Points by opponents ranking

Ok, I said I'd do it, and here it is.

I ran a simulation of 10000 three round tournaments each with 42 players in it. Each player had a sportsmanship "ability" from 1 to 3. In a perfect scoring system, those with an ability of 1 would score 3 points, those with an ability of 2 would score 21 points, and those with an ability of 3 would score 60 points. The pairing was a simple bracket/swiss system where winners play winners and losers play losers.

At the end of each tournament, the players "rank" their opponents accurately according to their "ability". In other words, a 1 would rank lower than a 2, which would rank lower than a 3. If there are ties (ie the opponent played against 3 2's) then the rating is indeterminate, I believe that it would give precedence to higher ranking (wining) players. I think that in the real world the bias would be the other direction, and so the negatives would be positives, but it does not substantially affect the results.

Code:

-39  1377  0.33%
-26  11802  2.81%
-25  5809  1.38%
-20  7717  1.84%
-19  9880  2.35%
-13  25716  6.12%
-12  19794  4.71%
 -7  32760  7.80%
 -6  63465  15.11%
 -1  7777  1.85%
  0  96350  22.94%
  6  25141  5.99%
 12  11632  2.77%
 13  63643  15.15%
 18  1436  0.34%
 19  9934  2.37%
 26  19894  4.74%
 32  5873  1.40%

The rating of a 0 indicates that the player was rated exactly according to his "ability", so a 1 player was given 3 3rd places, a 2 player was given 3 2nd places, or a 3 player was given 3 1st places. In a "perfect" scoring system, the 0 category would be 100%.

One will note that in this scoring system, 22.94% were ranked accurately. 48.16% were ranked incorrectly 12 points off from where they should be. Some players are ranked as much as -39 points low.

Assumptions to the ranking system:
Players can always accurately determine the sportsmanship of their opponents
Players do not have bias toward any other players
Players will be evenly spread in their sportsmanship ability
There are only 3 kinds of players (good, average, poor)
Rankings will not be "gamed" by the top tables giving each other lower scores so that they can win best overall.

This is how sportsmanship was scored at Tacticon. Should this methodology be used at Ghengis?

Yeah, but 47.7% are with in 7 points of where they should be. 19.54% are 12 points or more off. Seems fairly good to me. Unfortunately, 32.76% forgot to record data. I do apologize to that .1386 of a player who was 39 points off.

On a side note, I am showing less than a half dozen players unhappy with the system, and only one is vocal, telling me of the other half dozen.

Also, we aren't looking for who is the best sport as much as who was the best opponent. There are going to be days where a player doesn't play his best and his battle points weren't indicative of his skill. The same is true of sportsmanship and painting. We aren't looking for which group of players is the best to play against, but that one really awesome opponent.

"Should" the system return to Genghiscon? I don't know, but it will. Until I hear a majority against it, it is likely to stay.

I understand my above statements may come off a bit prickish with some self centered under tones. Well, let me just say, and? My event, my rules, basically. If players don't like it, speak with your feet, as they say. Or better yet, have more people express their displeasure IN PERSON. I'm not taking "these other guys I know...".

Finally, I am not alone. Battle for Salvation runs a similar sportsmanship judging, and they are a well known prominent Indy GT, and it is well received.

Quote :

Yeah, but 47.7% are with in 7 points of where they should be.

Wait...  So let's do that with Battle Points then.  20% of players will be receive scores as much as 20% off or more?  Really?  And how many points typically separate the first 5 players?  In my experience it's typically 3-4.

CrimsonWraith wrote:

I understand my above statements may come off a bit prickish with some self centered under tones.

More than just "a bit".  Just because few people have the guts to complain or even the understanding of the consequences of your system, doesn't mean that it's unfair.

Quote :

Well, let me just say, and? My event, my rules, basically. If players don't like it, speak with your feet, as they say.

 OK, well let me just say that it's not "your" event.  It's a lot of work without any real benefit, granted.  But in the end the "privilege" of running the event is given to you by the DGA by the recommendations of trusted long term players.  Just as the Wrecking Crew was removed when they started screwing things up, so can you be.

I suggest that you reconsider.

And lest I appear to be bitching without offering alternatives, this is what I suggest.

As you want, continue to apply 1/3 of points each to Painting, Sportsmanship, and Battle.

As with painting, give a good "minimum" points for showing up and doing the right thing. Bringing a fully painted army will give you most of the points, right? So, if you bring the expected minimum sportsmanship and make sure that your opponents have a fun time, then you should get most of the sports points as well.

Let the opponents score them on quantifiable things like rules knowledge, accurate measurements, being on time, having a copy of their army list, etc.

Then give a SMALL number of points for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. You are still implementing your method, and will have fewer ties for sports, but at the same time, have a transparent and reliable method for judging them.

Bad dice, bad match up, not enough sleep, all of these things can lead to being 20% off on battle points. I am more than willing to listen to your better idea, but all you offer is why mine sucks. Also, the assumptions above seem to be your assumptions about the system. I have seen the raw data and I don't see what your saying. I may not just be smart enough.

As far as feedback, I have received a ton of positive feedback, and very little(just this from you, actually) negative. As for the Wrecking Crew, they got "removed" the same way you did. They just declined to run it again. Since we have been running it, attendance is up, painting has improved, and I think the overall is better. It may be my bias, but I like what I have seen. When I played at Tacticon, I didn't have any bad games, and saw very few.

And it is my event. It's my name on the sign, my face everyone sees, my butt taking the heat for anything in the tournament. If I can't be happy with my own system, I can't defend it, and I will "remove" my self. When you ran it, you ran it your own way, why shouldn't I?

Sorry, typed while you typed.

The problem with letting people judge on a "do you do these things" system, is it sets up a system that promotes the seasoned player, not the best opponent. You shouldn't have to know every rule, I'm not saying you can't, but even the best get things wrong. I have had games where my opponent and argued on every rule, and I was right most if not all of the time. I would not expect a good opponent score from him, but I was on time, knew my rules, measured accurately, and always have an army list. According to your system, I am awesome! But I wasn't. My system allows for a subjective choice. He would have had to basically lie to get me a score I deserved. Yes, it is based on an honesty system, but they all are.

I think that the biggest problem you and I have is that you want a straight sportsmanship score, based on hard numbers, I want to know who is the best opponent to play against. Maybe I need to change the award to best opponent or something similar, and likely will.

I would like to ask of you to talk to other players, inform them of what you have found about my system and see if enough players have a problem with it. If you can get a majority against, I will come up with something new. And I'm not saying get 20+ players, I understand there will be those who won't say anything, but a good sampling.

First, every single person I've discussed this with has had a negative reaction to your scoring system.  This includes people who were at the event (off the top of my head) people who attended the event (Andy S. CJ, Daniel), local tacticon/Ghengis regulars, people who went to Nova instead (Adam T., and an increasing number of people) as well as people who play other game systems in tournaments (Warmahordes, Flames, etc.)  You say vote with your feet, and that's very close to my current feeling too.  Your current system makes me not want to attend at all.  Think of that.  My family will be attending, I play 40K once or twice a week, and I don't want to play in a local GT?  

[quote="CrimsonWraith"]I think that the biggest problem you and I have is that you want a straight sportsmanship score, based on hard numbers, I want to know who is the best opponent to play against. Maybe I need to change the award to best opponent or something similar, and likely will.[quote]

Here I think you've defined the problem quite well, as well as the probable solution.  I support 100% giving a "favored opponent" award.  So, we can agree on your goal.  My goal is to not have the Best Overall, the guys who bring their A-game in everything, sports, list, game-knowledge, cleanliness, beautiful army, tactics, etc.  determined in an arbitrary manner.

I am NOT suggesting that you eliminate your 1st, 2nd, 3rd ranking system, just that it's not such a huge spread.  I'm am ALSO suggesting that we be allowed to both give and receive feedback about what kind of game experience we had.  In the situation you described (going with the intent rather than the exact wording), your opponent did NOT know the rules.  You are perfectly within your rights to expect your opponent to play by the rules.  There are good ways and bad ways of approaching that situation too.  If you belittle your opponent and call them on every single little thing, then you're a bad sport/opponent.  But.... if you take the time to teach the newbie some things they don't know about, and do it BEFORE it becomes a problem, then you're a good opponent.

There are some basic minimums that I expect from players.  I want the opportunity to rate them in those regards.  I could have a "fun" game where the guy buys me lunch, his GF gives me a backrub and he stomps me.  But if he does so while adding an extra 50% off of all his movement, I want the opportunity to help him be a better player.  I also want to be penalized/rewarded if I am (in)considerate of my opponents.

Remember that people who are not in the top brackets are there to roll dice and have some fun, and they WILL NOT CARE about your scoring system.  If they have additional opportunities to win prizes/awards, it's better for everyone. Further, if it's random, then it's pretty hard to complain about.  Not only that, but most of the players bugged out before the awards ceremonies (I have ideas about solving that too).

So in the end, I would ask you to define the goal(s) you are trying to accomplish, and if they HAVE to be contradictory to allowing a non arbitrary overall winner to be determined. If your goal(s) can be accomplished with another system do you mind not having a huge spread?  Is it a problem to have additional reminders of expected respect for your opponent?  Please remember that I've run tournaments as an Outrider for a very long time, and attend them nationally as well.  I'm not making this stuff up, and I'm not doing it to pick on you or to make your job harder.  My primary goal is to make sure we ALL have a good time,  the upper table tournament-junkies, as well as the mid-level-obscurity guys who like to roll dice, and the newbs that didn't know what they were getting into.

Also, know that I appreciate ANYONE who goes to the effort of running these blasted things.   It's hard, it's thankless, and there's no "perfect" way.  If it weren't important to me, and if I didn't respect you, I'd call up Mike and tell him we need a new TO.  But that is NOT the case.  Your club has done a nice job, and it's been improving over time, and like you said, attendance has been improving over time as well.

barontuman wrote:

First, every single person I've discussed this with has had a negative reaction to your scoring system.  This includes people who were at the event (off the top of my head) people who attended the event (Andy S. CJ, Daniel), local tacticon/Ghengis regulars, people who went to Nova instead (Adam T., and an increasing number of people) as well as people who play other game systems in tournaments (Warmahordes, Flames, etc.)  You say vote with your feet, and that's very close to my current feeling too.  Your current system makes me not want to attend at all.  Think of that.  My family will be attending, I play 40K once or twice a week, and I don't want to play in a local GT?

I have talked to a couple of those guys since, I wish they would of said something. Heck, I talked to Andy the next morning and he only had good things to say about the event. This is part of my problem, these guys have been more than willing to talk to me about the event before, but in regards to sportsmanship, they seem very tight lipped.

I understand if you feel that way. I also think you're a great asset to the community and you would be missed. I hope it doesn't come to that.

And, while maybe someday, we are still just an RTT. Not trying to nitpick, just don't want to advertise the wrong idea.

barontuman wrote:

Here I think you've defined the problem quite well, as well as the probable solution.  I support 100% giving a "favored opponent" award.  So, we can agree on your goal.  My goal is to not have the Best Overall, the guys who bring their A-game in everything, sports, list, game-knowledge, cleanliness, beautiful army, tactics, etc.  determined in an arbitrary manner.

So, after sports we move onto my paint judging? It starts with a rubric, but eventually come down to a select group of guys.

barontuman wrote:

In the situation you described (going with the intent rather than the exact wording), your opponent did NOT know the rules.  You are perfectly within your rights to expect your opponent to play by the rules.  There are good ways and bad ways of approaching that situation too.  If you belittle your opponent and call them on every single little thing, then you're a bad sport/opponent.  But.... if you take the time to teach the newbie some things they don't know about, and do it BEFORE it becomes a problem, then you're a good opponent.

He wasn't a bad opponent, I enjoyed the game. I have played others where I didn't enjoy the game. I wouldn't say I was his favorite opponent by any means. Nor was he mine. But your system of this is what you have to do to be the best opponent doesn't apply. Did most of the things that came up matter? Not really. At the time, though, they seemed important. A good opponent isn't just about rules and not cheating. Its a social experience. Its a freaking game, rules lawyering and 1/8th of an inch are not all that important. An opponent who really needed a little long bathroom break and costs you 5 minutes of a game isn't a bad opponent. You could finish early and become best friends, driving to play every weekend. The things that make a game good or bad are not as easy to quantify. I played a game versus a Blood Angels player, I'm pretty sure our rules were good, we were on time, we didn't cheat, but the game was rather lack luster. It was Friday night, game two, near midnight, we were both beat, and really didn't get into it. I'm also pretty sure he got all fives(or whatever), most of my opponents did.

barontuman wrote:

 I could have a "fun" game where the guy buys me lunch, his GF gives me a backrub and he stomps me.

OK, can this be the last time that you compare any sportsmanship system to requiring you to receive things from your opponent and favors from his significant other. This is the point in every argument we have about this were I stop taking you seriously. Right here you tell me that that your sportsmanship vote has nothing to do with game play, and everything to do with getting bought. I know your trying to make some point, but the point you are making, I am pretty sure, isn't the one you wanted.

barontuman wrote:

So in the end, I would ask you to define the goal(s) you are trying to accomplish, and if they HAVE to be contradictory to allowing a non arbitrary overall winner to be determined. If your goal(s) can be accomplished with another system do you mind not having a huge spread?  Is it a problem to have additional reminders of expected respect for your opponent?

I already stated some of the reasons I don't like your earlier post's system.
I also don't believe in the "everyone is great, only mention anything if the are REALLY great or REALLY not great and I will add or subtract a point from their score" system. I also have something against filling in check boxes in front of your opponent on the back of your battle sheet, that doesn't breed accuracy either.

I am also confused on your everyone is equally awesome to play and most people are actually bad sports position. You always tell me that everyone are good opponents and any system should be based from that median. Then you talk about how everyone needs to be reminded or that they will alter scores to cut somebody out of prizes.

barontuman wrote:

Please remember that I've run tournaments as an Outrider for a very long time, and attend them nationally as well.  I'm not making this stuff up, and I'm not doing it to pick on you or to make your job harder.

Yes, I have been to your tournaments and have had questions about your own Sports system. Having been laid out at the beginning of the tournament, played the tournament, then not seeing the results, but knowing I should be up on points, not getting it and wondering where I stood, but you ran blind tournies. Which may be how I should run them, but I don't really want to.

barontuman wrote:

My primary goal is to make sure we ALL have a good time,  the upper table tournament-junkies, as well as the mid-level-obscurity guys who like to roll dice, and the newbs that didn't know what they were getting into.

Lofty goal, every opponent you play should love you.
However, I do remember you complaining about the "newb" who gave you your bad score at Tacticon and cost you the tournament... Even though, in actuality, he was NOT the player who marked you third.

barontuman wrote:

 If it weren't important to me, and if I didn't respect you, I'd call up Mike and tell him we need a new TO.

The problem is, there isn't anyone else. I took over so there would be a tournament. You had declined, Wrecking Crew declined, and Mike was searching for anyone to run it. My crew and I are why there is a tournament currently. Mike has also told me repeatedly how happy he is with our performance and the response he has received. Including more feedback, almost all positive, save one comment about sports, than he has ever received for the 40K tournament.



Arguing aside, I will say that for Genghiscon, the system will stay the same. I have two months to finalize any changes to the missions, plus put together more terrain. I don't have any time to spare for working out a new sportsmanship system as well.

I am curious as to why this one part seems to affect you so. You do well in paint, battle, and sports, but not enough to podium in any, why does this one system seem to bother you so very much?

double post from editing.

A GT is heavily battle points/win loss. With an RTT I am able to run a more hobby tournament. It isn't an argument, just a statement.

Three good games. That's what I am after for everyone. You have said that a majority of players don't care about awards or prizes. If that is true then all I can offer is great missions against opponents who are trying to make that game the best one you have played all day.

Fine, I will go to a 1/3/5 system, even though you apparently don't even know how the old system gave points. I will have to multiply by 4 at the end to keep all parts of the event equal. That I will not change. So, it will be scored 4/12/20 per Tony who will rant about the spread now->

CrimsonWraith wrote:

A GT is heavily battle points/win loss. With an RTT I am able to run a more hobby tournament. It isn't an argument,  just a statement.

Three good games. That's what I am after for everyone. You have said that a majority of players don't care about awards or prizes. If that is true then all I can offer is great missions against opponents who are trying to make that game the best one you have played all day.

Fine, I will go to a 1/3/5 system, even though you apparently don't even know how the old system gave points. I will have to multiply by 4 at the end to keep all parts of the event equal. That I will not change. So, it will be scored 4/12/20 per Tony who will rant about the spread now->

Don't bother. If you multiply it, you multiply the errors as well, which is the problem that I have with the system. If you want to make it "equal" then give it equal respect and not so prone to rampant failure. If you insist on having a huge spread (4 to 20, or 1 to 20, whatever) based on a pseudo random solution, then run it however you choose and we'll have a discussion with the players afterwards. I'll bring my data, and you can bring whatever you want. Then we'll let the players decide. I'm confident, are you?

Yes.