International Hockey Discussion Thread (OOC, version II)

[Ontorisa]

Just a preventative post to head this off before it becomes an issue:
So everyone doesn't get on NW Kalactin's case, he TG'd me for advice because he can't access Google Docs. I told him to go ahead and list the players he wants to post, along with as much detail as possible, and someone, me when I get to it, if no one else volunteers, could post them up on the transfer sheet for him. So that post is inbound.

are you sure? I just accessed it no problem using an incognito window.



Also everyone, if you experience problems with the google doc, please TG me or anyone who's listed on the Hub's staff list as I have control over its permissions and can probably work out the problems with you.

[Neu Engollon]

Just a preventative post to head this off before it becomes an issue:
So everyone doesn't get on NW Kalactin's case, he TG'd me for advice because he can't access Google Docs. I told him to go ahead and list the players he wants to post, along with as much detail as possible, and someone, me when I get to it, if no one else volunteers, could post them up on the transfer sheet for him. So that post is inbound.

are you sure? I just accessed it no problem using an incognito window.



Also everyone, if you experience problems with the google doc, please TG me or anyone who's listed on the Hub's staff list as I have control over its permissions and can probably work out the problems with you.

Not so sure it's a technical issue on your end or permissions issue more than a firewall or tech issue on his end. *shrug*

One of us will get it done for him soon enough. We can pull together as the NS hockey community in the greater NS Sports community and look out for each other. It's not an overreaching request IMHO, and if no one else can do it, I will get it done tonight.

[Ontorisa]

One of us will get it done for him soon enough. We can pull together as the NS hockey community in the greater NS Sports community and look out for each other. It's not an overreaching request IMHO, and if no one else can do it, I will get it done tonight.

Haha, it's no worries. I can add him in.

I'll look into it further and see if the permissions for the spreadsheet got messed up. As far as I can tell though, you should be fine to edit the designated areas without issue.

[Ontorisa]

I'm going to be opening up the OJL Entry Draft for everyone who is interested.

Please TG me the players you want entered with the following information:

NAME
POSITION
NATIONALITY
HEIGHT
WEIGHT
PLAYING STYLE (Same types as seen on the Hub)
JUNIOR LEAGUE (Just an acronym please)

Draft Rankings will be available on the OJL Spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Thanks!

[Northwest Kalactin]

Hey I was wondering if my puppet Nation, flekkefjord could take the rank of my main nation, Northwest Kalactin.

[Valanora]

If it is not a direct IC successor state, the answer is no.

[Northwest Kalactin]

If it is not a direct IC successor state, the answer is no.

Why?

[Equestrian States]

If it is not a direct IC successor state, the answer is no.

Why?

The generally accepted convention with rank/title transfers between nations is that there must be some valid IC reason for the switch. A RL example of this would be Russia replacing the Soviet Union.

[Fluvannia]

I've taken the liberty of trying to compile a post-WCoH 39 ranking, based on the post-38 ranking spreadsheet found in the WCoH Federation's forum signature. Same formula applies, though it was unclear exactly how the games played for a given tournament is arrived at -- for example, WCoH 38 group play featured teams playing four games in five-team groups, but each team that has participated is credited with 8 GP. If we use Neu Engollon as an example, they played eight games -- four in group play, four in the single-elimination bracket -- and are credited with 16 points. 12 of those points obviously come from group play -- what about the other four? It would be redundant if the four-point bonus from the playoffs is applied only to be applied again. And many teams would not have played more than four games, but are still credited with eight. For now, I've only used the group play results for WCoH 39 Pts and GP, with number of single-elimination games played forming the bonus. Maybe we should award a fifth bonus point to the actual winner? Let me know what you all think.

I've also removed any teams that had 0 GP total between the last three tournaments from the rankings. If any of them participate in future tournaments, they would be starting from scratch in terms of overall ranking anyway based off how it's calculated, so I figured I'd simplify the rankings some and just not list them.

[Elejamie]

First up, glad to hear the last World Cup of Hockey was a massive success! Means I won't have to end up disbanding the Federation and bringing an end to the tournament in a disenchanted coup. I'm still retiring fron international ice hockey other than a potential tournament Neu Engollon have agreed to over on our Discord DM and I mentioned months ago, though I think one or two things might end up changing my mind and bringing me back to the competition should they get done.

Secondly, a belated congratulations to Cassadaigua on the win. I didn't pay that much attention to the tournament itself but still, congrats on lifting the trophy.

I've taken the liberty of trying to compile a post-WCoH 39 ranking, based on the post-38 ranking spreadsheet found in the WCoH Federation's forum signature. Same formula applies, though it was unclear exactly how the games played for a given tournament is arrived at -- for example, WCoH 38 group play featured teams playing four games in five-team groups, but each team that has participated is credited with 8 GP. If we use Neu Engollon as an example, they played eight games -- four in group play, four in the single-elimination bracket -- and are credited with 16 points. 12 of those points obviously come from group play -- what about the other four? It would be redundant if the four-point bonus from the playoffs is applied only to be applied again. And many teams would not have played more than four games, but are still credited with eight. For now, I've only used the group play results for WCoH 39 Pts and GP, with number of single-elimination games played forming the bonus. Maybe we should award a fifth bonus point to the actual winner? Let me know what you all think.

I've also removed any teams that had 0 GP total between the last three tournaments from the rankings. If any of them participate in future tournaments, they would be starting from scratch in terms of overall ranking anyway based off how it's calculated, so I figured I'd simplify the rankings some and just not list them.

That looks good. Unless anyone has any objections, I might end up making that the official rankings sheet since I'm still technically the WCoHF VP even though I stepped down and retired from the sport. Besides, as far as I know, all nations end up being unranked if they haven't participated in three consecutive tournaments, so that's not actually a problem.

Hey I was wondering if my puppet Nation, flekkefjord could take the rank of my main nation, Northwest Kalactin.

If it is not a direct IC successor state, the answer is no.

Why?

The generally accepted convention with rank/title transfers between nations is that there must be some valid IC reason for the switch. A RL example of this would be Russia replacing the Soviet Union.

Pretty much this. If you want to make Flekkefjord your main ice hockey nation then I'd recommend signing up as them in the competition and either leaving NK on the backburner or treating it as a puppet. You could also treat it as your main nation and leave Northwest Kalactin to fade away but I'm not sure if that's a good idea.

[Fluvannia]

First up, glad to hear the last World Cup of Hockey was a massive success! Means I won't have to end up disbanding the Federation and bringing an end to the tournament in a disenchanted coup. I'm still retiring fron international ice hockey other than a potential tournament Neu Engollon have agreed to over on our Discord DM and I mentioned months ago, though I think one or two things might end up changing my mind and bringing me back to the competition should they get done.

I've taken the liberty of trying to compile a post-WCoH 39 ranking, based on the post-38 ranking spreadsheet found in the WCoH Federation's forum signature. Same formula applies, though it was unclear exactly how the games played for a given tournament is arrived at -- for example, WCoH 38 group play featured teams playing four games in five-team groups, but each team that has participated is credited with 8 GP. If we use Neu Engollon as an example, they played eight games -- four in group play, four in the single-elimination bracket -- and are credited with 16 points. 12 of those points obviously come from group play -- what about the other four? It would be redundant if the four-point bonus from the playoffs is applied only to be applied again. And many teams would not have played more than four games, but are still credited with eight. For now, I've only used the group play results for WCoH 39 Pts and GP, with number of single-elimination games played forming the bonus. Maybe we should award a fifth bonus point to the actual winner? Let me know what you all think.

I've also removed any teams that had 0 GP total between the last three tournaments from the rankings. If any of them participate in future tournaments, they would be starting from scratch in terms of overall ranking anyway based off how it's calculated, so I figured I'd simplify the rankings some and just not list them.

That looks good. Unless anyone has any objections, I might end up making that the official rankings sheet since I'm still technically the WCoHF VP even though I stepped down and retired from the sport. Besides, as far as I know, all nations end up being unranked if they haven't participated in three consecutive tournaments, so that's not actually a problem.

Thanks! Glad I could help. I'd like to try and get more involved, I figure between hockey being my favorite sport, our region not having much representation on the NS stage, and numbers being sort of my job (engineer), this would be a good start. If the Federation needs a helping hand, I'd be willing there too.

[Kelssek]

I've taken the liberty of trying to compile a post-WCoH 39 ranking, based on the post-38 ranking spreadsheet found in the WCoH Federation's forum signature. Same formula applies, though it was unclear exactly how the games played for a given tournament is arrived at -- for example, WCoH 38 group play featured teams playing four games in five-team groups, but each team that has participated is credited with 8 GP. . For now, I've only used the group play results for WCoH 39 Pts and GP, with number of single-elimination games played forming the bonus. Maybe we should award a fifth bonus point to the actual winner? Let me know what you all think.

I've also removed any teams that had 0 GP total between the last three tournaments from the rankings. If any of them participate in future tournaments, they would be starting from scratch in terms of overall ranking anyway based off how it's calculated, so I figured I'd simplify the rankings some and just not list them.

I appreciate your effort but I am hesitant to accept these rankings and I object to Elejamie doing so.

Firstly, I'm puzzled as to how you derived the points. In my understanding, the rankings system is 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. Any game with level scores after regulation (i.e., OTW, OTL, or T) should thus be 1 point.

I'd have to look up the formula to deal with teams that made it to the knockouts, but for an example, here is my calculation for Free Republics, who you awarded 7 points:
1 win, 2 ties, 1 loss -> (1*2) + (2*1) + (1*0) = 2+2+0 = 4 points

(EDIT wrong example removed)
Reçueçn and Devonta should both have the same points, but Devonta has 5 and Reçueçn 4. Both have W1, T1, L2 records, so should have 3 points.

If we use Neu Engollon as an example, they played eight games -- four in group play, four in the single-elimination bracket -- and are credited with 16 points. 12 of those points obviously come from group play -- what about the other four? It would be redundant if the four-point bonus from the playoffs is applied only to be applied again. And many teams would not have played more than four games, but are still credited with eight.

Yes. That's how it supposed to work. It's not redundant because as a tournament result, you did better if you made it to the semi-finals, than if you made it to the quarter-finals, and in turn if you were eliminated at the group stage. Bonuses for each knockout round advancement are entirely fair, it's a "bigger" win than a win in the group stage. And yes, every team should have their points divided by the number of possible games played, which for WCoH 39 is eight, not four.

One obvious problem is that because the denominator is 4 instead of 8, in your calculation WCoH 39 is worth twice as much as it should.

Valanora is the rank keeper and I would leave it to them. Again, it's good to take the initiative, but it would have been ideal to check with others first, especially if it wasn't clear what was going on.

[Fluvannia]

I appreciate your effort but I am hesitant to accept these rankings and I object to Elejamie doing so.

Obviously I wouldn't go so far as to say I object, but I did not intend for these to be official in any way at this point in time.

Firstly, I'm puzzled as to how you derived the points. In my understanding, the rankings system is 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. Any game with level scores after regulation (i.e., OTW, OTL, or T) should thus be 1 point.

This was actually derived from the points you yourself awarded during group play. It didn't seem particularly consistent across previous tournaments so I used those as a starting point.

I'd have to look up the formula to deal with teams that made it to the knockouts, but for an example, here is my calculation for Free Republics, who you awarded 7 points:
1 win, 2 ties, 1 loss -> (1*2) + (2*1) + (1*0) = 2+1+0 = 3 points

Another example: Banija and Anthor should have the same ranking points, because their records are both W2, D2 for rankings purposes. In your ranking Banija has 9 points and Anthor 8. Both should have 6.

If we use Neu Engollon as an example, they played eight games -- four in group play, four in the single-elimination bracket -- and are credited with 16 points. 12 of those points obviously come from group play -- what about the other four? It would be redundant if the four-point bonus from the playoffs is applied only to be applied again. And many teams would not have played more than four games, but are still credited with eight.

Yes. That's how it supposed to work. It's not redundant because as a tournament result, you did better if you made it to the semi-finals, than if you made it to the quarter-finals, and in turn if you were eliminated at the group stage. Bonuses for each knockout round advancement are entirely fair, it's a "bigger" win than a win in the group stage. And yes, every team should have their points divided by the number of possible games played, which for WCoH 39 is eight, not four.

One obvious problem is that because the denominator is 4 instead of 8, in your calculation WCoH 39 is worth twice as much as it should.

See, this is actually helpful, and is the reason I put something very unofficial out there for feedback. Thank you for this information.

Valanora is the rank keeper and I would leave it to them. Again, it's good to take the initiative, but it would have been ideal to check with others first, especially if it wasn't clear what was going on.

My apologies. I'll refrain from trying to get involved in the future if you think I'm just stepping on people's toes.

[Sarzonia]

There might be something good about having different ranking systems and RP opportunities for countries to accept or reject a particular system.

We shouldn't discourage people from getting involved, and we can do better about turning down the heat when it's not warranted.

[Fluvannia]

Said unofficial rankings have been updated to reflect the formula as provided by Kelssek, with the exception of recording any points for WCoH 39 knockout games (bonus is still applied, no "knockout points" awarded in column D until the formula is confirmed).

I'm fine with moving to a system that treats games across different tournaments equally (as the system as explained would appear to do), as I think that makes the rankings more consistent. It was more about me trying to nail down exactly what that system was, is all.

There might be something good about having different ranking systems and RP opportunities for countries to accept or reject a particular system.

We shouldn't discourage people from getting involved, and we can do better about turning down the heat when it's not warranted.

I suppose different rankings systems could be useful (or at least make for interesting discussion); frankly I would be interested in doing something like IIHF where rankings vary tournament-to-tournament, with promotion and relegation, but in an environment such as this where participation at all is not guaranteed from tournament to tournament, that does seem like a system that would break down quickly.

Do we add the single-point-per-knockout-games-played bonus directly to column D? Or, do we treat each of those games as "two points for a regulation win, one each for going to overtime, none for a regulation loss" deal, despite not being in group play?

[Valanora]

Amid all this discussion, I have been updating the official ranks, which are now available. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Fluvannia]

Amid all this discussion, I have been updating the official ranks, which are now available. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I think I've followed the method you use up until the third-place game and the final. Would you mind explaining exactly how the knockout stage is counted? Looks like a simple two points for any win, none for any loss (which makes sense in the context of how single-elimination works). Following that method, excluding those last two games, for WCOH 39 I have Neu Engollon earning 10 points, but Abanhfleft and Cassadaigua still earn 13...

[Kelssek]

Fluvannia can't be held responsible for the committee VP moving to adopt incorrectly calculated rankings as official. It is that decision I was objecting to. At the same time, in pointing out that Fluvannia did the ranks incorrectly, any perceived hostility on my part was not intended as such.

I suppose different rankings systems could be useful (or at least make for interesting discussion); frankly I would be interested in doing something like IIHF where rankings vary tournament-to-tournament, with promotion and relegation, but in an environment such as this where participation at all is not guaranteed from tournament to tournament, that does seem like a system that would break down quickly.

That's not how the IIHF rankings work. They work on a similar principle, in fact: teams are awarded points based on tournament progress in the World Championship and Olympics, with decay over time. Promotion/relegation is distinct from the world ranking and depends on a team's performance in the tournament itself, not their ranking points.

[Pasarga]

Two points for regulation or overtime win, one point each awarded for a game that goes to a shootout. As the Final was recorded as having multiple overtimes, it is seen as having been a tie and recorded as such.

[Fluvannia]

Fluvannia can't be held responsible for the committee VP moving to adopt incorrectly calculated rankings as official. It is that decision I was objecting to. At the same time, in pointing out that Fluvannia did the ranks incorrectly, any perceived hostility on my part was not intended as such.

No harm, no foul. As I said, the actual details on how the points are tabulated was incredibly helpful, and I thank you for them.

That's not how the IIHF rankings work. They work on a similar principle, in fact: teams are awarded points based on tournament progress in the World Championship and Olympics, with decay over time. Promotion/relegation is distinct from the world ranking and depends on a team's performance in the tournament itself, not their ranking points.

That was poorly worded on my part -- I should have separated the mentions of rankings and promotion/relegation more to show that I understand they are not related by anything other than the organization that employs them. I am aware of how teams get themselves promoted and relegated at the international level.

Two points for regulation or overtime win, one point each awarded for a game that goes to a shootout. As the Final was recorded as having multiple overtimes, it is seen as having been a tie and recorded as such.

Ahh, ok, that gets everything lined up. A slighlty different system than usually used IRL, but it makes sense. Thanks.

[Savojarna]

Two points for regulation or overtime win, one point each awarded for a game that goes to a shootout. As the Final was recorded as having multiple overtimes, it is seen as having been a tie and recorded as such.

Ahh, ok, that gets everything lined up. A slighlty different system than usually used IRL, but it makes sense. Thanks.

In most tournaments, the point system itself is also slightly different (most WCoH's I've been part of employ the NHL system, and some even did best-of-playoffs, both of which I personally strongly disagree with but are liked by part of the community) so we don't really need to stick to any RL precedent anyway.

[Neu Engollon]

Can we still consider linking the NS Hockey trades/transfers list to the OP for ease of search? It would be greatly appreciated.

[Ontorisa]

Can we still consider linking the NS Hockey trades/transfers list to the OP for ease of search? It would be greatly appreciated.

I second this, we need a way to keep track of the spreadsheet.

Also, could those on the WCoH's admin team TG me with emails so I can add them as editors to the Hub?

[Neu Engollon]

Also, could those on the WCoH's admin team TG me with emails so I can add them as editors to the Hub?

Question on that. How come other users can't edit to add to the transfer history or insert rows on the Transfer List tab? At the very least, it would be nice to have a column on the Transfer List showing a bidding club/franchise, or possibly multiple bidding clubs.

[Ontorisa]

Also, could those on the WCoH's admin team TG me with emails so I can add them as editors to the Hub?

Question on that. How come other users can't edit to add to the transfer history or insert rows on the Transfer List tab? At the very least, it would be nice to have a column on the Transfer List showing a bidding club/franchise, or possibly multiple bidding clubs.

So I have it that users can edit certain parts of the Hub. For other parts, I wanted to keep locked just so it remains organized.

I can unlock the transfers list later on.

As for the inserting rows, there shouldn't be any point since I have the infinite amount of rows going down in the table open to be edited.