World Lacrosse Championships: The Discussion Thread

[Newmanistan]

Very much in favor of KP's suggestion here. I have nothing to add other then this full endorsement.

[The Kytler Peninsulae]

Just to give you an idea of the balance of the current scorinator:

* A team with a max rank and RP bonus has a 92.88% chance of winning in normal time against a non-RPing newbie, and a 3.22% chance of losing.
* A team with a max rank, but no RP bonus, has a 66.80% chance of winning in normal time against that same non-RPing newbie, and a 23.82% chance of losing.
* A newbie with a maxed-out RP bonus has an 80.38% chance of winning in normal time against that non-RPing newbie, and a 12.59% chance of losing.
* That same RPing newbie has a 61.63% chance of beating a team with a maxed-out rank but no RP bonus, and a 28.22% chance of losing.

For all of these, the remaining probability is that the game goes into overtime, which - as stated before - is still a bit of a work in progress. It should also be noted that the "max rank" here is an extreme scenario - such a team would have had to have won the last two WLCs without losing a game - and in practice, the influence of ranking is even less than this.

Though I haven't calculated the rankings just yet, I can give the examples of two highly-ranked nations right now. Civil Citizenry went 2-10 in WLC11 but 12-1 in WLC12; their rank is 0.671. Camwood went 9-4 in WLC11, and 7-6 in WLC12; their rank is 0.590. If neither of them RPed, a newbie with a max bonus would have a 70.01% chance of beating Camwood in normal time, and a 68.40% chance of defeating the Citiz in normal time. (With equal RP bonuses, Civil Citizenry would have a 59.95% shot of winning in four quarters against that newbie, and Camwood 58.21%.)

I firmly believe that the above demonstrates that RPing debutants will still have success against non-RPing nations, regardless of rank. The effect of rank is present, it encourages continual entry and makes the competition feel a little bit more "under control" for the experienced nations, but the tournament's tradition of rewarding RP above all else will be firmly continued.

[Mytannion]

I fully endorse the use of rankings in the WLC, and think this system is perfect for a tournament such as the WLC.

Also, congratulations to Civil Citizenry for both hosting a great tournament and winning it also.

[Darmen]

I would love to see rankings for Lacrosse. Maybe it's just me being rankings happy, but I think it will add another dimension to the game on NS.

[Civil Citizenry]

I'm all for a ranking system, but I have two comments on TKP's proposed formula.

I think two tournaments is too short a time span. Just look at my results over the last two WLCs: the fluctuation and randomness across just two tournaments can be high. Three WLCs sounds more accurate to me.

The other suggestion I have is to weight the playoff rounds more heavily than the group stage. For example, had I lost in the first round I would have been 8-2, or a 0.800 percentage. Had Armorgames won the tournament, he/she would be 9-4, or a 0.692 percentage. That seems ludicrous to me, that the champion could have a somewhat significant disadvantage against a team that lost in the first round. Instead, I would say award 1 point for a group stage win, 2 for a knockout first round win, and one increasing point for future rounds (i.e. in WLC 12, winning the final would be worth 5 points). Then the total number of points would be divided by the total number of games played. That may require some MyLax tweaking, but I'm sure it wouldn't be so hard - that's the third lacrosse scorinator (Sarzonia and Mytannion each created one) based on that concept!

[The Kytler Peninsulae]

A very simple way of tweaking the formula; assume that all teams played the most number of games possible. This is how it's done in the KPB rankings, so that makes sense here too. The ratio's still the same, though.

An advancement on this, based on your suggestion: playoff games count double. This also increases the number of games played. So, for instance, Civil Citizenry went 12-1 in winning the tournament, including four playoff wins. That "equates" to 16 wins. Camwood went 7-6, including two playoff wins. That "equates" to 9 wins. There was a 13-game run to the title, including four playoff games. That means the adjusted win percentage should be (adjusted wins/17). Again, this removes any need for spreadsheet modification.

Three tournaments makes sense given the volatility, too. (And again, that is the KPB convention.) I will adopt that. The tournaments will be weighted 3:2:1 in the rankings (so a team that have adjusted win percentages of (say) .500 in WLC10, .250 in WLC11, and .400 in WLC12 (these numbers aren't actually possible given the formats, but just for easier math's sake) will have a ranking score of (1/6 * .500) + (2/6 * .250) + (3/6 * .400) = .367.

[Civil Citizenry]

With the permission of TKP, I have put together the first edition of the AWR Rankings. AWR stands for Adjusted Win Ratios, which is the formula off which the rankings are based.

The rankings take into account the last three WLCs (the final result is a cumulative total of the points earned from each tournament), using the formula ((A+(B*2))/C) for each tournament, where A = group stage wins, B = playoff wins, and C = total number of potential games played, with playoff games automatically multiplied by 2. However, for the champion of each tournament, the formula is ((A+B*2))/D), where all the letters are the same except for D; D = total number of potential games played. This latter part is to reward teams for winning the tournament.

At this time, the AWR Rankings are not required to be used as part of WLCs; it is merely a tool available to hosts if they wish to implement ranks into scorination. The use or non-use of the AWR Rankings needs to be specified in future WLC host bids.

AWR Rankings
Post-WLC 12

 1 Civil Citizenry 2.00
 2 Allamunnic States 1.84
 3 Mytannion 1.32
 4 Cosumar 1.30
 5 Sarzonia 1.28
 6 Churchma 1.26
 7 Delaclava 1.25
 8 Vulshain 1.16
 9 Mangolana 1.02
10 Camwood 0.98
11 Jimmer Fredette 0.75
12 Mossulia 0.64
13 Cotdelapoms 0.54
14 Armorgames 0.53
14 The Kytler Peninsulae 0.53
14 Bergnovinaia 0.53
17 Meguroko 0.52
18 Oiseaui 0.50
19 Monfortia 0.48
20 West Guiana 0.47
20 Wolfmanne 0.47
22 Zitru 0.45
23 Tsyland 0.44
23 Silver Beach 0.44
25 Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuk 0.41
26 Stuffed Taxidermists 0.40
27 Carmadin 0.35
27 Darmen 0.35
27 Stachland 0.35
27 Altimarus 0.35
31 Carasatoga 0.30
32 Gallund 0.29
33 Vibrosestan 0.28
33 Svallgard 0.28
33 Andossa Se Mitrin Vega 0.28
36 Kogvuron 0.25
36 Darrenovia 0.25
36 Sibirsky 0.25
36 Neumanns 0.25
40 Crolacia 0.24
40 Jamalon 0.24
40 Newmanistan 0.24
43 Darkshadowskyguy 0.22
43 Zambero 0.22
43 Frenequesta 0.22
46 Bucknia 0.18
46 Cyborg Holland 0.18
46 Evoca 0.18
49 Altruistic Unification 0.15
50 Gandham Islands 0.12
50 Ruadha 0.12
52 Dorian and Sonya 0.11
53 Unitopolis 0.10
53 Chenkorya 0.10
55 Ack barnes 0.06
55 Tarrentum 0.06

[Newmanistan]

With the permission of TKP, I have put together the first edition of the AWRB Rankings. AWR stands for Adjusted Win Ratios, which is the formula off which the rankings are based. IC'ly, AWR is an automobile company in The Kytler Peninsulae that is a principal sponsor of the rankings. The B stands for Babolax, the Citiz lacrosse gear company that is the other principal sponsor.

I think it might be best to not "back-date" rankings.
Starting with the next WLC, we begin accumulating, and I do believe we need to have a discussion on them because I do believe they need to be either: required or never.

Minor, but as for the IC sponsors, can we not? It's not that they're sponsored, but there should be a bidding process on naming rights, yadda yadda yadda. OOC they are reponsible for the rankings, but ICly, what have TKP and CC done to deserve (figuratively speaking, if a more storied program like Sarzonia or Allamunnic States had this, then I wouldn't protest quite as much) having their companies have exclusive naming rights on something like this without a bidding process. It's a needless argument, please scrap. The Adjusted Win Ratios is fine.

[Mytannion]

I think it might be best to not "back-date" rankings.
Starting with the next WLC, we begin accumulating, and I do believe we need to have a discussion on them because I do believe they need to be either: required or never.

Minor, but as for the IC sponsors, can we not? It's not that they're sponsored, but there should be a bidding process on naming rights, yadda yadda yadda. OOC they are reponsible for the rankings, but ICly, what have TKP and CC done to deserve having their companies have exclusive naming rights on something like this without a bidding process. It's a needless argument, please scrap.

Whole-heartedly agree with the sentiments in this post. We either need to set-up something here which requires them, or they aren't used at all. If it isn't one or the other, we could end up with quite a few problems.

Same with the IC sponsors - there hould be a bidding process, it is completely unfair otherwise.

EDIT: Also, if we can agree on something with the rankings - i.e. if we do end-up using them (something I'd prefer), then I may do an invitational tournament inbetween each WLC which invites the top 7 in the WLC rankings, with my nation as the host nation always retaining a spot. It would be interesting..

[Civil Citizenry]

With the permission of TKP, I have put together the first edition of the AWRB Rankings. AWR stands for Adjusted Win Ratios, which is the formula off which the rankings are based. IC'ly, AWR is an automobile company in The Kytler Peninsulae that is a principal sponsor of the rankings. The B stands for Babolax, the Citiz lacrosse gear company that is the other principal sponsor.

I think it might be best to not "back-date" rankings.

I disagree. Whether it represents WLCs 10-12 or WLCs 12-14, it still represents the best lacrosse teams over the past three tournaments. I don't see why we need to wait months to have a full, accurate set of rankings.

I do believe we need to have a discussion on them because I do believe they need to be either: required or never.

We probably should have a discussion on them, but I don't think it absolutely needs to be set in stone, either. However, if the community makes a decision one way or the other, that's fine, too.

Minor, but as for the IC sponsors, can we not? It's not that they're sponsored, but there should be a bidding process on naming rights, yadda yadda yadda. OOC they are reponsible for the rankings, but ICly, what have TKP and CC done to deserve (figuratively speaking, if a more storied program like Sarzonia or Allamunnic States had this, then I wouldn't protest quite as much) having their companies have exclusive naming rights on something like this without a bidding process. It's a needless argument, please scrap. The Adjusted Win Ratios is fine.

Sure, the IC stuff can be taken out. It was just a fun thing me and TKP had, nothing more.

[Sarzonia]

I would prefer that rankings not be considered mandatory for use by a host.

If someone comes along and chooses not to use them, that should not disqualify the host or be considered negatively.

I may be a lone voice opposing having rankings at all, but there will never be a *consensus* on the issue since that is defined as everyone agreeing.

[Civil Citizenry]

I would prefer that rankings not be considered mandatory for use by a host.

If someone comes along and chooses not to use them, that should not disqualify the host or be considered negatively.

This is why I think it would be okay to allow hosts to choose whether to use rankings or not.

I may be a lone voice opposing having rankings at all, but there will never be a *consensus* on the issue since that is defined as everyone agreeing.

Maybe something of this magnitude could not be determined without a sort of leadership committee or something. Otherwise, how can we come to a conclusion one way or the other? We can't just say, "well, a few people said we should make rankings mandatory, so that's that."

I'm not saying we should make needless bureaucracy, but I'm not sure how else we could come to a decision.

[Newmanistan]

I think it might be best to not "back-date" rankings.

I disagree. Whether it represents WLCs 10-12 or WLCs 12-14, it still represents the best lacrosse teams over the past three tournaments. I don't see why we need to wait months to have a full, accurate set of rankings.

I'd rather have them your way then not at all. My reasoning for not being sure if they should be back-dated is that people may have made decisions to participate/not participate in past tournaments knowing that there was a system of rank in place; instead of knowing that every tournament starts at zero.

Though as KP spelled out in previous post discussion the percentages, etc., it's not as big of a factor, so I can concede this point if most like it.

[The Kytler Peninsulae]

I'm glad I've started this debate. Seriously I am.

Newmanistan makes a very good point - well, two actually. We probably do need to decide if this is a ranking-based or a non-ranking-based tournament - my initial idea of making the rank use optional was effectively an offering in the spirit of compromise, and I think Newmanistan has shot it down pretty well. Additionally, CC's calculations weren't quite how I imagined them - I planned on a weighted average of three WLCs (weighted 3:2:1 towards the most recent WLCs - so for post-WLC12, this would be 3/6 for WLC12, 2/6 for WLC11, and 1/6 for WLC10). That's an easy spreadsheet fix for CC, though.

People signed up (or indeed didn't sign up) for WLCs on the assumption that you could jump right in with no rank influence. Introducing a three-tournament ranking retrospective means those who missed WLC12 in particular are punished. That makes it look a bit vindictive towards Sarzonia, in retrospect.

I know we haven't got anything as formal as the WCC but I think we need to make a decision on the use of rankings. My vote, clearly, is towards yes, but on the proviso of it being a secondary consideration to RP bonus in scorination.

[Mytannion]

My vote, clearly, is towards yes, but on the proviso of it being a secondary consideration to RP bonus in scorination.

This final line is the most important thing, we need to keep the spirit of the event in that anybody can jump in and have a chance of victory - but whilst also rewarding people for consistency and loyalty to the World Lacrosse Championship, if we can combine both we could have some great tournaments - but we need to make sure that RPing is always the most important thing in scorination and is also kept as something, which if done, can allow complete newbies to win the championship, as has happened a few times.

[The Kytler Peninsulae]

I love the line about loyalty. In effect, the inclusion of rank is a loyalty bonus, for continued involvement in the tournament. And the more you RP, the better that bonus is, because your performance in those prior WLCs is heavily RP-dependent!

[Civil Citizenry]

Newmanistan makes a very good point - well, two actually. We probably do need to decide if this is a ranking-based or a non-ranking-based tournament - my initial idea of making the rank use optional was effectively an offering in the spirit of compromise, and I think Newmanistan has shot it down pretty well. Additionally, CC's calculations weren't quite how I imagined them - I planned on a weighted average of three WLCs (weighted 3:2:1 towards the most recent WLCs - so for post-WLC12, this would be 3/6 for WLC12, 2/6 for WLC11, and 1/6 for WLC10). That's an easy spreadsheet fix for CC, though.

Sorry about that, I'll fix them asap.

People signed up (or indeed didn't sign up) for WLCs on the assumption that you could jump right in with no rank influence. Introducing a three-tournament ranking retrospective means those who missed WLC12 in particular are punished. That makes it look a bit vindictive towards Sarzonia, in retrospect.

Sarz chose not to participate in WLC 12 because of reasons completely unrelated to the issue of "the assumption that you could jump right in with no rank influence." No matter what, he will be penalized for not participating, whether it's the rankings for 12-13-14 or 10-11-12.

I know we haven't got anything as formal as the WCC but I think we need to make a decision on the use of rankings. My vote, clearly, is towards yes, but on the proviso of it being a secondary consideration to RP bonus in scorination.

Again, where do we get off having the right to make a decision at some point? There are going to be some for rankings and some against them, but at what point can we say, "we have enough support to justify making this a rule"?

[Mytannion]

Again, where do we get off having the right to make a decision at some point? There are going to be some for rankings and some against them, but at what point can we say, "we have enough support to justify making this a rule"?

I think we should have some sort of vote, sent to somebody who perhaps hasn't announced their thoughts on the matter yet - who can count the votes etc, and I'd say a two-thirds majority would be he agreeable sort of margin that could justify this, surely?

[The Kytler Peninsulae]

I'd agree with the idea of a vote on this. It's the most fundamental change we've had in the WLC, it's time to see if it has sufficiently strong support.

[Civil Citizenry]

A vote sounds good to me. If necessary, I can volunteer my puppet, Victorwick, to collect votes. We could leave voting open for, say, a week, and allow anyone who has participated in any WLC to vote? And I don't know if three-fourths might be a more decisive majority than two-thirds, but either way it sounds like a proper plan.

[Mytannion]

A vote sounds good to me. If necessary, I can volunteer my puppet, Victorwick, to collect votes. We could leave voting open for, say, a week, and allow anyone who has participated in any WLC to vote? And I don't know if three-fourths might be a more decisive majority than two-thirds, but either way it sounds like a proper plan.

Right, this works with me - seen as Newmanistan and Sarzonia have been the two with the biggest other opinions on the subject, I think we should let them have their say on the majority etc - and then we should proceed to the vote.

[Sarzonia]

Two-thirds has been the convention in several other sports. I don't see why we should change it to three-fourths for this vote.

[Civil Citizenry]

I was just kidding about those other AWR rankings. These are the real ones.

The below rankings are corrected so that they are weighted on a 3-2-1 scale, with the most recent WLC (WLC 12) being weighted the most and the least recent (WLC 10 being weighted the least. As well, the overall totals have been divided by 6 so that the ranks are always between 0 and 1, though the ratios between teams are the same.

AWR Rankings
Post-WLC 12

 1 Civil Citizenry 0.760
 2 Cosumar 0.525
 3 Allamunnic States 0.484
 4 Vulshain 0.420
 5 Camwood 0.415
 6 Mytannion 0.408
 7 Delaclava 0.401
 8 Sarzonia 0.391
 9 Churchma 0.338
10 Mangolana0.323
11 Jimmer Fredette 0.310
12 Armorgames 0.265
13 The Kytler Peninsulae 0.265
14 West Guiana 0.235
15 Wolfmanne 0.235
16 Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuk 0.206
17 Bergnovinaia 0.205
18 Monfortia 0.188
19 Carmadin 0.176
20 Darmen 0.176
21 Oiseaui 0.167
22 Cotdelapoms 0.163
23 Zitru 0.150
24 Gallund 0.147
25 Mossulia 0.141
26 Meguroko 0.137
27 Crolacia 0.118
28 Jamalon 0.118
29 Newmanistan 0.118
30 Stachland 0.117
31 Altimarus 0.117
32 Stuffed Taxidermists 0.105
33 Carasatoga 0.100
34 Bucknia 0.088
35 Cyborg Holland 0.088
36 Evoca 0.088
37 Kogvuron 0.083
38 Darrenovia 0.083
39 Sibirsky 0.083
40 Neumanns 0.083
41 Tsyland 0.074
42 Silver Beach 0.074
43 Gandham Islands 0.059
44 Ruadha 0.059
45 Altruistic Unification 0.050
46 Vibrosestan 0.046
47 Svallgard 0.046
48 Andossa Se Mitrin Vega 0.046
49 Darkshadowskyguy 0.037
50 Zambero 0.037
51 Frenequesta 0.037
52 Unitopolis 0.033
53 Chenkorya 0.033
54 Ack barnes 0.029
55 Tarrentum 0.029
56 Dorian and Sonya 0.019

[The Kytler Peninsulae]

And for what it's worth, under the previously-mentioned MyLAX formula I have devised, an AMR score of .500 represents a one-goal-per-game advantage over a newbie. (0.5 more goals scored, 0.5 fewer goals conceded.)

That means even a top-ten team like Camwood (.415) has an advantage of barely two-thirds of a goal per game against a minnow like Ruadha (.059).

By comparison, the maximum RP bonus for which MyLAX has been designed represents a 3.5-goal advantage (1.75 more goals scored, 1.75 fewer goals conceded).

Putting this into context: if Newmanistan (.118, #29) and Civil Citizenry (.760, #1) played each other on neutral territory (I've yet to calculate a home-advantage element to this formula, though I'm working on it), the Citiz would start roughly 2:1 favourites (59.33% vs 30.17%, draw 10.49%) if both teams RPed equally. If the Citiz had produced three "average" RPs rated at 3/5 on a five-point scale going into this match, and Newmanistan had produced three 5/5 RPs, Newmanistan become the slight favourites (45.50% vs 42.78%, draw 11.72%). Conversely, if the RP situation was reversed (three 3/5 RPs from Newmanistan, three 5/5 RPs from Civil Citizenry), the Citiz become fairly overwhelming favourites (73.57% vs 18.13%, draw 8.31%).

Just to give you an idea of what these rankings might translate to in an actual tournament situation based on how my formula has worked.

I've now delved into the .xml file used for lacrosse in xkoranate, and given how it works, I won't be able to make direct comparisons, alas...

[Newmanistan]

A vote sounds good to me. If necessary, I can volunteer my puppet, Victorwick, to collect votes. We could leave voting open for, say, a week, and allow anyone who has participated in any WLC to vote? And I don't know if three-fourths might be a more decisive majority than two-thirds, but either way it sounds like a proper plan.

Right, this works with me - seen as Newmanistan and Sarzonia have been the two with the biggest other opinions on the subject, I think we should let them have their say on the majority etc - and then we should proceed to the vote.

I'm in favor of vote, but we're gonna have to come up with a criteria on who's eligible to vote. I would like, at very minimum, it to be someone who RP'd at least once in WLC 11 OR WLC 12 (as opposed to someone who just signed up and did nothing as since this affects RPers, the opinions of those who don't/didn't should not sway such a vote).

As far as backdating the ranks, it's not my preference, but it's not a vote-killer to me. I absolutely support backdated over nothing, so let's roll with the rankings produced by CC for WLC 10-12, if the vote is accepted.