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

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

Expand Messages
  • Garner
    Tab will jump out of composition and to the send button on most email accounts, and definitely on google. ... -- Brian http://bofarrell.blogspot.com/
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 14, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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/
    • David Bullions
      Not so. It works ok on hotmail. Dave To: lbgc@yahoogroups.co.uk From: garner.ucd@gmail.com Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:00:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [lbgc] Re:
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 14, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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@ hotmail.com> wrote:
        You could try using the tab key (just above the caps lock on the left hand side of the keyboard).

        Dave



        To: lbgc@yahoogroups. co.uk
        From: bobroscow@googlemai l.com
        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@yahoogroups. co.uk, "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@yahoogroups. co.uk, "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!
      • Garner
        Well (c)old-mail had to be good at something. ... -- Brian http://bofarrell.blogspot.com/ http://viewingsport.blogspot.com/
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 14, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          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/
        • David Bullions
          Fair comment, I suppose, and I know that a lot of people don t like hotmail. That s fair enough. But its been ok for me and its too much of a pain to change
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 14, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Fair comment, I suppose, and I know that a lot of people don't like hotmail. That's fair enough. But its been ok for me and its too much of a pain to change when you are subscribed to several mailing lists etc. So I think I will stick with what I've got thank you very much.
            It may be old but so am I. And it does tabs ;-P

            Dave


            To: lbgc@...
            From: garner.ucd@...
            Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:07:59 +0000
            Subject: Re: [lbgc] Re: Scoring and league-position formulae for Perikles?

            Well (c)old-mail had to be good at something.


            On 14/01/2008, David Bullions <davebullions@ hotmail.com> wrote:
            Not so. It works ok on hotmail.

            Dave



            To: lbgc@yahoogroups. co.uk
            From: garner.ucd@gmail. com
            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@ hotmail.com> wrote:
            You could try using the tab key (just above the caps lock on the left hand side of the keyboard).

            Dave



            To: lbgc@yahoogroups. co.uk
            From: bobroscow@googlemai l.com
            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@yahoogroups. co.uk, "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@yahoogroups. co.uk, "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/


            Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
          • Allan Mertner
            One possible alternative, to make it more readable and also accessible, is to use a Google spreadsheet for it. I created one here, with a copy of Bob s data:
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 14, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              One possible alternative, to make it more readable and also
              accessible, is to use a Google spreadsheet for it.

              I created one here, with a copy of Bob's data: http://tinyurl.com/2x8h62

              Anyone should be able to see it, and only Bob can edit it.

              Is this overkill or nice? At least it leaves out the TAB discussion :)

              Allan

              --- In lbgc@..., 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
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
              > http://www.searchgamesbox.com
              >
            • Founder.
              It s nice. Or would be ... except that it overrules me and reduces 1.000 to 1. Which spoils aesthetics and readability. Viz: 1.667 1.571 1.333 1 1 1 0.8
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 15, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                It's nice. Or would be ... except that it overrules me and reduces
                1.000 to 1. Which spoils aesthetics and readability. Viz:

                1.667
                1.571
                1.333
                1
                1
                1
                0.8
                0.667
                0.667

                So, tell me how to overrule its overrule. But wait till I try Tabs
                first. Because I'd rather have it in-post than as a Link, if poss.

                Bob





                --- In lbgc@..., "Allan Mertner" <allan+lbgc@...> wrote:
                >
                > One possible alternative, to make it more readable and also
                > accessible, is to use a Google spreadsheet for it.
                >
                > I created one here, with a copy of Bob's data: http://tinyurl.com/2x8h62
                >
                > Anyone should be able to see it, and only Bob can edit it.
                >
                > Is this overkill or nice? At least it leaves out the TAB discussion :)
                >
                > Allan
                >
                > --- In lbgc@..., 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
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > _________________________________________________________________
                > > Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
                > > http://www.searchgamesbox.com
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.