Discussion on Player Ratings

mepbmlist
#21

Do you mean that "if" precisely, or do you mean that "It looks like a good idea AND..." you think we should include a dropped games column? You see I'm specifically interested to see if people like the _principle_ of displaying a variety of data in a table rather than relying on a single formula for ranking.

Broad agreement for or against a table "roster" format would be a good start. It would be nice to know if we have it or not, before we go too much into details like your dropped games column, which I suspect may be a little more controversial.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 10:20 AM 29-10-01, 42! wrote:

I think this looks like a good idea, if you'll include a "Dropped
Games" column also.

#22

Do you mean that "if" precisely, or do you mean that "It looks
like a good
idea AND..." you think we should include a dropped games column? You see
I'm specifically interested to see if people like the _principle_ of
displaying a variety of data in a table rather than relying on a single
formula for ranking.

Broad agreement for or against a table "roster" format would be a good
start. It would be nice to know if we have it or not, before we go too
much into details like your dropped games column, which I suspect
may be a
little more controversial.

Laurence:
First, I appreciate what you are trying to do. However, I am not really
excited by a ranking system at all. I guess if there was one, I would like
it more of just a "ranking" than anything else.
My two pesos...
Jeff

#23
#24

Universally imposed would make more sense. I'd grudgingly
allow for an opt out system. An opt in system means we're
wasting our, and everyone elses time.

Brad

···

--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

I think we need to talk about whether we have:

- No opt out (universally imposed)
- An opt in system
- An opt out system

While I'm a very keen advocate of some form of PRS,
I have to say that I think the first of these is harsh.
There are one or two detractors, and I don't think you
should impose on them something which may make them
leave. The opt out system would be preferable to me,
but I would not object to the opt in system.

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#25

That's actually not to bad a poll question. I've no problem with poll questions per se. This one seeks to establish the popularity of a general principle, and a poll on that would steer rather than close a debate.

I don't like the idea of a fixed ranking system, since it would _always_ be controversial. A table gives you the chance to make up your own mind based on the data that you value. But I'd go with a fixed system if that's what the majority feeling was. I think some kind of PRS is likely to be better than no PRS.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 01:57 PM 29-10-01, Player wrote:

Once that distinction is made, the question would be (and no,
I'm not sure if this is a suitable Poll question L!):

Do you feel that players should have an overall ranking that
is based on some formula that takes more than one piece of
data into account?

#26

An "all opt in option"? No you've lost me there, is that the same as the
"no choice option"? :wink:

** Yes

I think we need to talk about whether we have:
- No opt out (all players get ranked)
- An opt in system (players get ranked if they sign up for the PRS)
- An opt out system (players get ranked unless they ask not to be)

*** Prefer the last option.

Clint

#27

Ok I'll try to be clearer.

I think it'll be a good format to have a table with a variety of data
IF you include dropped games in addition to the ones you've already
showed.
A single value will "hide" the actual facts and won't be useful as
someone with 20 points may have dropped 10 games, whereas someone with
8 may have finished all his games... And I'd prefer to play with the
latter.

And ofcourse we need to figure out what exactly to Vote on for the
vote bit.

42!
Who'd most likely only use a PR to avoid playing with persistent quitters!

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

>I think this looks like a good idea, if you'll include a "Dropped
>Games" column also.

Do you mean that "if" precisely, or do you mean that "It looks like

a good

idea AND..." you think we should include a dropped games column?

You see

I'm specifically interested to see if people like the _principle_ of
displaying a variety of data in a table rather than relying on a single
formula for ranking.

Broad agreement for or against a table "roster" format would be a good
start. It would be nice to know if we have it or not, before we go too
much into details like your dropped games column, which I suspect

may be a

···

At 10:20 AM 29-10-01, 42! wrote:
little more controversial.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

#28

Okay I'll try to get it to you - might take a while though - thanks

Clint

···

Agreed. I cracked the production and scoring algorithms in less than
a days work each when I had the pdfs that I needed; this is a fun
mental exercise for me. As long as I have the info, I can easily run
some numbers based on past games to show what a given scoring system
would actually look like if based on win/loss or scores...

Marc

#29

Good beginning.

Clint

···

---------------------------------------------------------------

            Team Played VPs Votes <others...>
            Wins
Tom Tidy 6 9 4500 26
Tim Nice 5 8 7200 14
Jim Pugg 5 12 9300 13
Jon Zogg 9 10 4500 32
---------------------------------------------------------------

The table is copied of Laurence's email. No text has been
retained....

I would expect that the PRS would include various columns of
easily compiled information. STARTING from the present (we're
all at 0...! I'm Number One! I'm Number One!). Okay.

I do believe, from this and the original discussions that
culminated in Bobbin's table, then we all went away...., is
that the majority of writers on this topic are looking for
a Player RANKING System, while Laurence has often argued
against the concept of Ranking while agreeing with publicizing
data in a Player ROSTER.

Data vs Rank has also seemingly been ignored. A Rank is a
rating, much like our chess club. Either the Data is turned
into a Rank via some formula (many ideas close to fruition)
or it is not. At which point, the Data Table would have to
be web based and interactive to the extent that viewers would
be able to click and Sort the table by their selected
criteria. 3-400 players in alphaetical order would not make
it easy for You to look at this column, and Me look at that...

Once that distinction is made, the question would be (and no,
I'm not sure if this is a suitable Poll question L!):

Do you feel that players should have an overall ranking that
is based on some formula that takes more than one piece of
data into account?

If YES, which pieces of data would you consider to be of
primary importance (multiple selections in no particular
order more than acceptable, brainstorming stage, etc..)

number of games played
number of games team won
number of games individually won
number of games dropped out of
total VP's from all completed games
average VP's from all completed games
player votes for team mvp (total or average)
player votes for various categories (post game awards show?
       Most Improved! Best Communicator! Fastest Navy!)

etc..
etc..

Bobbin's table had games played, total votes, and was SORTED, or
RANKED, by Average Number of Votes per Game.

Eh?

Regards,

Brad Brunet

ps - i'm not sure laurence if you have forgotten to credit me
with something, as i unfortunately am too 'chatty' and often
can't recall if i said something with any more surety than
'sounds about right' or so.... :wink:

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#30

unsubscribe

"Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" wrote:

···

> Do you mean that "if" precisely, or do you mean that "It looks
> like a good
> idea AND..." you think we should include a dropped games column? You see
> I'm specifically interested to see if people like the _principle_ of
> displaying a variety of data in a table rather than relying on a single
> formula for ranking.
>
> Broad agreement for or against a table "roster" format would be a good
> start. It would be nice to know if we have it or not, before we go too
> much into details like your dropped games column, which I suspect
> may be a
> little more controversial.

Laurence:
First, I appreciate what you are trying to do. However, I am not really
excited by a ranking system at all. I guess if there was one, I would like
it more of just a "ranking" than anything else.
My two pesos...
Jeff

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#31

I support the player info table over a simple rating, or at least a multi-category
rating.

I'd still like to see a "teamwork rating" (TR) vote, rather than just an "MVP" vote.
If only one person (or 2-3 people) each game gets an MVP vote, then it will take a
LONG time to build up any sort of meaningful database regarding good team play. If
everyone instead gave all of their allies (even starting ones) a 0-100 TR each game,
it would provide much more useful data much more quickly. (Rather than just seeing
that someone never got an MVP vote, if you saw that they're TR was 21 vs. 81, you'd
get a better picture.)

I also think that a PRS (or Player Data System - PDS - as shown above) would be much
less useful if people could simply opt out. Every person who "opted out" would
probably be assumed to be a bad team player, which will not always be the case. But
more importantly, the entire system would be compromised if there were gaping wholes
in the player data. I agree with whomever said it earlier that if there is an "opt
out" option, then we're probably wasting our time here.

Mike

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Player [mailto:pbmnoot@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:57 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] LGT's Data Table
---------------------------------------------------------------
           Team Played VPs Votes <others...>
           Wins
Tom Tidy 6 9 4500 26
Tim Nice 5 8 7200 14
Jim Pugg 5 12 9300 13
Jon Zogg 9 10 4500 32
---------------------------------------------------------------