NAF Ranked with 24/26 Teams

[D_Arquebus]

Without wishing to pan NAF much further, its a further indictment that I'm (and probably others) are most excited to make James' list eventually.

Is it possible to take a periodical extract of the NAF's result's database - so that some enterprising soul might shape the data into meaningful ways of interest to the community - as James is doing in a manual capacity currently (I'm assuming)?

YEs, I believe it is possible. Doubleskulls was maintaining a page with various tid bits on it here. So clearly it can be done.

[D_Arquebus]

This is only true if you keep winning. For some players, more games simply means lower ranking. Never really understood the argument that more games = higher ranking.

Generally people improve and thus the result will mostly go up? Not true in all cases but i already write too many dang words in my posts to bother clarifying this point

My problem is that I see the rankings as a product of Garbage Input. They should have been reset (partially or fully) with the change to CRP. Khemri rankings are a joke, and any rankings affected by playing against pre-nerf Khemri have been tainted.

By allowing my games to be ranked, I'm giving tacit approval of the system. I really don't want to do that.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, except I clearly don't have the issue with the approval tacit or otherwise.

To be clear, I would like to see the grossly different rule sets broken out into sepearate rankings as well. Not because the "purity" of my rankings is tainted but simply because I would like to see how it affects team selection and performance. And again, it would encourage me to go and try these rulesets/ tournaments and get my own ranking in those numbers as well.

**NOTE - no sarcasm intended in that last paragraph. It reads a bit more harshly then intended**

[Dazedmw]

Never really understood the argument that more games = higher ranking.

Didn't we run some numbers when we were discussing the MBBL ranking where the same sets of results over a 5 game span (WWWDL) resulted in a higher ranking over a certain number of iterations?

[Moraiwe]

Yes. WWWDL is a winning record. It's going to keep going up (until a point where there is a gigantic rating difference between yourself and your opponents). My point was it will only go up if you win. A LLLDW repeating pattern will see your rating go similarly downward.

[Dazedmw]

Yes. WWWDL is a winning record. It's going to keep going up (until a point where there is a gigantic rating difference between yourself and your opponents). My point was it will only go up if you win. A LLLDW repeating pattern will see your rating go similarly downward.

I think its a fair assumption that those who care about the rankings and play over many years will be those with the better records. Just look at the names commenting on this thread, dominated by Hutchie, Tribal, Boggie etc who are the better players and will generally have winning records.

Fassbinder's point would be that the ratings don't offer a valid comparison between the top players here and Europe (people don't care about comparing average or poor players) because generally the European ratings are higher, often due to the weight of games rather than the results.

[tribalsinner]

I think the main point is that we'd all like every game counted. Rankings are cool to look at for bragging rights, but being able to accurately record all matches played is the most important thing. WIn, lose or draw, having all the results there accurately is important.

[Nubs11]

I think the main point is that we'd all like every game counted. Rankings are cool to look at for bragging rights, but being able to accurately record all matches played is the most important thing. WIn, lose or draw, having all the results there accurately is important.

+1 and Im not very good

[Moraiwe]

I think the main point is that we'd all like every game counted. Rankings are cool to look at for bragging rights, but being able to accurately record all matches played is the most important thing. WIn, lose or draw, having all the results there accurately is important.

Not me. I don't want the no-longer-relevant pre-CRP ones to count at all (unless, as D_Arquebus suggested, we have different categories of ratings). What you define as "accurately" isn't necessarily the same as me.

I'd also want the first x amount of games a person plays to not count (or have a reduced count - I vaguely remember reading this is how ELO is handled in chess). It's much easier for players who were established when the ratings started to have a higher rating, than a new-to-the-game player.

[tribalsinner]

I think the main point is that we'd all like every game counted. Rankings are cool to look at for bragging rights, but being able to accurately record all matches played is the most important thing. WIn, lose or draw, having all the results there accurately is important.

Not me. I don't want the no-longer-relevant pre-CRP ones to count at all (unless, as D_Arquebus suggested, we have different categories of ratings). What you define as "accurately" isn't necessarily the same as me.

I'd also want the first x amount of games a person plays to not count (or have a reduced count - I vaguely remember reading this is how ELO is handled in chess). It's much easier for players who were established when the ratings started to have a higher rating, than a new-to-the-game player.

Your points are still about rankings. About how they relate to different rulesets.

I'm saying they need to be accurately recorded as games played despite the result. You can therefore look back and see every game you played at every tournament you attended.

[Moraiwe]

Gotcha. No problem with me there.

[D_Arquebus]

Ok I'll fix up the results mentioned above in the next few days.

Added sumbloke to the first post as the 7th player in Oz and NZ to hit 24 teams . There is at least 25 now but probably more. I'll need to check t database.

[sumbloke]

Ok I'll fix up the results mentioned above in the next few days.

Added sumbloke to the first post as the 7th player in Oz and NZ to hit 24 teams . There is at least 25 now but probably more. I'll need to check t database.

According to the link in your second post in this thread, there are at least 38 before me.

[sumbloke]

Okay, just ran a script over data from the NAF website. Looks like I'm 44th in the world to complete the 24.

[StoneColdSpider]

after SSB ill b sitting on 11 teams played.... im getting there....

[BigA]

Chopper has 2 teams at 200+ formerly known as cuttant.

Azza loses one of his. 200+ ratings.

[sumbloke]

I reran my script to make sure noone beat me with a tournament that hadn't been entered yet. My results for the order of Australians hitting the 24:

3 - Thomsy (7/11/09)
5 - GardenGnome (20/02/10)
6 - sangraal (10/04/10)
7 - Creature (22/05/10) (at this time we had more Australians than the rest of the world combined to achieve it, but less than a month later Podfrey got there too)
12 - D_Arquebus (11/06/11)
21 - Vimes (20/10/12)
44 - sumbloke (02/08/14)

The closest to achieving the 24 in Australia (having got past half-way) are:
22: Big_A and shadow
19: redcard
18: tribalsinner
15: Barks
14: Rabid_Bogscum
13: BeefyGoodness, JoeKano, Mathfuric and Stratford

[Rabid_Bogscum]

I cant believe im that close

[D_Arquebus]

I cant believe im that close

Only the next 10 tourneys hey Boggy

[sumbloke]

I cant believe im that close

Only the next 10 tourneys hey Boggy

Yeah, you're still missing: Chaos Pact, Elves, Halflings, High Elves, Norse, Nurgle, Ogres, Slaan, Underworld and Vampires.

Surely you want to be running the 'flings, ogres or vamps at ASC3...

[lolvenom]

I reckon I'll hit the 24 before boggy does