New Active Ranking 2010

Want to change something on the site? Or add new features?
thefinerminer
Site Admin
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: UK, Scotland
Contact:

New Active Ranking 2010

Post by thefinerminer » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:08 pm

Do you want to start a new Active Ranking on 01 Jan 2010?

HOW IT WORKS: There are 26 rankings a year (every 2 weeks). Players send their best Intermediate and Expert score finished each period and are ranked by sum. Points are given for your ranking (if 25 people are ranked for a period, 1st=25 and 25th=1). If you do not submit scores the next period you are ranked with a penalty of 5 seconds, then 10 seconds, then are dropped from the two-week ranking. Points are used to give you an Active World Ranking (you are ranked on your total points in the previous 52 weeks). I will add a submit box to your Profile control panel.

WHY WE NEED IT: The current AR is on a dead website. It still works but only 5 or 6 people play and there is no overall ranking (only the two-week rankings).

WHY IT IS GOOD: Anyone can be ranked (you can submit 345-999 and still get points). You can beat players that are ranked higher on the World Ranking. For example, [name removed]11-40 can beat Kamil 8-35 sometimes. I used to beat Lasse every couple rankings. Or maybe you have better average scores than someone ranked higher on the world ranking. Or maybe you submit all 26 periods and they only submit 14 - the ranking is for ACTIVE players. Also, you can can a higher world ranking because all the 'dead' players are removed. In tennis, Federer is #1 and Borg, Becker, Lendl are all retired. The points from the AR can be used like tennis, snooker or other points rankings, and we can calculate, "Peter achieved a career best rank of #8 for 3 weeks in 2010".

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:57 pm

for all those that haven't been following the AR results in the last about 1 1/2 years: for roughly 6 or 7 months or so (too lazy to look it up) kamil has constantly been the #1 on the ar with a comfortable 5-10s lead over me. i myself haven't had to face any other serious competitor for my position, either behind kamil nowadays or manu last year, except for a short period reid, who by now hasn't submitted his scores in quite a while.

my biggst fear is that a bi-weekly ranking will not value activity as much as an active ranking should do. in my facebook minesweeper tournaments for example we had season of 4 1-week -long tournaments with the same pointing system as suggested by damien. this led to the need for sweepers that wanted to play for the overall top position to take part in every single tournamentof a season. and still those that missed a tourny but did well in the rest also got a good final rank at the end of a season.

my suggestion therefore would be to have weekly rankings instead of bi-weekly. for those that play really a lot (manu, kamil and me) having 2 whole weeks to get 1 good int and 1 good exp score means that we basically just can play 2 or 3 of 14 days, get some good scores and then don't play at all. in a weekly ranking it would be quite a bit more competitive: if kamil has 2 weeks time he can easily get sub10 and sub40, i can get 13 and sub45 without even being in that much of a good overall shape (in which i now am), manu could get scores in between kamil and me and then (unless ian takes part) i estimate to be a 5-10s hole to the next group of sweepers. with only half the time to achieve one's ar score i think it would mean that it is more likely that in every other ar period some sweepers will get a few seconds better or worse sums and we will seea tougher competition.

well, enough of that from me for now...

another suggestion: besides an annual ranking a ranking for the running 52 weeks (or maybe 13 weeks - that's 3 months; you can improve a lot in that time) would show very well who does how good comparing to the others.
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

wpyeoh
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:23 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by wpyeoh » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:02 pm

I think the previous system worked really well, and there is no need to change it.

Yeah, some of you might play a lot, so weekly rankings would suit you better. However, playing once a week is difficult if you have a heavy schedule; I for one have not been playing at all for several weeks, and having to play every week to maintain my ranking will be such a drag that I won't even bother playing for that.

I remember that I once stopped playing regularly as well, and I had to sort of remind myself to play every two weeks, just so I could submit scores for the ranking. But really, if I had only one week to submit my scores, I really doubt I'd do it.

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:19 pm

isn't that what the 5s and 10s penalties are for? with bi-weekly rankings one could be listed in all 26 rankings of a year by submitting only 9 scores...if the rankings were weekly you'd stay in the rankings for up to 3 weeks with 1 score.

[quote="wpyeoh"]I think the previous system worked really well, and there is no need to change it. [quote]

really? for 19 ar periods in a row kamil is 1st, i'm 2nd, reid 3rd and luke 4th (3rd now as reid hasn't submitted scores the last times)
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

LTsully
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:56 am

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by LTsully » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:54 pm

I am all for it on this site.

onerib
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:21 am
Location: united states - florida

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by onerib » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:30 pm

I would like the rankings to be every 2 months. Doing it every 2 weeks makes it feel like a competition, which i don't really feel like minesweeper is a competition, and don't want to feel like it is a competition(except for those little Facebook tournaments, which are cool, but only every once in a while). I don't know why, but even every month seems too soon to me. If the rankings were every 2 months, no one would ever feel rushed to play just to submit a relatively good score(if they do, they would probably not be considered "active"); they would occur often enough that i think people would not forget about them, but far enough apart so that a fair amount of changes would be likely from one to the next, which is what would make it interesting.

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:14 pm

@reid: most probably there won't be any more minesweeper tournaments on facebook :cry: facebook has taken away our publishing rights for the minesweeper fanpage which makes the page rather useless (we can post on our own wall, can't use the fanpage's forum and can't send updates to the fans).

@2 months periods: :o imho occassionally playing just a few times over 2 months does not mean you're an acitve player. for me an active player should be able to get a for them at least decent to good score in just 1 or 2 hours of playing. 2 hours per week (or two weeks) is really not that much time. especially not for those sweepers that are currently (still) climbing up in the rankings.

an active ranking should in some way reward activity and a sweeper that could submit a good score every day is certainly more active than one that needs 2 months.
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

thefinerminer
Site Admin
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: UK, Scotland
Contact:

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by thefinerminer » Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:55 am

@[name removed]: yeah i meant a 52 week running ranking, just like in several sports like tennis and snooker. of course there can be a year end ranking just like the original AR

i really like the 2 week period ([name removed]wants shorter, kamil and reid want longer). i have the same problem as ywp. even when i was totally active i still found myself playing on friday to get better scores. the longer the period, the more like the world ranking it becomes and there is no chance to beat better players. for example, sometimes i can get 44 and maybe [name removed]will have a bad week or kamil will be on holiday.

about [name removed]saying that it is always the same order: it doesn't really matter imho is someone is 20s better but only 1 or 2 positions above you because the difference is only 1 or 2 points for the rankings. if they don't play 1 or 2 periods you have a chance to pass them. :ugeek:

User avatar
Rogen
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:58 am
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by Rogen » Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:10 am

I vote for old system, because i want to submit good scores and i need at least 2 days to play, that would be hard for me having only one week.
I'll make some advertisment for russian players, hopefully some of them will participate in it.

@damien: how do you see new AR? locate on your website or minesweeper.cc? scores by e-mail or uploading them to website?
1-10-43(42), 1-10-45 NF.
2nd place in 1st Minesweeper World Championship
Winner of Russian Minesweeper Championships 2007,2008

dmeng
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by dmeng » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:51 pm

Well, I think we seem to agree that everyone is interested in keeping up an Active Ranking here, but we can't seem to agree on the timeframe.

We could also have multiple lists if people cannot agree on something. (i.e. have weekly lists, biweekly lists, and monthly lists, with point tables for each)
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)

KamilSaper
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:16 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by KamilSaper » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:37 pm

I'd like monthly AR the most, but I'll enjoy any other ones :D
0.49 - 7.03 - 31.13
NF: 0.49 - 7.03 - 31.51

Janis
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by Janis » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:20 pm

2 weeks is good fine, but this should be done in a way that missing two or three periods shouldn't be so harmful in the overall - that's my main concern.

My secondary concern is that those weeks that many participate, even if it's low ranking players, the really big players will end up with more points just because more ppl participated (if i understood this correctly). The # of pts given by #1 spot should always be same, not depending on how many players participated.

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:13 pm

if missing periods doesn't affect your ranking how would you call the ranking then? the active, er, doesn't matter if you're active, ranking? :P jk

but a 5s and 10s penalty are'nt that bad - you'll notice it sooner or later when you take part in the nex AR


your 2nd point is a good point: maybe we could solve it by giving eg giving 30 or 50 points for the 1st place and then 49 for 2nd etc...but that would punish missing periods too much

another way to do it could be: points you get = points for 1st place - (number of players ahead of you / number of players) * points for 1st place

-assume 10 players take part and 1st gets 50 points
1st player has 0 of 10 ahead of him and would get 50-(0/10)*50 points
2nd would get 45 and last would still get 5 points


i'm too tired to really think about pros and cons - just think it's an interesting suggestion
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

dmeng
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by dmeng » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:42 am

It's rather difficult to come up with a points system that doesn't punish those who do not submit scores. I agree that those who miss a period or two shouldn't feel too much of a punishment, but we can't make the system way too flexible. This is going to be an active ranking after all.

Here's my suggestion:

We can have weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, and yearly lists.

Weekly list:
Rankings based on sum of lowest five intermediate and lowest five expert scores. In the case of a tie, add the next-best intermediate and expert game and compare until the tie is resolved. Lack-of-play penalties (for this list only, lasting one week) will be 2s on intermediate and 3s on expert for each marking period of absence. (For example, if someone does not play for four weeks, 8s will be added to each intermediate game and 12s will be added to each expert game when they play in the following week.)

Biweekly list:
Rankings based on sum of lowest ten intermediate and lowest ten expert scores. In the case of a tie, add the next-best intermediate and expert game and compare until the tie is resolved. Lack-of-play penalties (for this list only, lasting two weeks) will be 3s on intermediate and 5s on expert for each marking period of absence. (For example, if someone does not play for four weeks, 6s will be added to each intermediate game and 10s will be added to each expert game when they play in the following biweekly period.)

Monthly list:
Rankings based on sum of lowest twenty intermediate and lowest twenty expert scores. In the case of a tie, add the next-best intermediate and expert game and compare until the tie is resolved. Lack-of-play penalties (for this list only, lasting one month) will be 5s on intermediate and 10s on expert for each marking period of absence. (For example, if someone does not play for two months, 10s will be added to each intermediate game and 20s will be added to each expert game when they play in the following month.)

Yearly list:
Rankings based on sum of lowest fifty intermediate and lowest fifty expert scores. In the case of a tie, add the next-best intermediate and expert game and compare until the tie is resolved. There are no lack-of-play penalties for this list.

In the event that not enough scores are submitted, instead of the normal 999.99 penalty, each incomplete board will be treated as if it were completed with a time of (worst submitted score + lack-of-play penalty * number of leftovers). For example, if someone only submits 9 intermediate scores in the bi-weekly list, and his/her worst intermediate time for that period was 27.88, the tenth score will be 30.88. A person who only submits 8 intermediate scores in the bi-weekly list with the exact same worst submitted score would then have his/her 9th and 10th boards each count as 33.88. The lack-of-play penalty for the yearly list in this instance only will be equal to the monthly penalties (10s for intermediate, 20s for expert). However, the 999.99 rule will be brought into effect to break ties. (in other words, in both of the previous situations, the 11th score will still be considered a 999.99)

All submitted scores will go toward all four lists. (i.e. if someone plays an intermediate board with a time of 21.96, that board will go toward the five for the weekly list, the ten on the biweekly list, the twenty for the monthly list, and the fifty for the yearly list)

The idea here is to have everyone participate in all the lists, but let each person concentrate on the list that matters to them the most. The limited use of the 999.99 penalty is to allow someone to still be in the game if s/he is only missing a small number of boards, while still giving an advantage to those with more completed boards. Basically, if someone finishes 9 int boards with an average time of 20 seconds, s/he is still clearly better than someone who completes 10 int boards with an average time of 40 seconds. However, the former is still worse than someone who completes 9 int boards with an average time of 20 seconds, with a 10th score of 100 seconds.

I know its complex, but I only want to make a reasonably fair system.
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:14 pm

very detailed dennis! seems fair

but i fear this would sum up to a too huge amount of games in the tables.

with only 10 persons taking part in all rankings it'd be already at least 5200 games

indeed the rankings would be fairer if they included more scores from each sweeper - but how many?
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

dmeng
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by dmeng » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:05 am

EWQMinesweeper wrote:very detailed dennis! seems fair

but i fear this would sum up to a too huge amount of games in the tables.

with only 10 persons taking part in all rankings it'd be already at least 5200 games

indeed the rankings would be fairer if they included more scores from each sweeper - but how many?
I can be flexible with the actual number of games for each list. For example, instead of 5-10-20-50, we could easily do something like 2-5-10-20. It's still 2000+ games for 10 players, but realistically we'd only be looking at maybe at most 450 of them at any one given time. It's still fairly tedious, but this way each person can still get their preferred timeframe. Either we agree on a timeframe, or whoever is compiling all of the games will have some extra work.

Granted, compiling all of the games isn't too bad if you have Microsoft Excel 2007 and know some of the tricks it has. One .xlsx file could hold all of the games information, and since Excel 2007 has built in reordering, we don't have to manually search for the lowest scores. Unless a large number of people submit all of their scores on one particular date (we're talking hundreds of scores at once here), updating won't take up a huge amount of time. It's not exactly real-time updates, but daily updates are possible if someone has maybe an hour a day (which I know is much less than most top players spend on minesweeper anyway).

If we trust the validity of .mvf, .avf, and .mvr files, it shouldn't take more than a handful of seconds to validate and enter the score into an Excel spreadsheet. Finding the sum of the top scores for the rankings could be done automatically as well.
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)

dmeng
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by dmeng » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:04 am

dmeng wrote:In the event that not enough scores are submitted, instead of the normal 999.99 penalty, each incomplete board will be treated as if it were completed with a time of (worst submitted score + lack-of-play penalty * number of leftovers). For example, if someone only submits 9 intermediate scores in the bi-weekly list, and his/her worst intermediate time for that period was 27.88, the tenth score will be 30.88. A person who only submits 8 intermediate scores in the bi-weekly list with the exact same worst submitted score would then have his/her 9th and 10th boards each count as 33.88. The lack-of-play penalty for the yearly list in this instance only will be equal to the monthly penalties (10s for intermediate, 20s for expert). However, the 999.99 rule will be brought into effect to break ties. (in other words, in both of the previous situations, the 11th score will still be considered a 999.99)
One slight clarification that I think may make a difference: In breaking a tie, all incomplete games will still receive the 999.99 penalty. I realized that if neither player finished enough games, the previous wording could have been misconstrued to give them a draw in the case of a tie, regardless of exactly how many games either completed.
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)

Cryslon
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:41 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by Cryslon » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:44 am

dmeng wrote: ... Microsoft Excel 2007 ... .xlsx ...
This post is afflicting me. What's common between M$ crap and their damned format$ and the minesweeper?! Are you guys seriously going to force Damien or somebody else to use some crappy instruments to manage AR tables? AR on minesweeper.cc is technological edge comparing to that manual fuss with spreadsheets.
dmeng wrote: If we trust the validity of .mvf, .avf, and .mvr files ...
AFAIR, AR was always based on trust, ie you don't have to submit videos to be ranked, just scores (as it's currently working on ms.cc).
Go IRC! (try mibbit)

dmeng
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by dmeng » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:09 pm

Cryslon wrote: AR on minesweeper.cc is technological edge comparing to that manual fuss with spreadsheets.
I will admit, I was making that post without any knowledge as to what goes on under the current system. If the current system is much better for compiling scores, then that's okay, we can use that instead.
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)

Janis
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by Janis » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:13 pm

are you really gonna make ppl send in at least 5 int & 5 exp games/week.. thats 10 games/week to submit.. lazy ppl like me will be :evil: :x

KamilSaper
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:16 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by KamilSaper » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:43 pm

Im not going to send more than 2 scores/ 2 weeks :D
0.49 - 7.03 - 31.13
NF: 0.49 - 7.03 - 31.51

dmeng
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by dmeng » Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:03 pm

Janis wrote:are you really gonna make ppl send in at least 5 int & 5 exp games/week.. thats 10 games/week to submit.. lazy ppl like me will be :evil: :x
KamilSaper wrote:Im not going to send more than 2 scores/ 2 weeks :D
Again, I can be flexible with the actual amounts, but I still feel that there should be at least two of each difficulty for each ranking.
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:24 pm

the more games the more people will have to be active...after all it's an active ranking

your personal laziness is no excuse
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

aradesh
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by aradesh » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:53 am

So what are the actual rules for active ranking? Did Damien decide how many games per 2 weeks we need to upload?

Also on the upload page it says
Please use Real Decimal Time starting from 0.00.
So to clarify before it gets changed or something, this means I'm typing in my real time, not time+1, right?

EWQMinesweeper
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: New Active Ranking 2010

Post by EWQMinesweeper » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:49 pm

same rules as for the ar on mscc:

1 int and 1 exp per 2 weeks - and if it says realtime then post realtime and not time+1
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“

Post Reply