Clan Global Ranking System
Soul_Rider
Mod Bean Join Date: 2004-06-19 Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
Mod Bean Join Date: 2004-06-19 Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
Ok, I've come up with the idea to create a global clan ranking system. I have written down a few rules, that I think are needed, but they are of course open to debate :)
Please go through these rules, makes suggestions for changes, reasoning often helps the pill go down :)
These are basic rules, anything that players think needs adding or clarifying, again bring it up in the thread. I hope that collectively we can devise a proper ranking system that all clans are happy to partake in. This could be used for tournament seeds, or whatever people wanted it used for. I personally am looking to use it as the base for any tournaments I am involved in organising, and also integrating with the Clan Ladders at NS2League.
Read on for the basics so far...
<b>Ranking Rules</b>
Points are awarded for all 'Valid' Tournaments
The tournaments that constitue 'valid' tournaments are currently at the discretion of the ranking system organisers. There can't be any hard and fast rules, but it is considered that all 'official' tournaments, covered by UnknownWorlds Twitch TV, on unmodified versions of the game fall under this category.
All other tournaments will be assesed on an individual basis, but must be 'unmodified' by the definiton of the rules. This definition may change over time.
Teams playing under assumed names will accrue ranking points for their assumed name team at the expense of their real team.
Teams fielding 'Mercs' - i.e. players not registered as clan members on the official teams list, will forfeit their ranking points earned with the merc.
The Onus will be on teams to keep the official clan lists up-to date. (For ease of use, we will use the NS2Stats.org clan lists, so get yourself signed up there.)
Ranking points are earned by finishing in the top 6 of a ranking event, using the standard tournament ranking system - If 2 teams tie 3rd, the next team are scored as 5th.
Ranking points gained automatically expire after 6 months.
<b>Future changes</b>
The ranking system will be updated to operate on a tennis style sliding scale, where different tournaments carry different ranking weights, and you get points determined on the round you reached.
This is currently unfeasible without solid tournaments and ways of judging their weight. (Grand Slams vs Tour Events, etc.)
Opinions?
I am thinking that maybe rather than ranking top 6 for now it should be top 8? Top 8 would give individual places during double elimination tournaments, but straight knockouts would earn 1st, 2nd, 2x3rd, 4x5th, unless there is a knockout comp among the knocked out teams. There is often a 3rd/4th playoff, but not very often a 5th-8th playoff. We would need to clarify that. Also top 6 causes issues in that of the 4 teams knocked out at QF, which 2 get the points, and which 2 don't :P
Let me know opinions...
Please go through these rules, makes suggestions for changes, reasoning often helps the pill go down :)
These are basic rules, anything that players think needs adding or clarifying, again bring it up in the thread. I hope that collectively we can devise a proper ranking system that all clans are happy to partake in. This could be used for tournament seeds, or whatever people wanted it used for. I personally am looking to use it as the base for any tournaments I am involved in organising, and also integrating with the Clan Ladders at NS2League.
Read on for the basics so far...
<b>Ranking Rules</b>
Points are awarded for all 'Valid' Tournaments
The tournaments that constitue 'valid' tournaments are currently at the discretion of the ranking system organisers. There can't be any hard and fast rules, but it is considered that all 'official' tournaments, covered by UnknownWorlds Twitch TV, on unmodified versions of the game fall under this category.
All other tournaments will be assesed on an individual basis, but must be 'unmodified' by the definiton of the rules. This definition may change over time.
Teams playing under assumed names will accrue ranking points for their assumed name team at the expense of their real team.
Teams fielding 'Mercs' - i.e. players not registered as clan members on the official teams list, will forfeit their ranking points earned with the merc.
The Onus will be on teams to keep the official clan lists up-to date. (For ease of use, we will use the NS2Stats.org clan lists, so get yourself signed up there.)
Ranking points are earned by finishing in the top 6 of a ranking event, using the standard tournament ranking system - If 2 teams tie 3rd, the next team are scored as 5th.
Ranking points gained automatically expire after 6 months.
<b>Future changes</b>
The ranking system will be updated to operate on a tennis style sliding scale, where different tournaments carry different ranking weights, and you get points determined on the round you reached.
This is currently unfeasible without solid tournaments and ways of judging their weight. (Grand Slams vs Tour Events, etc.)
Opinions?
I am thinking that maybe rather than ranking top 6 for now it should be top 8? Top 8 would give individual places during double elimination tournaments, but straight knockouts would earn 1st, 2nd, 2x3rd, 4x5th, unless there is a knockout comp among the knocked out teams. There is often a 3rd/4th playoff, but not very often a 5th-8th playoff. We would need to clarify that. Also top 6 causes issues in that of the 4 teams knocked out at QF, which 2 get the points, and which 2 don't :P
Let me know opinions...
Comments
Couldn't you base the scores on the number of teams involved in addition to weighting the tournament?
Like give 1 point for each opposing team that a team won in a tournament? Or make some kind of less linear algorithm to do this. This way tournament would weight itself automatically based on the number of teams playing in it. Then you'd have to manually weight only the quality of the teams playing. This could be calculated too using the past results but then the whole ranking becomes an ELO system. :)
This post explains how the teams work in ns2stats: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=120376" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=120376</a>
Basically what you have to do is to login to the site. Go to "My Account", then "My Teams", and click "Create New Team", and fill out the form. After that you can add players to your team by clicking the "Add player" button and searchign them by name. After you've invited them they have to login to the website, go to "My Account" and "My Teams" and have to accept the invitation.
This enables you to see list of all the matches you've played as a team in ns2stats enabled servers.
-Assumed name -rule needs to be clarified also... How accurately must the name be the exact same one, and how do clans that change name actually fit into this? If we go into a tournament as, say, "nubxertus" or "eggserdusch" just for the lols, do we lose points even though we've been completely obvious?
-Scoring timeout: If results don't time out, old noob teams will have more ranking than new top teams, thus making the ranking pretty inaccurate. How about: Award different points per tournament based on number of clans and possibly on the rankings of the clans participating. Count ranking for each clan from the top 3 results from tournaments that have been played within 6 or 12 months.
PS. I know, I know... I'm nitpicking. I've played tabletop strategy games since -96 and thus am prone to rules lawyering ;)
EDIT: The ruling about 'unmodified' is a bit too abstract. That will need to be clarified at some point. Also, something we need a good name for this tournament (meta-)ruleset, so it can easily be mentioned by organizers. Something like "NS2league ranked/sanctioned/ruleset...".
EDIT2: Look for other parties who are doing similar stuff. Getting NS2Stats onboard is great, and maybe there are some other entities also, such as ENSL. Less duplication of effort -> more effect for same effort.
Couldn't you base the scores on the number of teams involved in addition to weighting the tournament?
Like give 1 point for each opposing team that a team won in a tournament? Or make some kind of less linear algorithm to do this. This way tournament would weight itself automatically based on the number of teams playing in it. Then you'd have to manually weight only the quality of the teams playing. This could be calculated too using the past results but then the whole ranking becomes an ELO system. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will weight it as the 'Grand Slams' should theoretically have more rounds and teams, thus gaining more points I will be using the tennis system as a base:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings#Ranking_method" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings#Ranking_method</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1990208:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM:name=Squirreli_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squirreli_ @ Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-I think disqualifying a team for using even a single merc is too harsh. If a line has to be drawn somewhere, I'd prefer allowing up to 2 mercs per match. Of course this limit can be stepped around by expanding web site roster for the duration of the tournament and then "dropping" merc-members. So, a needless restriction that doesn't work. If a clan wants to play with something else than their normal line-up, then fine by me. Could you clarify why you want such a limit?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How fair is it if a team keeps adding different mercs to it's tournament team so it boosts it's rating, just to make itself look good? This way at least the team roster, and when changes are made, are recorded, so a team deliberately and consistently exploiting this will show up very quickly. I know some very good players who I could get to play for a team occassionally, but they wouldn't join a clan. Is it fair to enhance my clans reputation by using these players? Is it fair if a team gains ranking points when it doesn't have a full active roster, and is consistently merc'ing.
It may not matter to you Squirreli, it seems you are an easy-going person, lol, but I can assure you, there will be people who treat this as more serious than life or death, so there has to be some kind of control in place.
<!--quoteo(post=1990208:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM:name=Squirreli_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squirreli_ @ Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-Assumed name -rule needs to be clarified also... How accurately must the name be the exact same one, and how do clans that change name actually fit into this? If we go into a tournament as, say, "nubxertus" or "eggserdusch" just for the lols, do we lose points even though we've been completely obvious?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an attempt at a properly organised ranking system for a, hopefully, professional e-sport. How often do you see Barcelona, or Real Madrid playing under an assumed name in a tournament for the lols? I am trying to introduce a degree of professionalism. Referring to the previous point, if a football team fields an unregistered player, it is immediate disqualification too.
I know a lot of this doesn't matter personally to you, but from a professional point of view, these things do need to matter.
<!--quoteo(post=1990208:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM:name=Squirreli_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squirreli_ @ Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-Scoring timeout: If results don't time out, old noob teams will have more ranking than new top teams, thus making the ranking pretty inaccurate. How about: Award different points per tournament based on number of clans and possibly on the rankings of the clans participating. Count ranking for each clan from the top 3 results from tournaments that have been played within 6 or 12 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honest mistake, I forgot to add the 6 month timeout to the rules, I will update them immediately.
<!--quoteo(post=1990208:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM:name=Squirreli_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squirreli_ @ Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->PS. I know, I know... I'm nitpicking. I've played tabletop strategy games since -96 and thus am prone to rules lawyering ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I created this thread for exactly this reason. I would have just enforced my rules if I didn't want this kind of input, haha.
Blood Bowl, WarHammer and Space Hulk player myself from late 80's, so more than used to 'debating' rules ;)
Unmodified is as yet undefined and open for discussion. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1990208:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM:name=Squirreli_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squirreli_ @ Oct 12 2012, 12:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EDIT2: Look for other parties who are doing similar stuff. Getting NS2Stats onboard is great, and maybe there are some other entities also, such as ENSL. Less duplication of effort -> more effect for same effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For sure. I have my plate full with projects, modding, studying and job-hunting, so I communicate with those I can. If any other organisations or individuals can offer assistance, then that is great, but I just don't have the time to contact everyone myself :)
<!--quoteo(post=1990216:date=Oct 12 2012, 02:27 PM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soul_Rider @ Oct 12 2012, 02:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blood Bowl, WarHammer and Space Hulk player myself from late 80's, so more than used to 'debating' rules ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Warhammer 40k and Blood Bowl here, with history in WH 4-6th ed, mordheim and epic 40k... Good stuff!
Warhammer 40k and Blood Bowl here, with history in WH 4-6th ed, mordheim and epic 40k... Good stuff!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1990208:date=Oct 12 2012, 01:06 PM:name=Squirreli_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squirreli_ @ Oct 12 2012, 01:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->PS. I know, I know... I'm nitpicking. I've played tabletop strategy games since -96 and thus am prone to rules lawyering ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OFF-TOPIC
Rules are there for a reason. But gosh i hate those people who don't know how to measure a distances and always add/remove and inch or two and thinking no one notices. This often makes it quite annoying to play tabletop games competitively.
Warhammer 40k and Blood Bowl here, with history in WH 4-6th ed, mordheim and epic 40k... Good stuff!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1990249:date=Oct 12 2012, 01:20 PM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Oct 12 2012, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990249"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OFF-TOPIC
Rules are there for a reason. But gosh i hate those people who don't know how to measure a distances and always add/remove and inch or two and thinking no one notices. This often makes it quite annoying to play tabletop games competitively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OT
At the risk of going completely de-railing this thread... It was always a nightmare playing big games :P
We also played BloodBowl version 1, and let's just say, there are reasons the rules have been modified a number of times. The original rules left a hell of a lot open to 'interpretation', never a good thing in games.
/OT
Kind of why I want clarity in this thread :) Any more discussion on-topic is more than welcome, PM or make a thread in Off-Topic to carry on discussing the great table-top games :)
This at least gives teams the hope of hitting top spot..
I think I mentioned this in one of my posts already, but I would like to see smaller tournaments give less points and large tournaments (say, 12-16+ teams) yield maximum number of points. Also, I would like the system to count only a limited number of results from that time. Since you would be counting in only - say - top 3-4 scores per clan from that period, the scoring would focus more on quality than on quantity. Unless something like I've described is taken into account, an active middling clan could easily rank higher than a clan they regularly lose to in those tournaments.
An easy way of scaling points with tournament size would be to have fixed points per ranking in a tournament and then multiply that points value with (# of clans)/16 (with 3 or less -> not legit, 16+ -> 100% points). Also, maybe the lower half of the results shouldn't get any points... I do think this might not be the optimal way to go about this, so if you at least in theory agree with the aims, please do improve on this ;)
I think I mentioned this in one of my posts already, but I would like to see smaller tournaments give less points and large tournaments (say, 12-16+ teams) yield maximum number of points. Also, I would like the system to count only a limited number of results from that time. Since you would be counting in only - say - top 3-4 scores per clan from that period, the scoring would focus more on quality than on quantity. Unless something like I've described is taken into account, an active middling clan could easily rank higher than a clan they regularly lose to in those tournaments.
An easy way of scaling points with tournament size would be to have fixed points per ranking in a tournament and then multiply that points value with (# of clans)/16 (with 3 or less -> not legit, 16+ -> 100% points). Also, maybe the lower half of the results shouldn't get any points... I do think this might not be the optimal way to go about this, so if you at least in theory agree with the aims, please do improve on this ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I linked above the the tennis ATP tour rankings. This is how I plan to do it, with a scaling system, where "Grand Slams" are worth more points.
How we work out what is a major event and what isn't will be difficult to work out. I will definitely need help with that. The other issue is EU vs NA. Some tournaments will no doubt be localised. How do we count those, or infact, do we even count those?
Here is the table from wikipedia:
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Soulrefuge/ATpRanks.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I have edited it to show the main lines I am interested in.
I was thinking that a global event, should work like a Grand Slam or ATP world Tour event, based on tournament type, with values amended so that total points are the same.
Local events should work like ATP Challenger or Challenger 125, based on tournament type. This kind of difference means that local tournaments still count, but do not carry the weight of a major.
This could be incorporated for all the different regions.
We would include ALL Global Events in the the ranking, but put a limit of say, the 6 best local tournament results, added to the score.
UWE Endorsed events would count as Grand Slams etc. (UWE Endorsed means appearing on UWE's Twitch Stream)
Global events not endorsed will still be counted if they meet basic requirements, but will be worth slightly less points (Maybe like current ATP World tour points from the chart).
We could include bonus points depending on number of teams in the tournament, so all tournaments could be worth more if they are bigger.
That is my proposal, what do you think?
The current climate of cross-continental tournaments is just temporary. As soon as the community is big enough to support single-continent tournaments, you won't see them outside of gimmick tournaments like nations cups or europe vs. na exhibition matches and such.
I seriously hope you are very wrong there Fana.
I fully intend to try and make NS2 a worldwide game. I want to avoid the horrible mess that the rift between NA and EU caused in NS1, with blatant fighting and lack of respect between the continents.
A bit of fun and baiting is ok, but the issues last time were very damaging to the game. The NS community was horribly divided amongst the serious gamers, and while there is always going to be a degree of hostilities, especially among competitive teams, I want to make sure NS2 survives as a world-wide community.
I plan to organise regular international tournaments, as long as I get the support of teams and the community.
@Strayan - Thanks. I hope to make this a very organised system that everyone can partake in. If you have any suggestions, please let me know about what you'd like to see involved with this :)
I fully intend to try and make NS2 a worldwide game. I want to avoid the horrible mess that the rift between NA and EU caused in NS1, with blatant fighting and lack of respect between the continents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's quite an exaggeration. For the most part, EU and US interactions in NS1 can be described as "cordial rivalry".
The problem is, quite simply, that the laws of physics don't allow for fair matchups between teams that are separated by the atlantic ocean. While you can devise schemes to make it technically fair (such as play marines on your server), the teams and the players don't feel that it's fair, nor is it particularly enjoyable. Regardless of whether you win or lose, regardless of whether you're playing with a high ping or playing against a high ping, it adds an element of frustration and randomness that simply has no place in competitive gaming.