404Re: [lbgc] Re: Scoring and league-position formulae for Perikles?
- 14 Jan 08:07Well (c)old-mail had to be good at something.On 14/01/2008, David Bullions <davebullions@...> wrote:
Not so. It works ok on hotmail.
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:00:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [lbgc] Re: Scoring and league-position formulae for Perikles?Tab will jump out of composition and to the send button on most email accounts, and definitely on google.--On 14/01/2008, David Bullions <davebullions@...> wrote:You could try using the tab key (just above the caps lock on the left hand side of the keyboard).
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:35:39 +0000
Subject: [lbgc] Re: Scoring and league-position formulae for Perikles?Hmm. When I drafted that post, I carefully employed the space-bar to
spread out the numbers in the league table, and make the relevant
stats appear below Points, Played, and Rating.
But when I submitted and saw the "Table", they still came out all
stats squashed together and hard to read. Any suggestions how to
overcome that for the next update?
--- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
> Updated league table, after Perikles played 13 Jan 08.
> 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].
> FORMULA for Rating and Position:
> Cumulated points earned, divided by [2X the number of games played,
> Games so far:
> 2 Dec 07
> NeilP - ALL first time, therefore no +1 bonus
> 9 Dec 07
> DaveB - first time, therefore +1 bonus
> MichaelY - first time, therefore +1 bonus
> 13 Jan 08
> BrianO - first time, but no +1 bonus cos won
> JosepA - first time, +1 bonus
> MartialC - first time, +1 bonus
> BobR - 3rd time, no bonus.
> So, sure enough, it came to pass: I came last in my next game, pulling
> my Rating down. So who's top now??
> Using the points system, with the bonuses for first-time playing,
> plus the formula, the league nowlooks like this:
> Player Points Played Rating
> BrianO 5 1 1.667
> BobR 11 3 1.571
> JosepA 4 1 1.333
> FelixK 3 1 1.000
> DaveB 3 1 1.000
> MartialC 3 1 1.000
> NeilP 4 2 0.800
> AndrewM 2 1 0.667
> MichaelY 2 1 0.667
> Generally speaking, if you play and tend to come first or second, you
> will increase your rating, thus able to overtake the current
> league-leader BrianO if he doesn't play it again.
> The "league" is just for fun, an added element.
> So far so good?
> --- 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
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>