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

404Re: [lbgc] Re: Scoring and league-position formulae for Perikles?

Expand Messages
  • Garner
    14 Jan 08:07
      Well (c)old-mail had to be good at something.

      On 14/01/2008, David Bullions <davebullions@...> wrote:

      Not so. It works ok on hotmail.

      Dave


      To: lbgc@...
      From: garner.ucd@...
      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).

      Dave



      To: lbgc@...
      From: bobroscow@...
      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?

      Bob

      --- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
      >
      > Updated league table, after Perikles played 13 Jan 08.
      >
      > POINTS:
      > 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,
      > +1].
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      > 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?
      >
      > Bob
      >
      >
      >
      > --- 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!



      --
      Brian
      http://bofarrell.blogspot.com/
      http://viewingsport.blogspot.com/


      Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!




      --
      Brian
      http://bofarrell.blogspot.com/
      http://viewingsport.blogspot.com/
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic