From: jjudy@gallium.berkeley.edu (Jack W. Judy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: UCB Pro-Ladder Opinion
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:21:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gallium.berkeley.edu


Pro-ladder opinion from UCB?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please answer one question.  Why the hell do we really need playoffs?
To determine who is the "best"?  I just don't think that is the most
important thing.  The most important things are to play in good games, have
fun, and have a means of indicating who is supposed to be better than (ego)
another, hence a ladder system.  We can dream if we want but we just can't
hope to get a playoff system that is successful as the college BB tourney.

I like the ladder system idea.  If it means the I (GB member) get to play
XG, SS, etc. more often then I think thats great because the GB's games
with these guys this season we all incredibly intense and enjoyable.

I don't mind playing other teams that aren't among the "Top fnord Teams"
but I do think it would be better to play teams of similar caliber so that
everyone can have closer and perhaps more exciting games.

I just don't see the need for playoffs.  Look how lamely they have been
in the past year.  Always a controversy....  It seems to me that playoffs
are not necessary if we use a "ladder" system.  If your team is on the top
of the pile, even for only a week, then you can consider yourselves champs.
More "Champs" should make more happy people and we all want to have fun
anyway right?  Besides a ladder system would allow not only #1 to be
determined but also #2, 3, 4, 5... although perhaps with decreasing accuracy.

I like the ladder system because of the fact that it can run continuously
and doesn't have to be reorganized each term.  I would think this would 
save a lot of people a lot of time and trouble.

Sure there will be problems with setting up the protocol of the ladder
system but I think these can be worked out.  Remember that simple is better.

To eliminate the initial ranking problem would could just have everyone
start off with rank #1 and then after the first game winners would be
grouped in to #1 and losers into #2.  Then if a team challenges a team in
the same ranking then the loser would be lowered on spot and push all the
teams below it down one notch and thus creating another rank number:

Rank Week #1:
#1: a b c d e f g h i j

First game: ( x > y ) = x beat y
1a > 1b , 1c > 1d , 1e > 1f , 1g > 1h, 1i = dnp , 1j = dnp

Rank Week #2:
#1: a b c d
#2: e f g h 
    i j		Did not play so I guess it is considered a loss to a team of
		equal rank.

Second games (by now games may get out of rhythm and not on a rigid weekly
schedule)

1a > 1b , 1c > 2e , 2f > 1d , 2i > 2g , 2h = dnp, 2j = dnp

Rank Week #3:
#1: a 	Beat team in the same rank so moves up a rank.
#2: c	Beat a team of lower rank so stays in the same relative rank.
    f	Beat a team of higher rank so switches places with that team it beat
    ->  NOTE RANK #2 was #1 from the previous week.
#3: b	Lost to a team of the same rank so drops only 1 rank and pushes
	other teams down one.
#4: i	Beat a team of equal rank so it gets bumped up one relative rank.
#5: d	Lost to a team of lower rank so switched places with it.
    e	Lost to a team of higher rank so stays in the same relative rank.
    ->  NOTE RANK #5 was #2 from the previous week.
#6: g	Lost to a team of equal rank so it gets bumped down one relative rank
    h	Did not play so considered a loss to a team of equal rank.
    j	Did not play so considered a loss to a team of equal rank.

Soon the teams will be split up into separate ranks and things can progress
as per the rules. I just thought something like this could avoid the
bickering over initial rankings.

I think that in order to promote motion/recycling on the ladder that is a
team loses a certain percentage of its original team that it is forced to
disband and start on the bottom.  Otherwise a team, say from cmu, could use
subs and new good trainees to perpetuate a top team.  If they are really
good then they should be able to get back to the top in 3-4 weeks depending
on the number of teams.  This way even the teams of low caliber will
encounter very strong teams which is good for them to learn fast.

Constructive comments for or against welcomed.

-Jack (LURI)

Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek