Jump to content


Photo

2018 World Team Tournament - Questions


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 862 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 6 days ago

Team tournaments like Backstabbers or live WTT or the live Team Tournament held in the Netherlands in January (if I remember correctly) do not count for the Kleier ranking for the reasons offered by Nortrom above.

Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#22 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 4 days ago

I have been told that the NASF will veto any additional American team entering the WTT, which is ridiculous.

 

First, Greece is entering two teams and every other country has the option to enter a second team. Therefore, the NASF fears of ridicule for exercising that option are unfounded.

 

Secondly, and I mean this in the least dickish way possible, the NASF is failing as an organization and have no right to call a second team invalid. 45 percent of players on this site alone are Americans, yet the NASF cannot get 10 players for a tournament. The NASF does not have the authority to say they represent American Stratego and make such proclamations. A World Team Tournament is exciting and a great way to recruit new members, and it is foolish of them to squander such an opportunity.

 

My question to the WTT is why does an organization with less than 10 active members get to decide that the US, and more than 45 percent of players on Stratego.com, can only have one team? By that logic, if I find 11 players who support an alternate American team, can I disallow the NASF from competing? This whole thing is stupid on so many levels.

 

I have no problem with the NASF entering its own second team instead. Furthermore, I do not want to play on this second American team or have any association with it once the tournament starts. However, I find it asinine that they can choose to enter only one team and block any other Americans from participating.


Edited by astros, 4 days ago.

69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#23 Fks

Fks

    Captain

  • NASF Committee
  • 812 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 4 days ago

 

I have been told that the NASF will veto any additional American team entering the WTT, which is ridiculous.

 

First, Greece is entering two teams and every other country has the option to enter a second team. Therefore, the NASF fears of ridicule for exercising that option are unfounded.

 

Secondly, and I mean this in the least dickish way possible, the NASF is failing as an organization and have no right to call a second team invalid. 45 percent of players on this site alone are Americans, yet the NASF cannot get 10 players for a tournament. The NASF does not have the authority to say they represent American Stratego and make such proclamations. A World Team Tournament is exciting and a great way to recruit new members, and it is foolish of them to squander such an opportunity.

 

My question to the WTT is why does an organization with less than 10 active members get to decide that the US, and more than 45 percent of players on Stratego.com, can only have one team? By that logic, if I find 11 players who support an alternate American team, can I disallow the NASF from competing? This whole thing is stupid on so many levels.

 

I have no problem with the NASF entering its own second team instead. Furthermore, I do not want to play on this second American team or have any association with it once the tournament starts. However, I find it asinine that they can choose to enter only one team and block any other Americans from participating.

 

The NASF is comfortable in the fact we are able to put up one team which is not only a team that can compete in the WTT, it is a team that has a decent chance of taking the trophy home this year. 

 

Astros from the UK decided 2 days ago or so he will go behind the NASF and WTT organzation backs and sneak in a American team. I am sure what he means when he says that the NASF shouldn't run American Stratego, Astros should obviously, the one from UK.

 

Regarding Greece having 2 teams, This is something I think is wrong and not something that should be duplicated by another country. Astros the guy from the UK has also shared with me he feels the same way.

 

The WTT in any game/sport besides this one tournament doesn't let in 2 teams from one country. (Unless it is a Woman and Man team.)

 

Setting up another team will take away the integrity of the first and only team of the NASF which players have work towards and played in tournaments to gain a spot in. Holding 2 teams this year will put us in a difficult position for future years. This is not something we want.

 

I am curios to know why Astros the guy from the UK is obsessed with setting up an AMERICAN team. The reason he gave us and the WTT was that 8 teams are better then 7 yet the tournament will run fine and is already set to run with 7. I wonder if this gives the UK team a better line up in the tournament? The Optician and Unladen Swallow can you enlighten us why Astros is meddling in USA affairs and if he is just trying to give the UK team a win in the WTT.

 

NASF committee member Astros the guy from UK I am sure there are things you don't know because it is impossible for you to.

The real NASF committee is working towards a lot of things at the moment and a lot of these goals we have been working towards will soon fall in place, crying players from the UK is simply just annoying.

 

Astros the guy from the UK mentioned who he wanted to be on the 2nd NASF/USA team surprisingly or not surprisingly 3 out of the 4 are officially from the NASF. The 4th player is someone who is not a forum user yet and the NASF has recruited him for other NASF activities. I believe this does give us the right to say no to this team.

 

If any other player from another country wants to help out the NASF come feel free, but Astros from the UK just wasn't holding the NASF interest at heart.

 

Fks.


Proud Committee Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#24 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 4 days ago

The NASF is comfortable in the fact we are able to put up one team which is not only a team that can compete in the WTT has a decent chance of taking the trophy home this year. 

 

Astros from the UK decided 2 days ago or so he will go behind the NASF and WTT organzation backs and sneak in a American team. I am sure what he means when he says that the NASF shouldn't run American Stratego, Astros should obviously, the one from UK.

 

I am not saying that the NASF should not represent American Stratego. However, you guys represent a small minority American players and I object to the fact that you are proclaiming that the vast majority of other American players cannot form their own team if they so choose.

 

Regarding Greece having 2 teams, This is something I think is wrong and not something that should be duplicated by another country. Astros the guy from the UK has also shared with me he feels the same way.

 

I agree that rules should allow only one team per country and that there should be no rest of the world team. However, I am going by the rules of the tournament and 8 teams are clearly preferable to 7.

 

The WTT in any game/sport besides this one tournament doesn't let in 2 teams from one country. (Unless it is a Woman and Man team.)

 

This is blatantly wrong, many Olympic events allow multiple entrants per country.

 

Setting up another team will take away the integrity of the first and only team of the NASF which players have work towards and played in tournaments to gain a spot in. Holding 2 teams this year will put us in a difficult position for future years. This is not something we want,

 

If the NASF wants to enter one team that is fine, but other Americans should have the right to form their own second team.

 

I am curios to know why Astros the guy from the UK is obsessed with setting up an AMERICAN team. The reason he gave us and the WTT was that 8 teams are better then 7 yet the tournament will run fine and is already set to run with 7. I wonder if this gives the UK team a better line up in the tournament? The Optician and Unladen Swallow can you enlighten us why Astros is meddling in USA affairs and if he is just trying to give the UK team a win in the WTT.

 

An 8th team actually makes it more difficult for the UK to advance. As it stands, the UK could be placed in a 3 team division or a 4 team division. It is clearly easier for the UK to advance in the 3 team division.  I believe that American Team 2 will be on par with the other teams in the tournament. Therefore, the the UK will have the same difficulty advancing from the 4 team division. Overall, because the UK can no longer be placed in the 3 team division its route is tougher.

 

NASF committee member Astros the guy from UK I am sure there are things you don't know because it is impossible for you to.

The real NASF committee is working towards a lot of things at the moment and a lot of these goals we have been working towards will soon fall in place, crying players from the UK is simply just annoying.

 

The current NASF committee is seemingly focusing its attention on setting unrealistic goals and is avoiding the grueling task of recruiting new members for tournaments.

 

Astros the guy from the UK mentioned who he wanted to be on the 2nd NASF/USA team surprisingly or not surprisingly 3 out of the 4 are officially from the NASF. The 4th player is someone who is not a forum user yet and the NASF has recruited him for other NASF activities. I believe this does give us the right to say no to this team.

 

All members are registered on the forum and you personally nagged me repeatedly for help recruiting one. I am not trying to poach players, I am only helping the WTT. This is something that I discussed with Major Nelson and was asked to help with.

 

If any other player from another country wants to help out the NASF come feel free, but Astros from the UK just wasn't holding the NASF interest at heart.

 

Fks.

 


69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#25 Fks

Fks

    Captain

  • NASF Committee
  • 812 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 4 days ago

Hello Astros the guy from the UK. After the NASF said we where not interested in hosting another team, why have you not pursued to create one for the Dutch? Instead you are choosing to cause a whole drama ordeal and cry to the publicity of the forum.

 

I as well believe you are talking about individual players from the same country in the Olympics which is not this. 

 

As for NASF goals this is up to the committee, obviously you have voiced your displeasure so let us just leave it at that. 

 

Yes I did ask you I believe twice about recruiting this specific player as I was finding it hard to get in contact with him. This is something you said you where not interested in helping me with, which makes me very surprised why you are suddenly throwing him at us. 

 

I am done on the topic. If any player from the team Astros has put together wants to pm me to voice there displeasure in the committees decision feel free. I am sorry if he has gotten your hopes up. This was an unexpected move on his part and was very unfounded. 

 

Fks.


Proud Committee Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#26 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 4 days ago

I also attempted to organize a second Dutch team but there was insufficient interest.


69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#27 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 862 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 4 days ago

Any country has the right to compete with 2 teams. The reason why the OC offered Greece and the Netherlands in particular this chance is because there are many decent players from these two countries competing in online tournaments and we deemed it better to give more players the chance to participate. Greece easily assembled two teams. The Netherlands assembled only one, but just take a look at the fact that Nortrom, Hielco, playa1, Morx and more Dutch players weren't interested and you realise why we initially thought it would be better to give the Netherlands the opportunity to participate with two teams. If eg Germany had enough active players to form two teams, they would be more than welcome to do so. So just to get this straight, any country has the right to compete in the tournament with two teams.

Hence, USA - or North America, to be more precise - could also compete with two teams. If the NASF committee were interested, they could assemble one more team, apart from the very talented one they have already formed. This would NOT affect their other team because the two teams would be placed in different groups and would only face each other in the semi-finals, assuming they both made it to the next round, in which case we would certainly have a NASF team to the Finals and one more NASF team playing in the 3rd-place decider. Having two teams only increases NASF's chances for something good, and at least I do not understand why NASF so staunchly refuses to form one more team, which would increase Americans' chances to succeed in the tournament and would also help the tournament run more smoothly by making the number of teams even.

Nevertheless, the NASF is acknowledged as the official organisation for stratego in North America, and it is their responsibility to decide on the American national team(s), not the OC's, like it is Greek TM's duty to form the Greek national team(s). We do not wish to interfere with the NASF's role. We respect their decision to compete in the tournament with only one NASF team.

It seems to me the NASF committee thinks that astros was trying to prove a point to them or something like that by forming "his own" American team. I do not believe this was the case. astros was only trying to help the tournament run more smoothly. That's why he had no problem to step aside and let the NASF assemble the second American team, he wasn't trying to steal the glory from the NASF, he just thought they weren't interested.

Anyway, the NASF decided that there will only be one American team and so it will be. This matter is over. After this decision, there are 7 teams competing in the WTT. The groups and letter designations will be posted shortly and the tournament will begin on Monday.

I want to state that everybody, the NASF, the OC and astros acted in a way that each one of them believed served the tournament better. I hope we leave this misunderstanding behind and enjoy a nice tournament.


Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#28 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 4 days ago

Why is the alternate's rating fully counted when calculating mean team rating? Seeing as how many alternates will not play, their rating should not be considered, or at the very least given the same weight, when calculating team strength.

Also, why is the OC using Kleier ratings instead of ELO or some alternative, when the creator of the Kleier ratings does not endorse his own system:

http://forum.strateg...leier-rankings/

Additionally, the Kleier ranking do not properly evaluate players with no tournament experience.

Edited by astros, 4 days ago.

69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#29 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 862 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 4 days ago

Why is the alternate's rating fully counted when calculating mean team rating? Seeing as how many alternates will not play, their rating should not be considered, or at the very least given the same weight, when calculating team strength.

Also, why is the OC using Kleier ratings instead of ELO or some alternative, when the creator of the Kleier ratings does not endorse his own system:

http://forum.strateg...leier-rankings/

Additionally, the Kleier ranking do not properly evaluate players with no tournament experience.

Kleier rating is used in the live WC and National Teams tournament and in the WCO; on this basis, we use it for the WTT. For some reason, online Kleier rating hasn't yet been updated to include the latest TC tournaments and so it doesn't include some participants of the WTT. If we could use max ELO, we would probably do so as it is be more objective, but we can't obtain it from somewhere (in the post-Clean-Ranking era). It's true that some players' true level is not evaluated correctly by just assigning them a 600, but if we used current ELO we would have similar problems (players like Fks, Wogomite, Losermaker, etc. have less ELO than what would represent their true quality).

I think alternates will play a more important role than you think; after all, it's holiday period, it's logical to assume that alternates will be needed to play occasionally and therefore we decided to include them in the team mean rating.

I agree, the team "quality" evaluation is flawed, but we don't have many better alternatives.


Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#30 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 3 days ago

Kleier rating is used in the live WC and National Teams tournament and in the WCO; on this basis, we use it for the WTT. For some reason, online Kleier rating hasn't yet been updated to include the latest TC tournaments and so it doesn't include some participants of the WTT. If we could use max ELO, we would probably do so as it is be more objective, but we can't obtain it from somewhere (in the post-Clean-Ranking era). It's true that some players' true level is not evaluated correctly by just assigning them a 600, but if we used current ELO we would have similar problems (players like Fks, Wogomite, Losermaker, etc. have less ELO than what would represent their true quality).

I think alternates will play a more important role than you think; after all, it's holiday period, it's logical to assume that alternates will be needed to play occasionally and therefore we decided to include them in the team mean rating.

I agree, the team "quality" evaluation is flawed, but we don't have many better alternatives.

Kleier ratings may be listed in live tournaments and the WCO (its continuatiin will be discussed this year), but in neither tournament does it have any impact on the standings. Therefore, your comparison is not analogous. However, because we do not have max ELO ratings for every player right now, I will grant that we are stuck and it would be arduous but not impossible to come up with an ELO metric for every player.

 

We do need to come up with Kleier ratings for players with no previous experience because these players are currently drastically underrated. I suggested the use of the following formula for players with Kleier ratings of 600: 2*(max(Current ELO +100, max ELO in Clean Ranking or listed elsewhere in the forum on that player's main account) - 250). For instance, a player with a current ELO of 700 would have a converted Kleier ranking of 1100. This likely still underestimates the ability of new players but it does not completely sandbag teams for using them.

 

Team UK plans to use its starting lineup every week, but let's say that alternates are used more frequently than I think. Your calculation assumes that alternates will play the same number of games as other players, which is unlikely. An adjustment would be to give each alternate's rating a 50% weight.


69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#31 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 862 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 3 days ago

Kleier ratings may be listed in live tournaments and the WCO (its continuatiin will be discussed this year), but in neither tournament does it have any impact on the standings. Therefore, your comparison is not analogous. However, because we do not have max ELO ratings for every player right now, I will grant that we are stuck and it would be arduous but not impossible to come up with an ELO metric for every player.

 

We do need to come up with Kleier ratings for players with no previous experience because these players are currently drastically underrated. I suggested the use of the following formula for players with Kleier ratings of 600: 2*(max(Current ELO +100, max ELO in Clean Ranking or listed elsewhere in the forum on that player's main account) - 250). For instance, a player with a current ELO of 700 would have a converted Kleier ranking of 1100. This likely still underestimates the ability of new players but it does not completely sandbag teams for using them.

 

Team UK plans to use its starting lineup every week, but let's say that alternates are used more frequently than I think. Your calculation assumes that alternates will play the same number of games as other players, which is unlikely. An adjustment would be to give each alternate's rating a 50% weight.

I didn't understand how a 700-rated player would have a converted Kleier ranking of 1100, can you explain it?


Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#32 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 3 days ago

I didn't understand how a 700-rated player would have a converted Kleier ranking of 1100, can you explain it?


Assuming their ELO is not listed as higher than 800 elsewhere on the forum you get:

Max(Current ELO+100, other ELO)=800. Plugging this in we get:

2*(800-250)=1100
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users