APCR (ASL Player Comparative Ratings)

[von Marwitz]

As I said, one other option would be to allow me to make my standing and playings private. You could report all you want, the system could rate me, but my playings would remain in the dark.

WRT reporting "friendly games": is there something in the system which limits the impact of playing the same person over and over? I would also add that anything where a player can input data himself or herself is subject to abuse. If this system is intended to be remotely accurate, not everyone should be able to enter pairings and playings. The system is only as good as the data put into it. Ask @Nadir_E what happened to the ASL players map when that was open.

Absent that, you not playing me is as much your loss as mine. I will regret it, but c'est la guerre. -- jim

Personally, I am also very careful with providing any personal data, so I can understand the wish to opt out.
For practical reasons, I think the best way to handle this would be an imaginary name for AREA purposes. That way, the ratings for other players can be generated but yours cannot be keyed to a person (except for those that know that you played particular people at particular tournaments).

As for friendly games:

The old AREA was by definintion tournament games only. The data to Bruno was provided by tournament directors. There were no 'friendly' games in AREA. This was one reason, why AREA was found to be very useful by many.

There has been some discussion some time ago when Aaron begun to work on the AREA follow-up which is now in hibernation whether to allow anyone to enter games to AREA or to allow 'friendly' games, too. The opinion was divided. I think it should be tournament games only with only tournament directors allowed to enter the data. I.e. a "closed" AREA approach.

That said, nothing speaks against an "open AREA" in parallel. For example ROAR data could be used for that or that of the ASL Scenario Archive. The Archive provides player ratings which are based on the ELO rating (also some chess guy that came up with that). Dave Ramsey just recently explained this to me.

IMHO the rating provided by the old "closed" AREA system were very meaningful if compared to the real experience of playing AREA-rated players. The ratings had substance. Normally, you can 'feel' (at least after a couple of games vs. the same opponent) if your oppenent is better or worse than you are. I found that this 'feeling' gained in my practical plays was reliably mirrored in the AREA-ratings. 100 points up or down in AREA could be 'felt' in practice. 200 points up or down marked a clear difference in skill level as I have found. More than that: Since AREA only considered tournament games, it was very probable that if you had 20 rated games for AREA that the particular player would have much more unrated games under his belt. This would indirectly eliminate some luck-factors that would develop in an "open-AREA" system.

I will elaborate: An open system where everyone can enter any game has numerous drawbacks if you want meaningful ratings which might be very helpful for tournament seeding.

Solitaire games could get in.
Some freaks might put in imaginary games that makes him look like the ASL grand-master.

Then we can gain more insight by comparing old AREA to the ratings of the ASL Scenario Archive. The old "closed" AREA's best players were all more or less known to the community. They played vs. many different players and very good ones at that which could be witnessed at tournaments. In the "open" ASL Scenario Archive ratings, where everyone can enter games, some of the highest rated players are people I have never heard of. That might not say that much, though. However, checking some Archive ratings of players, you can see that some of them played only two or three (i.e. few) different opponents. The effect is, that if you win 40 times against your (only) ASL buddy an lose 0 times, the Archive will rate you as an ASL-god (based on the ELO system) and your opponent as a total loser.
If both opponents are very bad players, only one of them yet worse than the other, the winner of these 40 games will find himself rated similarly like a Pleva because of a 40 to 0 win/loss record. But this winner up against Pleva and he would be trampled unnoticed. All the while the Archive would probably give Pleva a worse rating than our 'unknown' ASL-god. The former is beating the real ASL-sharks most of the time, but not as often as the latter 'unknown' guy beats his buddy. I do not see through the formulae in detail, but these seem to be my observations.

In sum, thus I am convinced that an "open AREA" and a "closed AREA" system are two different beasts. Each has its merit and value. But each serves a different purpose. They should, IMHO exist in parallel but not be mixed.

The great advantage of an "open AREA" concept is, that there are tens of thousands of games available to feed it with: From the ASL Scenario Archive and ROAR. But that data is of lesser quality than tournament-only TD-reported games. I will not go as far to say bullshit in = bullshit out with regard to the old adage when working with data, but it is to be kept in mind.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

I was never a fan of AREA and obviously I have no dog in this fight but I agree with Jim, if you don't want to participate in a rating system you should not be forced to just because you attend a tournament. As Jim so correctly pointed out ASL is not chess, too many variables.
My question to TDs would be what is the objective of your tournament? Do you want to see who is the champion or best player in the world? Is trying to seed tournament players using a rating system of any kind the best way to do that? Do you pit the best ratings against the worst in the first round? That was the procedure in some chess tournaments I participated in. I believe it was used so the best players did not eliminate each other in the early rounds. Yet the bulk of my competitive chess playing was team versus team which had 1st board playing against 1st board, 2nd versus 2nd and so on. Except for the occasional sandbagging that system worked well for the objective it was trying to achieve.
Personally I don't think a tournament should be used to determine a champion or really anything. I'm more of a " get people together and let them play who and what they want " kind of guy and whoever wins is the best or luckiest player that day. We were much more concerned about everyone having an enjoyable and hopefully educational experience and advancing the game.
Even attempts to rate scenarios, such as Mark Nixon's " The Numbers of October ", while interesting, can be misleading and perhaps result in some great scenarios being overlooked because they are seen as being unbalanced. Would you rather play an interesting and fun scenario that is wildly unbalanced or a mediocre one that is perfectly balanced? Your choice, as it should be. Same for tournaments. As long as the TD has a clear vision of his/her objective how it is run is their call but to possibly exclude participation because of a rating system is a mistake IMHO.

 

[zgrose]

In every matchmaking ranking system I know of (that produces a permanent score), the match participants have to consent to it been a ranked game.
Nothing breaks. For seeding purposes, this person is treated just like any other first time participant.

 

[von Marwitz]

I was never a fan of AREA and obviously I have no dog in this fight but I agree with Jim, if you don't want to participate in a rating system you should not be forced to just because you attend a tournament. As Jim so correctly pointed out ASL is not chess, too many variables.
My question to TDs would be what is the objective of your tournament? Do you want to see who is the champion or best player in the world? Is trying to seed tournament players using a rating system of any kind the best way to do that? Do you pit the best ratings against the worst in the first round? That was the procedure in some chess tournaments I participated in. I believe it was used so the best players did not eliminate each other in the early rounds. Yet the bulk of my competitive chess playing was team versus team which had 1st board playing against 1st board, 2nd versus 2nd and so on. Except for the occasional sandbagging that system worked well for the objective it was trying to achieve.
Personally I don't think a tournament should be used to determine a champion or really anything. I'm more of a " get people together and let them play who and what they want " kind of guy and whoever wins is the best or luckiest player that day. We were much more concerned about everyone having an enjoyable and hopefully educational experience and advancing the game.
Even attempts to rate scenarios, such as Mark Nixon's " The Numbers of October ", while interesting, can be misleading and perhaps result in some great scenarios being overlooked because they are seen as being unbalanced. Would you rather play an interesting and fun scenario that is wildly unbalanced or a mediocre one that is perfectly balanced? Your choice, as it should be. Same for tournaments. As long as the TD has a clear vision of his/her objective how it is run is their call but to possibly exclude participation because of a rating system is a mistake IMHO.

I am a player that always plays 'friendly', even in tournaments. I have no ambitions for a top ranking (and more importantly lack the skill... ?). Still, I have always been a fan of AREA.

It helped me to pick oppnents for friendly play that were a notch better than me, which meant that I would learn from them and at the same time do not get completely stomped in a completely one-sided affair. In other words, the old "closed system" AREA had real value for me to help me becoming a better player and to have fun while doing so.

I have no problems with ambitious players as long as it doesn't get the better of them. If I hear things like: "I can't play this guy who is 300 points below me, because if I lose, I my AREA rating drops so many points which will be difficult to recover..."

Seeding should IMHO serve to improve fun and not to serve (or protect) good players not to be eliminated early. If Pleva plays Fortenberry in the first round so what? Why should good players be protected from losing early while bad players aren't, or more precisely, are set up to lose? If those ambitious players want to be on top that bad, they should get there not by having the first win handed to them. In practice, I have seen several systems: Best vs. Worst, of 100 players position 1 vs. 51, 2 vs. 52, ... or no 'system' at all for the first round. Elimination tournaments or those in which every game counts for a total of points taking accounts wins and losses of the oppoents you played (best option IMHO).

While it is true, that some scenarios may not be balanced, there are many variables, and sheer luck may win or lose you a game or a tournament, experience tells us that in the long run, the guys who win the tournaments belong there. And in that line you can also say that the guys who are at the top of the old "closed" AREA list belong there. After all, every player has to deal with good/bad luck and scenario dogs. In the long run, it evens out regardless of the number of variables - and that's important.

von Marwitz

 

[DougRim]

Personally, I am also very careful with providing any personal data, so I can understand the wish to opt out.
For practical reasons, I think the best way to handle this would be an imaginary name for AREA purposes. That way, the ratings for other players can be generated but yours cannot be keyed to a person (except for those that know that you played particular people at particular tournaments).

von Marwitz

The only personal data held in AREA and the soon-to-be ASL Player Ratings is a name: first and last (AREA also had a "nickname" field). No email, no link to any other personal information. Personally, I don't see that changing.

There is useful discussion to be held around the need for "real" names, name integrity, consistency, etc. But for now I just want to underline that the only information that exists is a name.

 

[von Marwitz]

The only personal data held in AREA and the soon-to-be ASL Player Ratings is a name: first and last (AREA also had a "nickname" field). No email, no link to any other personal information. Personally, I don't see that changing.

There is useful discussion to be held around the need for "real" names, name integrity, consistency, etc. But for now I just want to underline that the only information that exists is a name.

Just an idea:

Maybe if people do not want their names displayed/used, one could use some sort of ID# to do the trick?
Those who don't want the name to show can check some option and only the ID is worked with.

I haven't really thought this trough, it merely crossed my mind.



von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

I am a player that always plays 'friendly', even in tournaments. I have no ambitions for a top ranking (and more importantly lack the skill... ?). Still, I have always been a fan of AREA.

It helped me to pick oppnents for friendly play that were a notch better than me, which meant that I would learn from them and at the same time do not get completely stomped in a completely one-sided affair. In other words, the old "closed system" AREA had real value for me to help me becoming a better player and to have fun while doing so.

I have no problems with ambitious players as long as it doesn't get the better of them. If I hear things like: "I can't play this guy who is 300 points below me, because if I lose, I my AREA rating drops so many points which will be difficult to recover..."

Seeding should IMHO serve to improve fun and not to serve (or protect) good players not to be eliminated early. If Pleva plays Fortenberry in the first round so what? Why should good players be protected from losing early while bad players aren't, or more precisely, are set up to lose? If those ambitious players want to be on top that bad, they should get there not by having the first win handed to them. In practice, I have seen several systems: Best vs. Worst, of 100 players position 1 vs. 51, 2 vs. 52, ... or no 'system' at all for the first round. Elimination tournaments or those in which every game counts for a total of points taking accounts wins and losses of the oppoents you played (best option IMHO).

While it is true, that some scenarios may not be balanced, there are many variables, and sheer luck may win or lose you a game or a tournament, experience tells us that in the long run, the guys who win the tournaments belong there. And in that line you can also say that the guys who are at the top of the old "closed" AREA list belong there. After all, every player has to deal with good/bad luck and scenario dogs. In the long run, it evens out regardless of the number of variables - and that's important.

von Marwitz

As long as a shark doesn't try to rack up possibly easy wins against a newbie I'm fine with however matchups are determined. We kept it simple by just using won/loss records for the event and those matchups should have as similar records as possible, taking into consideration the available pool of players at a time. The time factor becomes more of an issue the deeper into the event you get. A player shouldn't have to wait hours for the next opponent early in the event but that may be unavoidable nearer to end of it.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Personally, I am also very careful with providing any personal data, so I can understand the wish to opt out.
For practical reasons, I think the best way to handle this would be an imaginary name for AREA purposes. That way, the ratings for other players can be generated but yours cannot be keyed to a person (except for those that know that you played particular people at particular tournaments).

If the name generated is always assigned to the same person, then they aren't anonymous and people will figure it out. The best scenario is really one where they allow data to be collected in my name and also allow me to decide to display it or not. Doing this allows the integrity of the data to be better while balancing my desire to not be displayed.

What happened with the old DC Conscripts ladder--and something you see in chess--is higher ranked players will refuse to play lower ranked players because the risk/reward is not there for them. If they win, the impact is marginal. If they lose, the impact on their ELO is huge and takes time to recover from. We scuppered the ladder for the Conscripts and suddenly people started playing each other again. -- jim

 

[The Magnus]

For practical reasons, I think the best way to handle this would be an imaginary name for AREA purposes. That way, the ratings for other players can be generated but yours cannot be keyed to a person (except for those that know that you played particular people at particular tournaments).

Which would mean that somebody like me who attends many tournaments can figure out who somebody is before you can say Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän.

 

[The Magnus]

What happened with the old DC Conscripts ladder--and something you see in chess--is higher ranked players will refuse to play lower ranked players because the risk/reward is not there for them. If they win, the impact is marginal. If they lose, the impact on their ELO is huge and takes time to recover from. We scuppered the ladder for the Conscripts and suddenly people started playing each other again. -- jim

Good point.

Almost every time I have attended a tournament in England I have overheard or gotten involved in a discussion around the fact that the best English players avoid playing even friendly games in tournaments as they do not want to loose their ranking. This debate is probably most prevalent there because:

• They have their own AREA/APCR-system called "The Crusaders Ladder" (probably because they still believe in the Empire, or they do not want to go metric, or something like that ).
• At tournaments, also friendly games are supposed to be reported into the Ladder. A few times some English guy has explicitly asked me if we could play a friendly without recording the result. I hope that I am still allowed at English tournaments even if I here divulge that I have on occasion agreed to such morally questionable behavior ??? .

 

[Actionjick]

I quite like the Brits but that's just silly crap and counter to my entire philosophy of gaming and ASL in particular. Well over 90% of the scenarios I played were against opponents who were much better than I was and thankfully ratings and protecting rankings were not a factor or my playing would have been drastically reduced.
I understand the desire for ratings and rankings but when it interferes with the desire for play and comradeship it needs to be reevaluated.

 

[von Marwitz]

Which would mean that somebody like me who attends many tournaments can figure out who somebody is before you can say Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän.

That's right. But you can do that anyway because as of yet, no one has appeared at tournaments masking one's face.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

If the name generated is always assigned to the same person, then they aren't anonymous and people will figure it out. The best scenario is really one where they allow data to be collected in my name and also allow me to decide to display it or not. Doing this allows the integrity of the data to be better while balancing my desire to not be displayed.

If you want to keep a rating system working then probably it can't be done without giving its participants some sort of unique identifier. Allowing the collection of data along with an option to allow displaying it or not would be best - agreed. In this context: If your data is not displayed, would it be ok for you for your data to be used to calculate its effect on the rating of others?

The latter might be a prerequisite to keep a rating system running.

Besides:
Do you use a smartphone? If so and you are concerned about the collection of data, then some sort of AREA ranking should be the least of your problems. AREA (or whatever ASL rating system) will allow to assess your skill, your whereabouts at certain times (tournaments) and certain people you know that might in turn be accessed to gain more information about you overtly or covertly by social engineering for example.

However, AREA data is very unlikely to be collated with other data that might be known to you by the ususal suspects because it is too niche and the database unlikely connected in ways you can expect by google, amazon, facebook and the like. As opposed to AREA, by means of your smartphone, other companies will know your whereabouts as well, may even be able to tell how long you sit stationary (at the games table) and might - depending on the terms of use of apps you might use, the attention you pay to them, and your care/skill to disable some settings, listen in on your cursing the rolling of boxcars for the TH or your sole 88L AA-Gun. Also be sure not to let anyone photograph you (and post it on FB with or without your knowledge where they might tag your face, which in turn...). I digress. But these are the more scary things if you ask me.

Still, it remains a valid concern if someone does not want to have his AREA data collected/displayed/used.

What might eventually happen that the 'terms of partaking in an ASL tournament' might include your consent to AREA data being collected because TD's that want to use AREA or feed their tournament's results to it just want to be on the safe side legally and this way to leave you holding the baby again.

The latter is what is happening now on bytimes unexpected occasions right here due to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (which, despite numerous weaknesses, generally is a good thing IMHO).

What happened with the old DC Conscripts ladder--and something you see in chess--is higher ranked players will refuse to play lower ranked players because the risk/reward is not there for them. If they win, the impact is marginal. If they lose, the impact on their ELO is huge and takes time to recover from. We scuppered the ladder for the Conscripts and suddenly people started playing each other again. -- jim

Yes, what you describe is what I meant. And such behaviour is ridiculous IMHO. Personally, I'd be happy not to play such guys as these are typically a PITA and no fun to play - especially if you give them a bashing. For such people, it is not about the fun playing but about ambition. Not people I want to waste my spare time on.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

Good point.

Almost every time I have attended a tournament in England I have overheard or gotten involved in a discussion around the fact that the best English players avoid playing even friendly games in tournaments as they do not want to loose their ranking. This debate is probably most prevalent there because:

• They have their own AREA/APCR-system called "The Crusaders Ladder" (probably because they still believe in the Empire, or they do not want to go metric, or something like that ).
• At tournaments, also friendly games are supposed to be reported into the Ladder. A few times some English guy has explicitly asked me if we could play a friendly without recording the result. I hope that I am still allowed at English tournaments even if I here divulge that I have on occasion agreed to such morally questionable behavior ??? .

There are some players there that are notorious for this behavior. I find this excruciatingly embarrasing. One case in which I am quite happy if they abstain from visiting 'the Continent' and confine themselves to 'the Isles'.

von Marwitz

 

[Sparafucil3]

If you want to keep a rating system working then probably it can't be done without giving its participants some sort of unique identifier. Allowing the collection of data along with an option to allow displaying it or not would be best - agreed. In this context: Would if you data is not displayed, would it be ok for you for your data to be used to calculate its effect on the rating of others?

The latter might be a prerequisite to keep a rating system running.

I agree, a unique ID must be maintained for each player. I have said a couple of time, I am OK with the data being collected if I can opt out of having my playings being displayed as well as my "individual" record and playings being held.

Besides:
Do you use a smartphone? If so and you are concerned about the collection of data, then some sort of AREA ranking should be the least of your problems.

If you think smartphone is the worst of your problem, you're a lot luckier than your typical American. Social media, spending patterns, access to my credit history, I could go on. It doesn't take much to figure out just how much I make and price products for me accordingly.

Yes, what you describe is what I meant. And such behaviour is ridiculous IMHO. Personally, I'd be happy not to play such guys as these are typically a PITA and no fun to play - especially if you give them a bashing. For such people, it is not about the fun playing but about ambition. Not people I want to waste my spare time on.

I would rather it simply not be an issue. Now I can say "I am not on APCR/AREA" and get a game without hassle. -- jim

 

[dlazov]

Wow! Not playing others because if they loose their “prized AREA” rating would suffer?

Or afraid to reveal your birth Name and use an ID?

What the heck is the world coming too?

“Hey 7104 would play me?”

“What’s your AREA rating Don”?

“7104, I don’t know or I don’t have one but I have been playing ASL since 1985.”

“Sorry Don, your not worthy enough to play unless your AREA numerical rating is within 10% of mine.”

“Ok 7104, why don’t you go blow your AREA number...”

Redonckulous

 

[The Magnus]

There are some players there that are notorious for this behavior. I find this excruciatingly embarrasing. One case in which I am quite happy if they abstain from visiting 'the Continent' and confine themselves to 'the Isles'.

They largely do. But I met one of them in St. Louis a few years back (now it is up to you amateur sleuths to find out who that was ).

 

[Sparafucil3]

Or afraid to reveal your birth Name and use an ID?

Not afraid, just don't want to. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

Wow! Not playing others because if they loose their “prized AREA” rating would suffer?

Or afraid to reveal your birth Name and use an ID?

What the heck is the world coming too?

“Hey 7104 would play me?”

“What’s your AREA rating Don”?

“7104, I don’t know or I don’t have one but I have been playing ASL since 1985.”

“Sorry Don, your not worthy enough to play unless your AREA numerical rating is within 10% of mine.”

“Ok 7104, why don’t you go blow your AREA number...”

Redonckulous

Lmao. Even worse would be this:

Newbie : " Don I'm really interested in this ASL game, looks fantastic. Could you teach me? "

Don: " Sorry newbie but I'm trying to get within 10% of player 7104`s rating and playing you would destroy any chance of that. Find another newbie who isn't rated and look me up in 10 years or so."

Newbie: " Thanks for the encouragement. Go wax your dice tower and I'll go back to playing Risk. "

Don: " Can't help you there either, my Risk rating is astronomical. "

 

[The Magnus]

What might eventually happen that the 'terms of partaking in an ASL tournament' might include your consent to AREA data being collected because TD's that want to use AREA or feed their tournament's results to it just want to be on the safe side legally and this way to leave you holding the baby again.

This is not a "might", this is reality (in Germany). When I attended Conscripts a year ago I had to sign two papers (1) to allow the organizers to use pictures containing my face, and (2) to allow them to use my Email address for future announcements. I signed, under duress, and included a reference to this duress next to my signature. Later I formally retracted my signature as I did not want to be part of this totally sick Datensicherheits-bullshit (EU is bad enough).

I now note that my picture, taken at Conscripts, still appear here on Gamesquad. And I have received Emails from these people as late as today. Is it finally time to report the Conscripts organizers to the Deutscher Staatssicherheitsdienst, or whatever they are called today ?