Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

366Re: Scoring and league-position formulae for Perikles?

Expand Messages
  • Founder.
    Dec 27, 2007
      Andrew, in my view, I think you are technically right, and your
      system WOULD be fairer. But i prefer the full +1 for psychological
      reasons: anybody who joins in our club and the Perikles league late,
      eg a year from now, has a long road to climb, and a full +1, even if
      there are 2 newbies, or 4 newbies and 1 veteran, gets them on the
      ladder more, closer to catching up, and more motivated?

      OR, I could go with your approach if it was more generous to the
      newbie: + 0.5 per vet in the game, rather than + 0.25. Yes, I
      realise that, even if he came last, in a game with 3 vets, he would
      score 2.5 pts. If he came second, he wd score 4.5 pts. If he won -
      no bonus, just the 5 pts.

      in fact, I quite like that compromise. what do others think?

      Bob


      --- In lbgc@..., "macleodandrew" <maclandr@...> wrote:
      >
      > Funny that, Bob finally finds a game he wins every time and then he
      > wants to set up a league table for it.
      >
      > No seriously I think its a good idea, I had once thought of
      > suggesting we record the results of the games at each session and
      > devise some sort of rating system along the lines you've suggested,
      > but then thought it would be too complicated and would be taking it
      > too seriously. However I think for a few games that we want to
      play
      > semi frequently anyway, it would add an extra dimension to the play
      > and the banter.
      >
      > One suggestion to the scoring system, without wishing it to become
      > too complicated, I think the bonus a first time player gets should
      > depend on how many others playing are first timers as well. This
      is
      > just an extension of your rule that the bonus does not count if all
      > are first timers. For example in a game of four players, if three
      are
      > first timers they are at much less of a disadvantage (only up
      against
      > one experienced player)than say a five player game where there is
      > only one first timer up against four experienced players. However
      in
      > both games they would all receive a +1.0 bonus. My suggestion is
      > that a first time player should receive a 0.25 bonus for
      > each "experienced" player he is up against. That would mean in the
      > examples above the three first time players in the four player game
      > get 0.25 whereas the one first timer in the five player game gets
      > 0.25x4 = 1.0
      >
      > In your game last week Dave and Michael would then get 0.25x2 =
      0.50
      > bonus. I think this would have made the table:
      >
      > Player Points Played Rating
      > >
      > > BobR 10 2 2.000
      > > FelixK 3 1 1.000
      > > DaveB 2.5 1 0.833
      > > NeilP 4 2 0.800
      > > AndrewM 2 1 0.667
      > > MichaelY 1.5 1 0.500
      >
      > I think this would be slightly fairer and not much more complicated
      > to calculate.
      >
      > One other suggestion would be that perhaps Apocalypse would be a
      > better choice than Roborally for a league table. For two reasons,
      > Roborally is a TEAM game with a significant element of luck so I'm
      > not sure a league would be very meaningful or easy to score.
      > Secondly Apocalypse is a game that gets a few airings a year anyway
      > and it might add a further edge to the game in that as well as
      going
      > after your target, you might want to nuke the guy at the top of the
      > leaderboard to make sure he does not do well either!
      >
      > In fact this leads me on to the final thing I wanted to say, about
      > tall poppy syndrome. You may in fact be introducing a different
      > variant of it in that people may want to gang up on the league
      leader
      > from the start of the game, but we'll just have to wait and see.
      >
      > Merry Christmas to everyone.
      >
      > Andrew
      >
      >
      > --- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Right, I've spent a fun hour or two playing at devising a scoring
      > > system etc. for a Perikles "league". I enjoy devising such
      > things.
      > > I'm open to comment and suggestions.
      > >
      > > 1) It's only a league in the sense of keeping track of whoever
      > plays
      > > and how they do. There are no "fixtures", no game that you have
      to
      > > show up for. Not everybody will play everybody. It just counts
      up
      > > games you DO happen to be in, and cumulates scores and some kind
      of
      > > average or rating.
      > >
      > > 2) I suggest we only play (or only count) games with 4 or 5
      > > players. People can give it a try with 3 players (or 6?) but
      those
      > > are outside the league keeping count.
      > >
      > > 3) I suggest points per game be as follows:
      > >
      > > 4 players: 1st gets 5 points, then 3,2,1 points.
      > >
      > > 5 players: 1st gets 6 points, then 4,3,2,1 points.
      > >
      > > [I know I'm rewarding a total defeat with 1 pt rather than zero,
      > but
      > > it's nicer that way; I hate to see people on zero].
      > >
      > > 4) What with our turnover, we'll always have SOME people playing
      a
      > > game of Perikles for the first time, sometimes as the only new
      > player
      > > with 3 others who have played before. So, there is a bonus point
      > if
      > > it is your first game - one extra point - unless you are ALL
      > > playing it for the first time, and only if you don't WIN. So,
      even
      > > if you play your first game and come last, you'll still score 2
      > pts,
      > > not 1.
      > >
      > > 5) I do favour the above approach of points for positions.
      Rather
      > > than cumulating vp-points scored in each game, eg, 65,64,53,41.
      > And
      > > rather than ONLY counting people's WINS, and ignoring whether
      they
      > > finished 2nd, 3rd or 4th, as some leagues do. One reason for
      this
      > > is, it will actually HELP the play within each game, IMHO.
      Y'see,
      > > all conquest-type games are more or less prone to Tall Poppy
      > > Syndrome, the 3 currently losing ganging up on whoever went ahead
      > > early on... This approach tones down that effect a bit. Given
      the
      > > league, you would, or should, care whether you ended second, and
      so
      > > might try to overtake someone in the game to win second place
      > rather
      > > than all have equal incentive to take out the guy who is ahead
      > early
      > > on. Yep, a league system, points for position, helps to mitigate
      > > Tall Poppy Syndrome.
      > >
      > > 6) OK, that makes it easy to award points across games, and put
      > > people in order of total points scored across games played. OK
      so
      > > far. EXCEPT: That favours whoever plays most often, cumulating
      > most
      > > points. So you need some kind of averaging : eg points earned
      > > divided by games played... That is not as obvious as it
      sounds ...
      > > (as many of you will know).
      > >
      > > 7) The biggest problem with simple averaging is this: a player
      > who
      > > just plays once only, and happens to win, gets a 100% record, and
      > > sits at the top of the league, never to play again and impossible
      > to
      > > overtake.
      > >
      > > 8) There are various ways round this (as many of you will know).
      > >
      > > 9) I suggest a formula for "Rating", by which the league-table-
      > > positions will be sorted:
      > > The formula is:
      > > Cumulated points earned, divided by [2X the number of games
      played,
      > > +1].
      > >
      > > I've tried this (and other formulae) on our results to date, and
      > > lokked ahead to see what effect playing another game would have,
      if
      > > you came 1st or 2nd or 3rd or 4th in that game.
      > >
      > > " games so far:
      > >
      > > 2 Dec 07
      > > BobR
      > > FelixK
      > > AndrewM
      > > NeilP - ALL first time, therefore no +1 bonus
      > >
      > > 9 Dec 07
      > > BobR
      > > NeilP
      > > DaveB - first time, therefore +1 bonus
      > > MichaelY - first time, therefore +1 bonus
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Using the points system, with the bonuses for first-time playing,
      > > plus the formula, the league would currently look like this:
      > >
      > > Player Points Played Rating
      > >
      > > BobR 10 2 2.000
      > > FelixK 3 1 1.000
      > > DaveB 3 1 1.000
      > > NeilP 4 2 0.800
      > > AndrewM 2 1 0.667
      > > MichaelY 2 1 0.667
      > >
      > >
      > > Note how this is closer to an average-per-game than to a
      cumulative
      > > total? That's why Neil, having come 4th and 2nd, comes out lower
      > > than Felix (a 2nd) or Dave (a 3rd, but first-time). Looks fair.
      > >
      > > It's quite variable over time. When Bob plays again, if he comes
      > > 4th, his Rating will drop to 1.571. When Felix or Dave play
      again,
      > > if either wins, their rating would go to 1.600 - thus topping the
      > > table.
      > >
      > > It looks like it would work fairly over time. Not TOO dependent
      on
      > > how many times you play, but not letting played 1/won 1/100% top
      > the
      > > charts forever.
      > >
      > > Any comments?
      > >
      > > AND, any suggestions on scoring and league-position formula
      > (Rating)
      > > for Formula De, and/or for Team RoboRally? Feel free to add to
      the
      > > posts and suggest!
      > >
      > > Bob
      > >
      >
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic