Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Who's actually good?


#131

Whatever you come up with, I should have a preliminary rating over 9000.

In all seriousness, I think the key would be to get the stores involved somehow. Most places will use some sort of software to do pairings and whatnot; what if we were to just start a program by which we collected all of the data from the stores rather than try to get them on board in advance. It might be a lot easier, though I have no idea how the software generally works and how we could easily compile data.


#132

I’d like to revive the idea of a worldwide ranking system managed by the fine folk here at Stimhack.

I have already done it on a lower scale here, and It wouldn’t be hard to make it work worldwide. The only point is that’s not on Stimhack :confused:

That a great idea, collecting all the tournament export file is the hardest part. the problem is all the software already existing ( NRTM, Run4Win, ANT) and the future FFG one. I’m not sure it will have an export option.


#133

There is simple elo rating in Russia. We just register every match on any tourney without extra weight or something.
This has its own downside but in general it is pretty precise skill messure for local players.

https://github.com/alexmonk/anrrating/blob/master/netrunner_elo_rating.csv


#134

For our local league, I’m using Glicko-2 with a slight modification (we kept the modwin/modloss structure of the original tournament rules) and tweaked initial values. It works very well, much better than straight Elo does, because in Glicko-2, the order of matches within an event doesn’t matter - the system assumes your skill value changes between tournaments, not during it.


#135

Nice. Can you give me a brief overview of the scoring system?

I still like the idea of gathering info. from SCs, Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds, and compiling that. Points can be given for placing. So, for example:

SCs: 1st - 2, 2nd - 1
Regionals: 1st - 16, 2nd - 8, 3-4th - 4, 5-8th - 2
Nationals: 1st - 32, 2nd - 16, 3-4th - 8, 5-8th - 4, 9-16th - 1
Worlds: ???

Those are just off-the-top-of-the-head numbers. The community would be responsible for reporting and compiling. If Acoo wants to host something like this, that would be cool. This could not only lead to a ranking system, but an invitational, as well.


#136

NRTM does have an export option already, not sure about the others. It’s not unreasonable to have the ranking system to allow you to upload the results and parse the supported files from the software just like most deckbuilder can import decks from text files and OCTGN files.


Rankade ranking system and new feature: ghosts!
#137

“Rankade” : https://rankade.com/ looks like it might do something interesting… but both players would need to agree to it when they play, and they have to report it, but their phone based interface isn’t bad. I tried to set one up for my store but I keep forgetting about it when we play.

There’s nothing to say we couldn’t create a WorldWideNetrunner Group and record all the matches in there… no doubt it would be subject to gaming, and people would be less likely to record games with garbage decks etc.

Maybe 3 groups, one for games in official constructed tournament play, and another for official tournament draft play, and a 3rd for casual funsies?


#138

You probably would want to limit the number of each type of points so that a player from a less active meta has a chance. Something like limiting to five (or three or whatever) SC, and one each of the others, with the highest score being used.


#139

There are a number of challenges that a decentralized reporting system would face, all of which are more-or-less solvable by convention or some other means:

  1. consistent player identities (e.g. how do we map potentially haphazardly entered or inconsistent data from the tournaments to a real player ID)
  2. how do we do something like this but also let people have fun—i.e. avoid pressuring people who just want to run fun jank without screwing up their rating.
  3. cross-meta rankings are tricky unless there is significant overlap, e.g. not all tournaments at the same “level” are the same.
  4. EmJayBee’s point about how we’d balance quantity over quality.

potential solutions:

  1. a registration + verification system: consistent ranking is only guaranteed to players with a known ID that have signed up. Once tournament / match data is entered, the onus would be on that player to verify a match as theirs and have it adjust their ranking.
  2. this is more of a social issue so your playgroup/meta/store would have to agree about what events are casual and which are not.
  3. we could just deal with it until there are enough overlapping matches/tournaments, or, like college football cross-conference matchups, simply use it as good-natured agrument fodder for folks :).
  4. we could use a system like glicko/elo/trueskill which mitigates the pure points-for-placement quantity over quality issue.

I could be tempted to write something like this, hmmm.


#140

We could do something simple like award points for high placements in tournaments, but in my experience, rewarding playing a ton is inferior to rewarding playing well, because attending tournaments just isn’t a competition. However, it would be a whole lot easier. You would avoid the issue of it making people too competitive, though I don’t think this would be a huge issue unless you started giving away things for ranking highly, like magic used to do with their ELO rating-based Pro Tour invites, (I once dropped from the top 2 of a Pro Tour Qualifier because I would qualify if I won or if I dropped but could lose my rating qualification if I lost the finals match).

Really, I think that as a prerequisite to a ranking system that tracks individual games, we would need a universal tournament organizer client for netrunner tournaments and have that client autoreport to whoever is maintaining the ranking system. I wasn’t aware that FFG was creating one, but if that is the case, using theirs would be ideal, and I think if they weren’t on board with actually keeping track of everything themselves, they could at least be persuaded to share data with us. Regardless of how we calculated ratings, I think this would be the only really good way to do things. Could someone link to the information FFG has shared about their software? Was it used at worlds, (because that software has the serious issue of pairing based on last name alphabetical rather than the actual tiebreaker used for ranking the tournament)?


#141

It’s a modified version of the Planeswalker points used by DCI. It takes in count: size of the tournament, type of tournament (GNK, Store … ) Prestige, SoS, and final ranking.

The simple version looks like :
Point = [tournament_size] + mulitplicator[tournament_type]*(Prestige + SoS + Top_ranking)

But it’s a lot more complex. We can discuss it if you want by PM :slight_smile:


#142

Well, for starters, official quality software would be nice. I would only include official FFG OP tourneys (SCs on up), as they seem the best attended, and would be easiest to get info. for. I wanted to give a little credit for SCs, but, I attended some with as few as 8 people, so, not much credit should be given.

Intrigued at the DCI software; of course they know their shit.


#143

Good to see people are still interested in this. I’m not sure 9,000 points is reasonable, @mediohxcore, but we’ll see what we can do! :stuck_out_tongue:

There are lots of good ideas here, but I’m not sure the forum is a great place to bounce around ideas and I’d like to avoid four or five of us duplicating effort to try and create something. I’m going to PM a few people who seemed keen on this and we can coordinate through there and/or through Skype even.

I’m going to invite @spags, @beal2912, @mediohxcore, and @hypomodern. If anyone else is interested just ask to be added to the conversation here in this thread.

At the very least I’m thinking we will include all Store Championships and Regionals into an excel sheet that would track points based on (1) size, and (2) result. We would not score individual matches at all. All of the SC and Regionals are easily published and we can find the best way to get results into the system.

Anyway, let’s keep discussing this on PM.


#144

I’d like to be added, I’m trying to grow the Toronto meta and it would be good to have tracking for this kind of thing.


#145

We don’t have much information yet, but I’m guessing it’s not designed with being able to centrally house all tournament results that could then be shared. I might go ahead and ping FFG myself to see what’s going on.


#146

Added (10)


#147

I don’t know how it is in your area but I have some doubts about the quality of play in the store championships.
There are way too many stores that get to hold those (at least around here). Regionals, Nationals, Worlds and events like the plugged-in and chronos should be what rewards ranking.


#148

I don’t think FFG is going to do “tours” anymore, FWIW.


#149

Eh. If size of turnout is counted, that’ll help a little bit, at least? I know at our FLGS Store Championship we had much better players coming in from elsewhere, too, so that really raised the level of competition.


#150

Hi to all and thanks for the mention!
With rankade you can actually manage any kind of match (one-on-one, faction vs. faction, cooperative games and so one) and is made for all groups of players that want to know who’s the most skilled in play.
The service is totally free of charge and is available through the web app or through iOS/Android devices (here’s our introduction video https://rankade.com/learn-more ).
It’s not ready for tournaments yet, but you can create all groups that you want :slight_smile:
We think that the added value of the service is our algorithm https://rankade.com/ree . We have tested and worked on it for for years.

We hope you enjoy it, and please give us your feedback to improve the service.

Thanks,
rankade staff