no worse than the next John, you win
    roughly every 15th 15-player tournament.

    If you attend 5 tournaments in the 18-month period, you get like half of
    what another player who attends 10 tournaments gets. On the average, of
    course. Are you twice as skillful? No. You just attended twice as many
    tournaments.

    The 5 points have almost nothing to do with this issue. If you are a
    player with mediocre skill, and somehow manage to attend an infinite
    number of tournaments during the 18-month period, you are likely going
    to maximize your RPs and rank before every player who attends a finite
    number of tournaments. On the other hand, if you are a player with
    infinite skill, but attend no tournaments, you will not be ranked high.
    Even if you attend a single medium-sized tournament, and score 4/20,
    you'll not be ranked at the top.

    > So while someone could theoretically make up for bad performance by just
    > going to a lot of tournaments, you'll have to go to 32 tournaments to
    > make up for not winning that 1.

    Assuming you never ever score anything. VTES isn't like that. I've had,
    for example, a game once where I swept the table (1 GW, 5 VPs) without
    successfully playing a single card. My political actions were blocked,
    my Master cards were Sudden Reversed, but I still managed to reap each
    VP because I was completely disregarded as a threat, and my preys each
    made at least one critical mistake (like forgetting the "+1 bleed"
    written on my vampire simply because she never bled before in the game),
    allowing me to oust them.

    This is not the typical VTES game. But it is possible. So are less
    cornercase, more likely scenarios where mediocre player skill can hand
    you a table after more skillful players deplete their resources.

    > So while I agree that the 5 points just for showing up certainly has some
    > sort of effect on the rankings, it is much less that most of y'all seem
    > to think it does.

    Again, it's not really the 5 points.

    >> The fact that tournament attendance is somewhat related to
    >> player skill in a very indirect way does not change that the system does
    >> not rank players according to skill.
    >
    > It ranks them according to total RP's. And there is certainly going to
    > be a healthy correlation between total RP's and player skill.

    The correlation is rather indirect. Players who attend more tournaments
    will probably be better players, if for naught else than the extended
    exposure to the game.

    > Yes, again, I
    > accept that the 5 point bonus just for showing up has an effect on the
    > validitiy of player rating vs player skill, say, Bean Peal isn't the
    > number
    > 1 player in the world simply 'cause he showed up to 308 tournaments.

    Well, he certainly wouldn't be the #1 player if he didn't go to a lot
    of tournaments. Also, if the system rated his worst performances, for
    example, instead of his best, he might still not be the best player
    out there. I'm not saying, that he, for example, is not a good player.
    He is definitely a good player. But he also attends a lot of tournaments.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel wrote:

    > Meaning, on the average, if you're no worse than the next John, you win
    > roughly every 15th 15-player tournament.

    Ok.

    > If you attend 5 tournaments in the 18-month period, you get like half of
    > what another player who attends 10 tournaments gets. On the average, of
    > course. Are you twice as skillful? No. You just attended twice as many
    > tournaments.

    Huh. Now you are wandering off into a completely different school yard that
    is in no way a problem with the rating system.

    Yes. If you go to more tournaments than someone, you get more rating points.
    That is 'cause you get rating points for going to tournaments. But, like, in
    pretty much any rating system, you do better by playing in more tournaments.
    'Cause that is how ratings systems work.

    Are there examples of games with rating systems that *don't* benefit players
    by virtue of them playing in a lot of tournaments? That aren't single
    elimination games? I mean, like, yeah, Chess uses a system that gives you
    points based solely on the quality of the opponents you beat, and playing a
    lot doesn't have any effect on your rating, and if you walk in cold off the
    street, get a Chess Federation (or whatever) membership, sit down for your
    first tournament, and beat the best player in the world, you rating goes up
    a lot like crazy. Sure. But Chess is a one on one game which can work like
    this. VTES? Not so much.

    > The 5 points have almost nothing to do with this issue.

    Ok.

    > If you are a
    > player with mediocre skill, and somehow manage to attend an infinite
    > number of tournaments during the 18-month period, you are likely going
    > to maximize your RPs and rank before every player who attends a finite
    > number of tournaments.

    True. But no one goes to an infinite number of tournaments. No one even goes
    to a close to infinite number of tournaments. I'd guess that no one can even
    successfully average more than a tournament a week, as there just aren't
    that many tournaments.

    And even if a completely mediocre player goes to 52 tournaments a year, and
    scores 1 VP per tournament, they are going to get 468 points. A really good
    player who goes to only 2 tournaments a year (a qualifier and the
    contenental championship) and wins them both is going to get more than 468
    points in any case.

    > On the other hand, if you are a player with
    > infinite skill, but attend no tournaments, you will not be ranked high.

    There is no way, using the rules of VTES, to avoid this. In any system, you
    only get rankings by going to tournaments. I accept that the flaw of this
    system is that if the best player in the world never plays in any
    tournaments, we have no way to know that he is the best player in the world.
    That is a flaw I can live with.

    > Even if you attend a single medium-sized tournament, and score 4/20,
    > you'll not be ranked at the top.

    But you'll be ranked higher than average players who play a reasonable
    number of tournaments and do mediocre. I think the number of people in the
    system who have artifically large rating scored due to going to an
    inordinate number of tournaments even though they generally do poorly is
    small enough to be statistically insignificant.

    I do think, however, that the people who tend to go to a lot of tournaments
    also tend to do pretty well, such that going to a lot of tournaments
    certainly contributes to their high player rating, but so does their winning
    a lot.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > <invisiblekingdom@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122103589.522852.95270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Frederick Scott wrote:
    > >> ...the system becomes totally bogus and everyone stops caring
    > >> about it BECAUSE it's totally bogus...
    > >
    > > That doesn't seem to be the case, considering that people apparently
    > > disagreed with you when the system was implemented and are disagreeing
    > > with you now.
    >
    > You are completely changing the apparent meaning of what I wrote above
    > by snagging a very misleading group of words egregiously out of context.

    No. I was removing excess verbiage in order to get directly to the
    point I was trying to make. I accidentally removed too much.

    > The WHOLE quote reads, "I do recall a lot of people seemed mesmerized by
    > the fact that under this system, there is an encouragement to attend as
    > many tournaments as you can. Of course, if in doing so, the system becomes
    > totally bogus and everyone stops caring about it BECAUSE it's totally
    > bogus, then you lose the incentive you sought to gain from crafting a
    > system that way. So I guess it depends on your attitude about why the
    > rating and ranking numbers should be meaningful to people."

    And the only part that I wanted to reply to was your assertion that the
    system is totally bogus and everyone has stopped caring about it
    because it is bogus. The preceding and succeeding sentences didn't seem
    to be germane to that point. I was tired and missed the "if," which
    certainly the meaning of what you wrote.

    > If you want to engage in constructive debate, please be more care about
    > your choice of quotes. This kind of thing just leads to snarky, vacuous,
    > one-upmanship.

    That certainly wasn't my intent; my apologies if you feel like the
    quotation I used misrepresented you.

    John Eno
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    The Lasombra wrote:

    > No, you cannot.
    >
    > Only your best 8 tournaments scores are used.
    > Otherwise the Tatus and I would be unassailable.

    Huh. See, I thought you kept your points as time went along, and the "only 8
    tournaments a year" rule did, well, something I didn't quite understand.

    > Everyone in this thread should really go read the system under
    > discussion, as it is clear you do not understand it.

    Hmm. Well, I think I probably understand it better than most other folks
    involved in the discussion. As I read the rules a couple times over today
    :-)

    I guess I just didn't fully understand that part.

    So basically, the whole "more access to tournaments means higher rating" is
    null and void after, say, 8 tournaments a year--if you play 8 tournaments a
    year and do well, you aren't going to be ranked poorly against someone who
    plays 40 tournaments a year and is mediocre. As only 8 tournaments count in
    any case.

    Yes, if you only get to play in one tournament a year, you are never going
    to do as well as someone who plays in 8+ tournaments a year, but, well, that
    is how a lot of tournament systems work (I'm pretty sure the ACBL uses a
    similar system, and they seem to think it works just fine). And as this
    isn't a one on one game, a system like the Chess Federation uses isn't
    likely possible so much.

    In terms of the freebie points for showing up, this means that of the top
    scores, only 40 points of which come from just showing up. So Ben Peal's
    rating of, what, about 1500 points consists of 2.6% showing up and 97.4%
    winning.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > Anthony Coleman wrote:
    >
    > > A player can easily be 'the best in his backyard' and amass a huge
    > > amount of rating points, but be, relative to another playgroup, a poor
    > > player.
    >
    > True. But highly unlikely. Unless they play in lots and lots of local,
    > sanctioned tournaments vs the exact same really bad players over and over
    > again are they going to amass a high score based on dubious opposition. But:
    >
    > -If everyone in the group is playing that much, someone *has* to be getting
    > better.
    > -You get more points for winning bigger tournaments.
    > -You get more points for winning qualifiers.
    >
    > I mean, yeah, ok, it is possible that there is a group of exactly 15 players
    > somewhere who play sanctioned tournaments on an otherwise deserted island
    > every week, and the same dude wins every single tournament, giving that guy
    > a huge score when, in fact, he is a very bad player who is playing against
    > total idiots all the time. But it seems unlikely enough a situation to worry
    > about it and how it affects the overall validity of the rating system.

    I think that regional differences in levels of competition (which is
    basically what that point boils down to) does have an impact on
    ratings, the fact you get more points for bigger events helps for sure,
    but it doesnt eliminate the problem, it may not be a system breaker in
    itself but its another contributing factor.

    Anyhow rather than get bogged down in debate over individial variables
    the main point that I was making was that V:TES just isnt a game that
    can be rated at all accuratly due to the fact its a 5 player game with
    a huge amount of card diversity and a fair portion of utterly random
    players :O) that was just one of the related reasons.

    Again, I think the rating system is fine, as long as its not taken too
    seriously, so I'd definatly not agree with any benefits from high
    ranking such as exemptions, invite only events, cash etc etc.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Well I think what we all can agree on is that rating system is not a
    very good one. There are many things wrong with it. How about we try
    and suggest some things that will fix it.

    The first thing we do is throw all the ratings out the window. Then set
    up a new system. Give everyone a base score. Let's say for now it's a
    1000. Then we come up with a better formula for giving points and
    taking points away. That's what a true rating system does. It rewards
    for winning and takes away for losing. No more giving points for just
    coming.I think giving for attendence is part of the problem with the
    current rating system.

    The formula for giving points could be based off table skill. You
    take everyone's rating add it up. Then divide it by the number of
    players at the table. That would be the table's skill rating. Then
    based off what your rating is will be the amount of points you will
    get. The greater the difference in your rating from table rating would
    be the amount of points you will gain or lose. Each tournament should
    have a maximum number of points you can gain per VP and table wins.
    Let's say for the local tournament that gets 10 people we say that
    point value is 8. Larger venues 16-32. NACS 64 points per VP and table
    win. Now these are all possible point values. Then we take into effect
    the table skill.

    Let's say the tournament is a local worth 8 points per vp and table
    win. New player Kaiser sits down with 1000 rating. He is sitting with
    Peter 1600, Matt 2000, Ben 2100 and Jay 1500. The table skill would
    1640. Now Kaiser being the new player would gain the max 8 points under
    the system since his rating is lower then the table skill. Peter would
    be gain about even 4 points. Ben would gain the least 1 point.Now the
    reverse for losing points would happen for all these examples Ben would
    lose 8, Peter 4, and Kaiser 1. Well I know everyone is asking how do
    you lose points?

    Well I think I have a good idea for that. Whoever wins the table should
    be rewarded the most. However if you lose,something should be taken
    away. I think the max you should lose per table should be your VP. So
    in the above example Kaiser would only lose 1 point. While Ben would
    lose 8 points to his rating. Now I also think there should be a middle
    ground for this. If you are able to get a VP but no more then you will
    not lose any points. If you get 2 VP's before you lose. You will gain 1
    VP's worth of points.

    I think losing points will help with something I saw at the last Q I
    was at. There were people already qualified that were playing. Which is
    not a bad thing. When it became a bad thing is when a friend of theirs
    had not Q'ed yet so there sole purpose at the Q was not to win but help
    there friend win. If they are losing points off their rating. They may
    not be so inclined to be doing this.I thought this was pretty poor and
    would like to see it stopped. If the rsting system meant something I
    think it would. Give some rewards for having a good rating. Whether it
    be a free slot at NAC's or even promo cards for the top X rated
    players. Something to make players want care about their rating.

    The other thing we throw out the window with the new rating system is
    the 18 month time frame. I have no idea who came up with that but it is
    another part of the problem. So we will get rid of that. Once the new
    rating system starts it is there forever. No starting new numbers for
    tournaments. If anyone is found to have more than one number it will be
    combined with the old one.

    I would also like to address the luck factor that was brought up
    earlier. Yes it is a card game that you are randomly drawing cards off
    of a deck. So luck is present BUT good players are able to rise above
    that. This is where skill comes in. So i think having an acurate rating
    system is a good thing. Well this is just a start to an idea. I welcome
    anyone to improve on it. I just wanted to get the ball rolling on
    something constructive rather than argue on what's wrong with the old
    one.

    Sean
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 24 Jul 2005 08:06:05 -0700, "invisible239" <celerity239@aol.com>
    wrote:

    >The other thing we throw out the window with the new rating system is
    >the 18 month time frame. I have no idea who came up with that but it is
    >another part of the problem.

    The first rating system did not expire.
    The same player was #1 for 3 years.
    He did not play in a single tournament during that time.

    The expiring time frame is essential.


    Carpe noctem.

    Lasombra

    http://www.TheLasombra.com

    Your best online source for information about V:TES.
    Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
    of booster and starter box displays.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Invisible239 wrote:
    >The other thing we throw out the window with the new rating system is
    >the 18 month time frame. I have no idea who came up with that but it is
    >another part of the problem.

    Lasombra wrote:
    >The first rating system did not expire.
    >The same player was #1 for 3 years.
    >He did not play in a single tournament during that time.

    >The expiring time frame is essential.

    Then expire the player not the ratings. Do not take away ratings from
    people playing in tournaments on regular basis. Take away the players
    who are no longer playing. That would solve the problem right there.

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    >Yeah, see, I don't think we can agree on that at all.

    >I don't have any problem at all with the rating system. It encourages people
    to go to tournaments and is a reasonable indication of relative player
    skill
    overall.

    Yes, scores are skewed towards people who play in more tournaments. How
    is
    this a bad thing? Really, isn't the purpose of such a rating system to
    >encourage people to play in tournaments?

    Well Peter I will first answer by saying. If there isn't problem with
    the rating system why has this grown to 50 posts?

    Secondly I would like to say I'm happy you have no problem with rating
    system but as this post shows some people may disagree with you. They
    may disagree with me. The fact is if the rating system can be improved
    to be more acurate why is that a bad thing?

    Peter D. Bakija wrote:
    >As pointed out above, the amount of a given rating that comes from
    >attendance is never more than 40 points, ever. Given that the high ratings
    >on the list are in the 1000+ point range, those 40 points are really pretty
    >insignificant.

    Well I have a problem with giving people points for walking in a door.
    While it may be a nice thing to do. I think it does nothing to show how
    skillful they are at playing VTES.

    invisible239 wrote:
    > The formula for giving points could be based off table skill. You
    > take everyone's rating add it up. Then divide it by the number of
    > players at the table. That would be the table's skill rating.

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    >Sure. This sort of system has been suggested many times before. But it is
    >really unweildy and requires a considerable amount of work to facilitate.
    >Which apprently no one really wants to do. But that is ok.

    Well I'm not sure how much work it will take. Many other games systems
    have comparable rating systems to this. Once you have the formula to do
    it. I know for a fact it's not unweildy to manage. In fact most game
    systems the computer will do the work for you. Not sure who doesn't
    want to do it. I have only had your feedback thus far. LIke I said in
    my previous post. All i'm trying to do is put a positive spin on the
    issue. If some people think it's not working let's try to get it right.

    Sean
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Anthony Coleman wrote:

    > I think that regional differences in levels of competition (which is
    > basically what that point boils down to) does have an impact on
    > ratings, the fact you get more points for bigger events helps for sure,
    > but it doesnt eliminate the problem, it may not be a system breaker in
    > itself but its another contributing factor.

    Sure, sure. But again, due to the nature of the game, there really isn't a
    good way to work around that.

    > Anyhow rather than get bogged down in debate over individial variables
    > the main point that I was making was that V:TES just isnt a game that
    > can be rated at all accuratly due to the fact its a 5 player game with
    > a huge amount of card diversity and a fair portion of utterly random
    > players :O) that was just one of the related reasons.

    Sure. But at the very least, you can rate players on:

    -How many VP's they get.
    -How many games they win.
    -How many tournaments they win.

    Yeah, strength of opponents are a factor, but again, in the big picture, I
    suspect that the competence of your opponents averages out--yeah, there are
    likely some compromised ratings due to people playing against weak
    opposition all the time, but there are equally compromised ratings based on
    playing against the strongest competition in the country, but not getting
    any extra points for it (i.e., it seems likely that it is much harder for a
    given player to win a 10 player tournament in Boston, DC, or Atlanta than it
    is in, say, Ithaca, 'cause we have a much less hardcore base of players).

    So yeah, the play level of your opposition certainly *is* a factor, but much
    like everything else in the system, it likely averages out (yeah, there will
    be a fringe of outlier scores from compromised play environments, but not
    enough to be statistically significant).

    > Again, I think the rating system is fine, as long as its not taken too
    > seriously, so I'd definatly not agree with any benefits from high
    > ranking such as exemptions, invite only events, cash etc etc.

    Sure. I don't think *anyone* takes the rating system particularly
    seriously--I mean, like, yeah, I like my rating going up and seeing where I
    am in relation to other players on the list, but like, in the long run, it
    doesn't really matter.

    I think it would be nice if, say, people got token gifts for making high
    ratings (like, say, a cool promo or something for hitting a certain rating,
    which would be just as much a reward for simply playing the game a lot as it
    is for doing well), but I don't think anything significant for ratings is a
    good idea, for just the reasons elaborated in this thread--like, I think the
    ratings are far more reflective of player skill (as linked to tournament
    attendance) than many others seem to, but there is enough questionability
    inherrent to make giving, like, free championship invites and stuff a not
    such good idea.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    invisible239 wrote:

    > Well I think what we all can agree on is that rating system is not a
    > very good one. There are many things wrong with it. How about we try
    > and suggest some things that will fix it.

    Yeah, see, I don't think we can agree on that at all.

    I don't have any problem at all with the rating system. It encourages people
    to go to tournaments and is a reasonable indication of relative player skill
    overall.

    Yes, scores are skewed towards people who play in more tournaments. How is
    this a bad thing? Really, isn't the purpose of such a rating system to
    encourage people to play in tournaments?

    > The first thing we do is throw all the ratings out the window. Then set
    > up a new system. Give everyone a base score. Let's say for now it's a
    > 1000. Then we come up with a better formula for giving points and
    > taking points away. That's what a true rating system does. It rewards
    > for winning and takes away for losing.

    We could do that. But the current system, again, isn't that bad.

    > No more giving points for just
    > coming.I think giving for attendence is part of the problem with the
    > current rating system.

    As pointed out above, the amount of a given rating that comes from
    attendance is never more than 40 points, ever. Given that the high ratings
    on the list are in the 1000+ point range, those 40 points are really pretty
    insignificant.

    > The formula for giving points could be based off table skill. You
    > take everyone's rating add it up. Then divide it by the number of
    > players at the table. That would be the table's skill rating.

    Sure. This sort of system has been suggested many times before. But it is
    really unweildy and requires a considerable amount of work to facilitate.
    Which apprently no one really wants to do. But that is ok.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    The Lasombra wrote:
    > On 24 Jul 2005 12:55:28 -0700, "invisible239" <celerity239@aol.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Well I'm not sure how much work it will take.
    >
    > Until you can completely automate it in the Archon spreadsheet, do not
    > expect it to be adopted.
    >
    > The Archon's are still being turned in incomplete and wrong when they
    > are complete.
    >
    > Adding more to the plate of the volunteer that is handling the
    > "ratings" is not something that should be accepted by the vampire
    > players at large.
    -snip-
    So if this was a truly automated system, not nearly as user intensive
    as archon (joke) it would work. surely there is a fanatic out there
    willing to try and code something like this?
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Invisible239 wrote:> In fact most game
    > systems the computer will do the work for you.


    Peter D Bakija
    >Which then requires every tournament director to have a laptop on them. And
    >the necessary program. Which is not something that is automatically
    >available. I run 3 or 4 tournaments a year. I don't have a laptop. I'm not
    >likely to get a laptop, especially just to organize complicated ratings
    >systems. I doubt I am alone on this level.

    Well that is a good point. However Peter in your running of the
    tournaments now you don't figure out the persons overall rating. A new
    system would only require you to fill out a form and send it in to
    WhiteWolf. They can figure out the person's overall rating.

    Lasombra wrote:
    >Until you can completely automate it in the Archon spreadsheet, do not
    >expect it to be adopted.

    >The Archon's are still being turned in incomplete and wrong when they
    >are complete.

    >Adding more to the plate of the volunteer that is handling the
    >"ratings" is not something that should be accepted by the vampire
    >players at large.


    Well I'm not saying this is the system that should be used it was a
    suggestion for everyone to think about. However do not use the excuse
    that organizer's are not doing their job the way they should on why it
    will not work. That is not a fault of the system I suggested it would
    be the fault of a poor organizer.

    James Coupe wrote
    >When you're taking rankings from around the world, with organizers who
    >are super efficient and organizers who are extremely tardy, and players
    >who want their ranking updated RIGHT NOW, your fact is *not* a fact.

    >For evidence of this, see the previous rating system and discussions of
    it.

    Well I will say my statement is a fact. A system can work just fine.
    However you are correct if the people running are not doing their job
    correctly it could be a problem. This is no fault of system set up. It
    is the fault of people running tournaments and not doing it properly.
    I know a system like this can work because I have played in other game
    systems that it has. I'll also ask if people are not reporting right
    why are they allowed sanctioned events again. I agree people are
    volunteering to do this but if you do volunteer do the full job.

    The other thing I want to say again is that nothing I said in my
    orignal post was set in stone. I was trying to open a discussion on
    what peolpe think a better system would be. So please feel free to make
    your own comments on what you would think a better system would be.

    Sean
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games