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. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 31 - 36 of 36
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 7:19 PM, Friday September 3, 2010 EDT Yes, because points that are given to bring your score back up to zero are not counted in PPG. That is why non-members can have negative PPG's.
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 2:14 PM, Saturday September 4, 2010 EDT After running the numbers, some people jumped as many as 25 places when multiplying by the cube root of number of games played. I don't really want playing a ton of games to be that big an advantage on its own. 2 points per 50 games played actually worked out how I wanted it to- Das dropped about 3 places because he played 1/4 the games of anyone else in the top 10. Clearly, this games bonus has a greater affect on the bottom end of the list, but that doesn't really matter imo.
As it turns out though, dividing by 25 is actually much less work than giving a 2 point bonus per 50 games. So, that's what I think I'll do, pending everyone's comments. |
|
jurgen wrote
at 2:50 PM, Saturday September 4, 2010 EDT good luck defending a change where Das drops 3 places ;-)
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 2:57 PM, Saturday September 4, 2010 EDT hahah well if he had played a few more games he wouldn't have dropped! the whole point of adding this is to give an advantage to playing more games :P
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 2:57 PM, Saturday September 4, 2010 EDT plus he's still top 10 so theoretically he should approve?
|
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 4:22 PM, Saturday September 4, 2010 EDT yeah, I was just kidding, thanks for all your efforts and keep up the great work Chloe!
|
