Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

FGM Ladder 2017...let's discuss possible changes

Meat Grinder

Meat Grinder

FGM Lieutenant General
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
10,869
Reaction score
8,500
Age
58
Location
Tennessee
While it would be difficult to argue that the 2016 ladder system isn't superior to the 2015 system (which was basically a "he who plays the most games wins" affair), I believe there is room for improvement.

Let's open this thread for discussion on how we can improve the ladder system for 2017.

I suppose the ideal system to aim for is an ELO type system , such as is used in the chess world. While certainly a worthy goal, I wonder if such a system can be implemented in time for the 2017 ladder? Any volunteers who have coding expertise and the free time to devote to such an endeavor in order to roll out an automated ELO system by January 1st, 2017?

While we wait on that, why don't we use this thread to suggest easy to implement, practical systems that we can use to make the 2017 ladder more competitive? Yes, I think a more competitive ladder is a good thing.

Here is my submission. I think it is simple, elegant, and rewards winning while encouraging actually playing CM games, rather than winning the minimum number of games to be a participant of the ladder, and then sitting on your laurels for the rest of the year.

Points will be awarded based on (1) the victory level achieved by the winner, and (2) the size of the battle. The loser will receive negative points in like fashion.

Minor Victory - 10 points
Tactical Victory - 15 points
Major Victory - 20 points
Total Victory - 25 points

Tiny Battle - 10 points
Small Battle - 15 points
Medium Battle - 20 points
Large Battle - 25 points
Huge Battle - 30 points

Example: The winner of a Major Victory in a Medium battle would receive +40 ladder points. The loser would receive -40 (negative 40) ladder points.

When I came up with this, I wasn't sure what do to about Draws. How about we give both players +5 points as a "boobie prize" or "participation award" ?
 
It was pointed out to be via PM that the system I proposed is a bit brutal.

I definitely think there should be negative points for losing. If the system I proposed is a bit too harsh, I can think of a couple of ways to mitigate it:

(1) The loser only receives half negative points. So if the winner receives +40 points, the loser receives -20 points.

(2) No player's overall ladder score can drop below zero.

Also, feel free to propose other ideas/systems. We have over two months before the ladder resets. @Ithikial is in charge of the ladder, and he has indicated that he is willing to listen to what the club wants.
 
For a draw you could split the size points. So a draw for a huge game would net both players 15 points.

Also negative points is just relative so why care about it. If that really is a problem start everyone off with 2000 points then. Having a score of 1900 is no different than one of -100 but if people are afraid of negative numbers then start everyone off at 2000 points and problem solved. :D
 
Let me first ask people, "What is / should be the purpose of FGM Ladder play?" I opine;
1) If it is to encourage game play, don't penalize losers with negative points because Newbie's won't be motivated to participate.
2) If it is to provide clever veterans with bragging rights, Newbie's won't be motivated to participate.
3) If it is to reward diehard CM players with copious free time, Newbie's won't be motivated to participate.
4) If it is an opportunity for camaraderie and fun, position it to motivate players New and Old to participate.​
I would like to see it as a way to identify opponent reliability with skill levels appropriate for both opponents to play.
I would also change the reporting rules to make every game a ladder match unless BOTH players don't want it so reported. I'm okay with the current situation where either player can prevent a game from being a ladder match but would like that to be made more clearly understood before a game is started. I would also position every tournament and campaign match played via FGM be automatically considered a ladder match unless BOTH players agree not to report it.
 
@Badger73 while your opinion is certainly as valid as anyone else's, I respectfully disagree that the purpose of a club ladder is simply to encourage play. I see a ladder system as a competition, and liken it to a year long tournament. If there's no real competition, or "reward" for winning, then what's the point, IMO? We can all play casual, non-ladder games any time we want to. It would seem to me that a competitive ladder does encourage play, and it seems there are many competitive FGM members, given how fast the tournaments fill up. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mTk
Badger73 said:
I would like to see it as a way to identify opponent reliability with skill levels appropriate for both opponents to play.
Click to expand...
Indeed that would be nice. That is what is good about ELO - it helps give you an idea of how evenly matched you might or might not be with a particular opponent.

Badger73 said:
I would also change the reporting rules to make every game a ladder match unless BOTH players don't want it so reported.
Click to expand...
Yes, default to all games re ladder games. No desire to prevent on ladder games but a default of yes ladder games is the right setting IMHO.

If some particular situation warrants it I would be OK with changing the default in that context as long as it is an upfront thing. I am thinking here about a multi player campaign where there could be a lot of lopsided battles. Having all battles played in the context of that campaign default to non ladder games would be appropriate.
 
Never certain what can be called a minor win, and a total win. A win is a win.
Splitting it over Minor, tactical, major, or total... especially if your playing an unbalanced scenario seems very unfair.
Not being a ladder player, I think a complicated system would put more players off.
Think it would be better to play to a football league system.
i.e. 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw.
 
Interesting Peter, but, correct me if I'm wrong, don't all the teams in a football league play the same number of games during a season? If we went with that (3 points for a win, 1 for a draw) here at FGM, then, since we can play an unlimited number of games during the year, we would be back to "he who plays the most games wins", like in 2015. I suppose we could consider 3 points for a win, one for a draw, -3 points for a loss. That would indeed be very simple.

Edit: Oh, and just in case anyone didn't already know.....the current ladder and the one before that does award more points depending on the level of victory (minor, tactical, major, total) as well as the size of the battle.
 
Last edited:
Meat Grinder said:
Also, feel free to propose other ideas/systems. We have over two months before the ladder resets. @Ithikial is in charge of the ladder, and he has indicated that he is willing to listen to what the club wants.
Click to expand...

I'll provide my input a little later once everyone get's their thoughts off their chests. However I can experiement with new point set up very easily in the current setup to demonstrate how things would have looked this year and in previous years with any proposed changes. Full blown how an ELO would have looked... probably not.

Meanwhile....
jackson-im-just-here-to-read-the-comments-72.jpg
 
@Meat Grinder, your design has sense. But if you want to use any way of ELO system, you should calculate the opponent´s level. That is the substantial part of ELO. If you calculate lvl of oppo, then the loss for the loser will be much smaller and not brutal. And beginners will have no problem to play first ladder matches - they will risk very little.
 
@Meat Grinder I don´t see any necessity to reset the ladder each year. Why? That gives nothing in ELO system. I hope that somebody with mathematics sense is here :) Or try to ask your friends from "offline word" maybe someone helps us to create the optimal mathematical formula. I believe that for such people it will not be problem;) I will try to search in my living area also....
 
Last edited:
@Pekische The resetting every year is not my idea. That's just the way it's been done so far (or at least since I've been a member). Certainly if we were able to implement an ELO system it would not be necessary or even desirable to reset the ladder each year.
 
Bumping this thread.

I think many (most) of us agree that an automated ELO system would be optimal. Saying that is easy, implementing it isn't.

I still believe my system (or something similar) is worth trying for the 2017 ladder.

Here it is again (with minor changes):

Points will be awarded based on (1) the victory level achieved by the winner, and (2) the size of the battle. The loser will receive negative points in like fashion.

Minor Victory - 10 points
Tactical Victory - 15 points
Major Victory - 20 points
Total Victory - 25 points

Tiny Battle - 10 points
Small Battle - 15 points
Medium Battle - 20 points
Large Battle - 25 points
Huge Battle - 30 points

Example: The winner of a Major Victory in a Medium battle would receive +40 ladder points. The loser would receive -40 (negative 40) ladder points.

Draw: Split the size points. Example a Huge game that ends in a Draw would net each player +15 points (thank you @A Canadian Cat ).

So we don't have to deal with negative ladder scores, each player participating in the 2017 ladder starts off with 2000 points (again, thanks @A Canadian Cat ).

Addendum:

*All* games between FGM members are subject to being reported on the ladder unless (1) *both* players agree not to report it before or during the game, (2) it is a tourney or campaign game and the tourney or campaign organizer doesn't want the game(s) to be reported on the ladder. The winner should always be the one to report the game on the ladder (in the case of a Draw, the player with the most points reports it, or, if the points are tied, flip a coin or just pick one).
 
Last edited:
Meat Grinder said:
Addendum:

*All* games between FGM members are subject to being reported on the ladder unless (1) *both* players agree not to report it before or during the game, (2) it is a tourney or campaign game and the tourney or campaign organizer doesn't want the game(s) to be reported on the ladder. The winner should always be the one to report the game on the ladder (in the case of a Draw, the player with the most points reports it, or, if the points are tied, flip a coin or just pick one).
Click to expand...

For the record this is largely what already occurs and it came about rather organically amongst the club. The winning player usually reports the result in about 95% of cases if I'd have to take an educated guess from all the data entry I do. Tournaments where there is a fixed scenario being played are largely also included as long as one of the players posts the results. I pick up on double posts by both players pretty easily since they are usually posted straight after each other. :)

Campaigns are largely not reported given that in most will rely heavily on the strategic situation/campaign map, and engagements won't necesarily be on an even footing for both players going into the battle.
 
Last edited:
I have something I have been working on/off for a few years.... Bootie had a ladder system back in 2011/12 that I was administrating, but it had all this other bullshit (multiple ladders, campaign games, teams, medals, awards, winning streak shit, etc..) that it was a logistical nightmare to maintain and modify... I took a copy of all the code etc, and paired it down to just the ladder... now I havent looked at it in a year or two, but it has some cool features in its determination for points and part of that is the 'Rank' of both opponents... so things like
  • It will reward a low ranked opponent for knocking off someone in the top 5 better then if he knocks off No. 20 or someone below him
  • Games played only accounts for a small 12-15% of the points accrued.
  • Can dice the ladder by timeframe (last 18 months, last 24 months, etc)
  • it can be modified fairly easy.
  • it is web driven.
Downside:
  • Each Ladder Player would need to create a login/password for himself (though I might be able to grab the SQL Table out of Xenforo for this, not sure)
  • Still would need an Admin to login and fix any errors, Admin screen is not friendly.
MY PROPOSAL:
I can setup a test suite of this ladder by may/june of 2017 at my website and run testing by having certain users as test dummies (lmao) to check interface... and I will also record all the ladder results for the second half of 2017 into the test suite... do tweeks as we go, etc... And if everybody is cool with it move it over to Bootie's site for the 2018 year...
​
Let me know...
 
I dont think that will work Fred.. it was a pain in the arse at the time and will probably be a pain in the arse now and really a 2018 date isnt ideal. ut of interest what did you call that programme I bought... I think i recently deleted it from our shared DB folder.

Someone find out who did the Blitz ladder just out of interest... it may have been outsourced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top