Lux WTA Alternate Ranking System
- Dangerous Beans
- oO0-0Oo-oO0-0Oo
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:15 pm
- Location: SLEEPY (MICRO NATION OF)
- Contact:
- Dangerous Beans
- oO0-0Oo-oO0-0Oo
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:15 pm
- Location: SLEEPY (MICRO NATION OF)
- Contact:
a players strength for the purpose of 5locs (5 losing opponents collective strength) is their YTD winning percentage...so, the Year2010 rankings has a 99% corelation to player strength....but to be exact, a players strength for 5locs is their YTD wins divided by their YTD games multiplied by 100.
would you like a win% on the rankings pages ?
would you like a win% on the rankings pages ?
- Dangerous Beans
- oO0-0Oo-oO0-0Oo
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:15 pm
- Location: SLEEPY (MICRO NATION OF)
- Contact:
1) the site has been moved to RoguePack.com/lux. There is currently a redirection page at the old site but only until 5/1/2010.
2) I've noticed many of our weekly winners have posted exactly 21 games...This is not by coincidence, players clearly value our weekly medal.
3) I'm considering building into the site the option for players to setup adhoc competitions/events...an adhoc competition would be setup with some optional parameters as follows;
Your name : who is configuring this adhoc competition
Your adhoc event description : any free form text describing your event
Host name : ANY (or a specific game tracker host name)
Start Date : 5/5/2010
End Date : 5/5/2010 (maximum span of 7 days)
min # humans : 4 (2 - 6...minimum # of humans to score the game)
scoring method : WTA or AP (AP = average place)
for example, maybe you want to setup a 1 day competition to commemorate your birthday, etc...
I can offer a .jpg/.gif/.png upload option if you want to award a medal...but you need to have a mod award a medal, so don't talk to me about this aspect.
If the interest is genuine, i'll build it.
take care all,
Mo
2) I've noticed many of our weekly winners have posted exactly 21 games...This is not by coincidence, players clearly value our weekly medal.
3) I'm considering building into the site the option for players to setup adhoc competitions/events...an adhoc competition would be setup with some optional parameters as follows;
Your name : who is configuring this adhoc competition
Your adhoc event description : any free form text describing your event
Host name : ANY (or a specific game tracker host name)
Start Date : 5/5/2010
End Date : 5/5/2010 (maximum span of 7 days)
min # humans : 4 (2 - 6...minimum # of humans to score the game)
scoring method : WTA or AP (AP = average place)
for example, maybe you want to setup a 1 day competition to commemorate your birthday, etc...
I can offer a .jpg/.gif/.png upload option if you want to award a medal...but you need to have a mod award a medal, so don't talk to me about this aspect.
If the interest is genuine, i'll build it.
take care all,
Mo
i dont know squat
not a bad system . only one thing concerns me. winning in a room with a bunch of noobs doesnt compare with fighting it out during the chase with best players in lux .
Not sure if this was mentioned or not, because i was just skimming.
cnquerclubs ranking system is WTA. Each player loses 1% (we would use a higher % obv)of their total points and the winner adds their points to his. Not sure if this would work too well where everyone has a high raw though.
5% - everyone has 500 raw
1st = +50
2nd through 6th = -10 raw each
5% - everyone has 1000 raw
1st= +250
2nd through 6th= -50 raw each
a system like this would be the best for WTA games in my opinion, however, it could create a high gap between skill levels of players and prevent new players coming back
cnquerclubs ranking system is WTA. Each player loses 1% (we would use a higher % obv)of their total points and the winner adds their points to his. Not sure if this would work too well where everyone has a high raw though.
5% - everyone has 500 raw
1st = +50
2nd through 6th = -10 raw each
5% - everyone has 1000 raw
1st= +250
2nd through 6th= -50 raw each
a system like this would be the best for WTA games in my opinion, however, it could create a high gap between skill levels of players and prevent new players coming back
hi jacob,
we learned in the early development stage of our WTA system that the cumulative WTA points system you describe tends to reward average-to-good players that play many games.
this is the reason our WTA is an average-points/game based system...we show total pointa, but rank on average points.
Mo
we learned in the early development stage of our WTA system that the cumulative WTA points system you describe tends to reward average-to-good players that play many games.
this is the reason our WTA is an average-points/game based system...we show total pointa, but rank on average points.
Mo
I recently suggested in the forums that the weekly chase is flawed because those who exclusively play the second most popular map, RII are at a disadvantage.
Maybe it's due partly to the fact so few RII players contribute to the forums, but I was certainly underwhelmed by most of the responses.
<a href="http://sillysoft.net/forums/viewtopic.p ... vidence</a> I presented supporting my point was almost entirely ignored, leaving me with the impression that most contributors/players are close minded when it comes to discussing a map they don't play reguarly or at all. In a nut shell nobody really gave a shit or if they did they were mostly dismissive or evasive.
I'm not suggesting I'm right btw, but I do think I presented a compelling point of view. Pity nobody cared to take me up on it.
Far as I'm concerned WTA is the only system worth a pinch of salt right now.
Edited to include link
Maybe it's due partly to the fact so few RII players contribute to the forums, but I was certainly underwhelmed by most of the responses.
<a href="http://sillysoft.net/forums/viewtopic.p ... vidence</a> I presented supporting my point was almost entirely ignored, leaving me with the impression that most contributors/players are close minded when it comes to discussing a map they don't play reguarly or at all. In a nut shell nobody really gave a shit or if they did they were mostly dismissive or evasive.
I'm not suggesting I'm right btw, but I do think I presented a compelling point of view. Pity nobody cared to take me up on it.
Far as I'm concerned WTA is the only system worth a pinch of salt right now.
Edited to include link
- paranoiarodeo
- Semiholy Exile
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:30 pm
We both know the requirements to qualify for the weekly WTA award. It allows a player to pace him/her self over the week. For instance the first WTA award I won was from games I had played some days prior to the sunday WTA close.
I'm struggling to see how a requirement of 21 games over the course of an entire week could be compared to what goes on during the chase, where the time it takes to finish a game(s) may be the deciding factor in who takes first prize.
Btw -
I'm not saying any of the winners of the chase are undeserving, just that RII shouldn't be considered as part of the chase.
I've always thought The World Series in baseball could do with a name change. Maybe that's all the chase needs.
I'm struggling to see how a requirement of 21 games over the course of an entire week could be compared to what goes on during the chase, where the time it takes to finish a game(s) may be the deciding factor in who takes first prize.
Btw -
I'm not saying any of the winners of the chase are undeserving, just that RII shouldn't be considered as part of the chase.
I've always thought The World Series in baseball could do with a name change. Maybe that's all the chase needs.
- paranoiarodeo
- Semiholy Exile
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:30 pm
Roughly speaking ... an average Biodeuxer will play 35 games in the same time an average Roman would need to play 21 ... and put simply ... it's much more difficult to maintain a high win percentage over a longer term ... that's a basic probability thing I won't bother explaining here ... but you can take a moment to look at past WTA results ... excluding the first four test weeks ... you should notice that 12 of 33 weekly winners (36.4%) played the bare minimum ... 23 (69.7%) played 30 games or less ... and only two (6.0%) won by playing 50 or more ...Behemoth wrote:I'm struggling to see how a requirement of 21 games over the course of an entire week could be compared to what goes on during the chase, where the time it takes to finish a game(s) may be the deciding factor in who takes first prize.
Now ... you can look at this disparity one of two ways ... either Biodeuxers have a bigger time advantage in WTA relative to RAW ... 'cause their short games aren't penalized whatsoever and they can bang out the optimum number in just 60% of the time a Roman would need ... or conversely ... if someone had more time to burn during any given week and cared enough to chase ... they'd be gobsmackingly stupid to play anything but Rome ... 'cause doing so would put them at a significant disadvantage in terms of games played ...
You sir ... *ahems* ... need to have your head examined by a professional ...Behemoth wrote:Far as I'm concerned WTA is the only system worth a pinch of salt right now.
Yeah.... nice attempt to sidestep the actual issue I wrote about in this thread.
The web of ahem diversionary nonsense you spun about game time as a factor in WTA results is kinda boring, although I was pleased to see you didn't miss the chance at a personal insult in conclusion.
The most regular WTA winner is gunz - without doubt a very skilled BIO player. More than 90% of his games played have been biohazard - same goes for Waterboy in 2nd while Dans has won less but by better margins and so hangs onto top position. Lucky for him he has that precious extra time needed to complete 21 RII games over 7 days.
I take your point that BIO is a riskier venture than RII. It goes to show the skills of gunz and waterboy keeping such a high win %. 8.5% of my games are BIO of which I'm betting I win less than 15%... so my hats off.
But none of this changes anything. Game length just doesn't effect WTA results the way it effects the chase.
Players can choose when to play, it's not prescribed like the chase is (assuming you agree that a player's chances of winning the weekly medal are greatly increased by playing against those with the highest RAW, at a time and place where they gather)
The web of ahem diversionary nonsense you spun about game time as a factor in WTA results is kinda boring, although I was pleased to see you didn't miss the chance at a personal insult in conclusion.
The most regular WTA winner is gunz - without doubt a very skilled BIO player. More than 90% of his games played have been biohazard - same goes for Waterboy in 2nd while Dans has won less but by better margins and so hangs onto top position. Lucky for him he has that precious extra time needed to complete 21 RII games over 7 days.
I take your point that BIO is a riskier venture than RII. It goes to show the skills of gunz and waterboy keeping such a high win %. 8.5% of my games are BIO of which I'm betting I win less than 15%... so my hats off.
But none of this changes anything. Game length just doesn't effect WTA results the way it effects the chase.
Players can choose when to play, it's not prescribed like the chase is (assuming you agree that a player's chances of winning the weekly medal are greatly increased by playing against those with the highest RAW, at a time and place where they gather)
- n00less cluebie
- Lux Cantor
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:55 am
- Location: At the Official Clown Reference Librarian Desk--'All the answers you weren't looking for.'
- Contact:
Whoa, whoa WHOA.molideha wrote:WTA is objective
RAW is subjective
both have their place, to win one or the other is a worthy accomplishment.
take care all,
Mo
I'm all for WTA, and I believe that RAW has it's faults, but you can't call either stat 'subjective' or 'objective'
Both stats measure discrete events, and being as both are FUNCTIONS one can not call them 'subjective'. Dustin doesn't assign RAW to each winner on some capricious whim (though it may often seem like it)
Additionally, WTA is not a 'purer' or 'truer' measure of the illusive 'player skill level' (whatever that REALLY means) because BOTH stats are only imperfect reflections of the incomplete data we collect on the games. Yes, things average out over the long term, but in 21 games the following data are probably still significant:
1) Strength of Starting Position of Player AND opponents -- Unless people are playing from well Balanced Starting Scenarios (and many maps don't HAVE them!) a player is either starting from a weaker or stronger position. Starting off Stronger is not necessarily better if it makes them a target to multiple other players, but it DOES affect your outcome; Nowhere are there any stats that incorporate a player's start. In Bio games, this becomes very significant in determining a win result
2) Relative Strength of Dice -- Did a player get very lucky with his dice? Did a 5% chance attack succeed? Did an attack that should work 95% of the time fail?
3) Tactical Strength of opponents -- Are your opponents playing optimally, or are they making stupid errors which will either help YOU win, or help ANOTHER player win. (RAW tries to keep this in mind by computing based on the previous RAW of all the players)
4) Diplomatic Skill of Player and other opponents -- In addition to the Tactical Skill, there is a large element of Diplomacy going on in the game (farming, burning, 'we are cool', etc. etc.) This is most pronounced in Bio, but it is implied in both Classic and Rome. Unless you're playing with hidden aliases and SILENT, this is still going to be part of the game
5) Miscellaneous Crap -- Disconnects, AFK's, Emotional Outbursts, etc.
All this noise means that no statistic can 'objectively' tell you who is the better player. The only thing it can tell you is 'objectively' who won the game; not whether that game was won due to skill, or the dumb-luck that all 5-other players randomly had seizures forcing them all to time-out simultaneously.....
- n00less cluebie
- Lux Cantor
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:55 am
- Location: At the Official Clown Reference Librarian Desk--'All the answers you weren't looking for.'
- Contact:
better....but your use of terms of objective and subjective are....inappropriate.molideha wrote:you make good points n00less.
let me correct what i said;
WTA is as objective as the game's built in variability allows
RAW is MORE subjective to what day of the week a player chooses to play.
take care,
Mo
I would say that your RAW score is more SUBJECT to the time during the week you are playing than WTA is (i.e. there should be little correlation between WTA and time of games, while there is a much stronger correlation with RAW)
but the word 'objective' is kinda meaningless here, (all statistics are objective, how you INTERPRET them can be subjective -- e.g. Objectively the Giants had possession for 24:54; subjectively even when they had the ball, they looked like crap out there; objectively Eli Manning completed only 13 of 24 pass attempts; subjectively 5 of those attempts don't really count because it looked like he was just throwing it away to avoid a Sack)
So what is your claim about WTA?
That it shows who wins the highest percentage of games, given a set minimum of games? Yes. That is objectively true, but it's also simply the definition of your stat, so saying that it is 'objective' is meaningless
Are you claiming that WTA shows who the best Luxxer is? That is a much more subjective and elusive term, that may have many definitions depending on who is making the statement; and I doubt ANY stat will cover all situations. In a 2-player game you MIGHT have a shot of a close approximation, but a 6-player game has way too much noise to signal, even if we knew exactly what signal we were aiming for
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 144 guests