Rankings - with meaning?

[Skiffie]

Question / Suggestion: the current "leaderboard" is a little hard for those who come in later to climb. Might I suggest the first level ranking is by win percentage? This could be further sorted by the points system. New teams are "null" (not zero) percentage until they have completed a challenge as per existing.

[euphoria]

Thanks for the suggestion. If we get a full database solution, then we will give the opertunity to sort the table in 3 different ways. Ladder - Points - Percentage. But the Ladder will always be the main ranking. I don't agree that it's hard to climb on the leaderboard for those who enter late. By winning one single challenge against one of the top teams, they will position at the middle of the leaderboard. One more win and they are around top 25%.

Harald

[euphoria]

I've now managed to create a database solution for VTC. You can now choose to sort the teams by rating points in stead of the ranking.

For a start, result reporting and team changes has to be performed by an administrator, but with time there will complete interactive service.

Harald

[ARK Racing]

Harald,

I have a few questions about the ladder portion of the ranking. I understand how the points work, but it is interesting to me that in following the SIs, if you look at the way our match with Team Denmark was scored...we move up 50% of the difference between the teams which is up 1 position. Then after that change is made the losing team should move down 1 position. This would move them down below us, right?

[euphoria]

The script is coded the way you describe. So if you're beating a team, you will pass them on the ladder if you initially are 1 or 2 positions behind.

The score prior to your race was:

3. Denmark
4. Union
5. Abnormal
6. USA

50% from 6 to 3 is 1.5. This gives you position "4.5" which is worse than Union and better than Abnormal. Hence your new ranking is 5. Denmark then drop 1 position, giving them ranking 4:

3. Union
4. Denmark
5. USA
6. Abnormal

Harald

[ARK Racing]

Ok, makes sense. I thought Union was ahead of Denmark, my mistake.

[Skiffie]

Question - where do new teams enter the rankings? Team Valkyrie are in the top ten yet have only raced twice and have a 50% win ratio? I have no issue with them being above, say, Rumbilical Brothers :;): on percentage and points :O but I think it's stiff that a team so fresh can be so high up the rankings ladder especially on one result!

[euphoria]

New teams enter at the bottom of the rankings, but above all teams classified as inactive. Practically this means the position above Team GermanyOne.

There must have been a bug putting Valkyrie in 8th position.
I'll manually change the ranking for Valkyrie to 22nd and Agent Prov to 17th.

Harald

[Abra]

Harald and Mark (and ALL),

I appreciate and understand your concern regarding Team Valkyrie so high on the ranking. We do have to earn our position. However for us to catch some of the leaders and get a good ranking for say TL09 or WTRC10 We would have to match and win many times.
Would you give consideration to the following idea/changes to the format of this challenge system?:

Create a yearly points ranking system rather than an ongoing system? Most All sports are organized this way. Grand Prix, Nascar, the RL WTRC, you name it. Everone starts with a clean slate. This would allow for old teams to be cleared out as well as the existing 'GOOD' teams to not rest on their laurels and have to compete to keep their ranking.
The Season would start the day after the completion of the WTRC and culminate with the WTRC. I think it would make for a more active, relevent and exciting system.

Discussion, thoughts?

Regards,

Dan



Edited By Abra on 1232653900

[ARK Racing]

Shut up New Guy

I think an all time ranking is a good idea, but I also think there must be a penalty for teams who only race in WTRC and never attempt to race any other time in the year. Two of the top 5 teams haven't raced in a year and have turned down challenges, and that should impact their rankings.

[waywordboat]

I like Dan's idea--I would tweak it so that the WTRC is the first event of the year. As a result, the winner of WTRC would take the top spot on the ladder, followed by second, etc.

I feel like the pts / % of race wins can be the overall stats, and the ladder can be done yearly (and in the future, the ladder can be the ranking system for the next WTRC in this model).

But I don't know the database issues or technical knowhow to make this happen, or if it is really worth the time. But minus the work I think the idea is good.

[admiral 1]

Still don't see the problem. You get the chance to half the distance to top, every time you challenge the top team. A top team can run away for a maximum of 4 weeks. There's more trouble with teams at the top not willing to chance their ranking. But basically there's no movement if there's no team that challenges a team placed above it.

Afaik any ranking is bullwog when there's no racing. Just check the number of results/races since last years WTRC final. From my point of view no amount of work is worth the afford.......

[admiral 1]

I re-checked the active challenges thread... it may look somewhat impressive at first sight, but there are a lot of dead threads in there.. i think we need to call pedro (Skorpa) and see the old stuff moved to the "old challenges thread" there should be walkovers resulting from that too...

[euphoria]

I think an all time ranking is a good idea, but I also think there must be a penalty for teams who only race in WTRC and never attempt to race any other time in the year. Two of the top 5 teams haven't raced in a year and have turned down challenges, and that should impact their rankings.

It is reflected in the ranking, but it's your responsibility to make it happen. Last year you requested to challenge Union of 2005. The Union offered you a walkover win, which you refused.

Harald

[ARK Racing]

Well, yes, because we wanted to actually race against you, not type 3-0 into a box