Forum
Open discussion about the alternate score ranking
|
superxchloe wrote
at 8:56 PM, Tuesday August 31, 2010 EDT
General opinions?
Should tourney points be included, rather than games*ppg? What do you think about the current weighting? It's 4/3/2/1/0/-1/-2 which is close to 1 (.98) for someone with 14 percent across the board. What about a minimum number of games? I've been hovering around 30-35 for the current month, but I'd like to see what the general consensus is. Keep in mind that having a larger number of games is NOT advantageous to the asr. What about adding a component that makes having a larger number of games advantageous? For example, multiplying further by the cube root of the number of games is an option. This gives an edge to those with a large number of games, but the disparity between the multiplier for 100 games and 500 games is relatively small as compared to the tapl/tazd (4.64 and 7.93 versus 10 and 22.4). Alternatively, I could add a quarter of the number of games played to the score or half the number of games played to the asr or something like that. Some reference info: The average asr of the top 100, after removing outliers (loobee, monte, and nexon) is 226 (standard dev. 147) while the average number of games played is 258 (standard dev 145). If there's more info you want, let me know. |
|
greekboi wrote
at 12:01 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT chloe i like the idea of making it advantageous to play more games...it takes more skill to have a good rank through more games, so why shouldn't this be addressed in the formula?
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:27 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT Members have a hefty advantage in this calculation since they can immediately play 500/2000 level tables.......wonder if there is a way to factor in non-members early month trevails at the noob tables. For instance, you mentioned das was 7th last month, but as a non-member this rank is likely depressed a bit. Had he started with 2500 and didn't have to play the 0/100 tables, he may have finished with a much higher PPG.
By the way, do you take out the 2500 point member bonus when calculating PPG, or do you use the PPG on the player's profile? |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 12:29 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT yeah, gb, the question is how should that advantage be implemented, and which way is the most fair. There are clearly ways that aren't fair, as several people mentioned in the discussion about kills per game / kills per root game. So far, three ideas have been set forth:
1. Multiply by the cube root of the number of games played 2. Add some fraction of the number of games played to the total score 3. Give a bonus for playing a certain number of games (ie 20 per 100 games) The idea is to give and advantage to the person that has played more games between two people with very close scores. I do not want 'a large portion' of the points to come from playing more games. I'll run some stats this evening when I get home, then see which method has the changes that seem fairest. |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 12:31 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT thrax, I use the ppg from the player's profile and multiply by the number of games.
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 12:37 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT So there is no compensation given to non-members (I don't even know how you'd calculate such a thing).
|
|
|
greekboi wrote
at 12:53 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT yeah sorry chloe i meant to say that you should multiplly by cube root of total games....however thrax is right i didn't even think about that
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 1:41 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT games*ppg already clears out the 2500 point bonus, but it is true that members have an advantage for the first several days of competition. I really don't know how I could compensate for it, especially since I do everything in excel and I don't do any programming. I would have to check who is a member by hand. However, I don't think the advantage members have is that large- from what I can see of today's stats so far (and I'll watch over the next couple days) they play several 100 games. The advantage they have should even out over a large number of games, so maybe requiring more games would be one way to compensate. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 1:46 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT There's no easy way to do it without getting your hands on the source data. It would be nice to not count the games needed by non-members to make it to 2500, but that would require ignoring placement percentages, numbers of games, and PPG.......all of which you can't determine by pulling data at just one moment in time.
Of course, a non-member could play a freeroll, earn 2,000 points, and have the same advantage a member has almost immediately. Doesn't appear to be a cut and dry method. I guess if you are worried about winning an ASR competition, and you think members have an advantage, you should probably shell out $10 and buy a membership. |
|
Marsyas wrote
at 5:01 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT sup cute chloe, great job.
thrax, 6 out of the ASR top 10 aren't members (including top 2, nex & monte), that didn't stop them. members advantage are the tourny points, not the 2.5k about the large numbers of games, they are an advantage since they are multiplied by the ppg, check fonias this month, 10th in ASR with 427 games & 89 ppg, his stats are still impressive thought. so imo no need for a bonus. |
|
|
greekboi wrote
at 5:26 PM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT games*ppg doesnt clear it
non-members dont get to play 500/2k stakes until they play 100 games or so and get the points |
