Ideas from Ares

[SportChick]

I had a long discussion with Ares a month or so ago. He had a number of suggestions, that I asked him to post here. He had already deleted his bzbb account, so I am posting them in his stead.

"1) Team score should be cleared at least every year, if not more often
2) Non-active teams should loose points until the reach 0 and then be deleted
This would encourage teams to be more active. It would also alleviate quite a bit of the top rank camping and teams that won't match because they don't want to lose their spot. It really serves no purpose at all to have a team and refuse to play. I see lots of teams in the "never played a match" group and "inactive" group. That's a good start. I just think team score need to be more fluid in order to encourage participation. Teams that just start out can't really expect to move up hardly at all. If everyone starts at zero at some point, then those that are active have the chance to move up.

Then maybe a hall of fame of sorts can be kept for different categories - that way there will be multiple reasons to play (most games played, longest first place, number of first places, best overall ranking, etc.)"

[Admirarch]

I think having scores decreasing over time is probably the best idea I've heard come up so far, the table should represent the state of the league now not being such a static record of times gone by. There shouldn't be much difficulty in finding a definition of inactive such that this wouldn't penalise teams who were contributing to the league whilst making sure the league table shows who is best at the moment, not the legends (great as they were) of the past.

Unfortunately as I see it this idea requires a rework of the scoring system so that people start a zero and move only upwards which is an idea I really dislike. I'm not sure how one would get it to work with out this (possibly teams converging to 1200 if either above or below it?) but maybe other people have ideas.

I really dislike the idea of resetting the score yearly and I don't think it should be necessary with the above idea properly implemented.

[mistake]

About ELO System (from Wikipedia):
- The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess and Go.
- A statistical system, not a reward system
- the rating "agenda" can sometimes conflict with the agenda of promoting activity and rated games.

So reading through the thing, it apears that ELO is a good tool to rate the skill level of a player/team, but not the performance.

Maybe what we want is a rating that represents performance. We already have an alternative model in the 1vs1 league. Maybe Pimpinella or somebody else could explain its working, and discuss if that system might work for leagues before we invent something new.

[coincoin]

hi all,

Even if i m only a gu player, this type of reflexion could be usefull for gu too. So i give my opinion :

i agree with
"1) Team score should be cleared at least every year, if not more often". Just because, for very strong team (like for GU : TBO) win only one point by playing some team, and it gives the feelings (for new teams) that TBO is unbeatable, hmmm in fact that s not totally false

it could allow to have a champion team each year. Same as for tennis, football...

The idea to take into account the number of cap made, is,i think, good for ducati, not for GU (due to the cap pass trick).

coincoin.
P.S. : i hope it s understandable.

[SportChick]

I'm posting this on behalf of Zongo (for the original conversation, check the May 25 #dub logs):

I may repeat myself but DO NOT punish inactivity but reward activity. The point ladder i experienced on the 1vs1 league works fine imo.