|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 27, 2008 18:03:58 GMT -5
Players | -Wins- | Losses | Deck Strength | Last Result | Currently Fighting Against | *HOT*Jina | 13(1) | 5 | 115 | Win vs. Amneiger | NONE | *HOT*Spoon | 9 | 4 | 117.5 | Win vs. Salamander | NONE | *HOT*Celestial | 8(1) | 3 | 115 | Tourney Loss vs. Amneiger | NONE | *HOT*Vyt | 8 | 11 | 102.5 | Tourney Win vs. Amneiger | Sarn | *HOT*Omni | 5 | 2 | 117.5 | Win vs. Vyt | NONE | Amneiger | 5 | 8 | 100 | Loss vs. Jina | NONE | Rider | 4 | 2 | 115 | Win vs. Jina | NONE | Sam | 4(1) | 2(2) | 107.5 | Tourney Forfeit vs. Jina | NONE | Pyro | 3(1) | 3 | 100 | Tourney Forfeit vs. Celestial | NONE | Shade | 2 | 1 | 105 | Tourney Forfeit vs. Amneiger | NONE | Sarn | 1 | 0 | 105 | Win vs. Amneiger | Vyt | Hunter | 1 | 1 | 102.5 | Tourney Loss vs. Vyt | NONE | Scar | 1(1) | 2 | 105 | Win vs. -Unranked- | NONE | PFA | 1 | 4 | 90 | Loss vs. Vyt | NONE | Elycien | 0(1) | 0 | 105 | Win vs. -Unranked- | NONE | Salamander | 0 | 2 | 92.5 | Loss vs. Spoon | NONE | Doody | 0 | 2 | 92.5 | Forfeit vs. Spoon | NONE | Dan | 0 | 2 | 90 | Loss vs. Pyro | NONE | Jason | 0 | 3 | 82.5 | Loss vs. Pyro | NONE | Christos | 0 | 3 | 80 | Loss vs. Omni | NONE | Sablones | 0 | 0 | 100 | None | NONE | Cyborg | 0 | 1 | 95 | Forfeit vs. Rider | NONE |
These players still get full amounts of shinies for battling, but will not rise up the ranks and give only half the points to opponents who win against them.
Rain Killix Kathleen Psycho Deck Strength: A crude estimation of the player's skill. Can also refer to the current strength of the deck in comparison to its win/loss record. Last Result: The player's decision from his/her last played round. Currently Fighting Against: The player's pool of players currently engaging in battle with. Deck Strength is a combination of point distribution and scorer's assumption, meaning the figure shown might not exactly reflect the player's skill rating. However, I would like to stress that playing against someone with a higher rating or the same level will increase the deck strength more than playing against lower-rated players. Ratings and point distribution are carefully adjusted to meet estimation, however. All players start out with 100, by the way. Also, newcomers are advised to post in this thread stating whether they'd like to be ranked or not before engaging any battles.
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Jun 27, 2008 18:06:24 GMT -5
People should have the option to not be included in this scoring. I'm sure some of us just want to play for fun without worrying about winning or losing. =)
|
|
|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 27, 2008 18:15:10 GMT -5
People should have the option to not be included in this scoring. I'm sure some of us just want to play for fun without worrying about winning or losing. =) Then I'll immediately PM those included to ask if they want to be included in the rankings. This list is just a quick summary of what happened in The Arena.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Jun 27, 2008 18:33:35 GMT -5
PFA and I finished our duel, before I fought Christos. I won.
By the way, what are the bold names for?
|
|
|
Post by Shadaras on Jun 27, 2008 18:39:08 GMT -5
The bold names are probably the ones who've replied to his PM and said that yes, they're fine with being on the list. *is half-guessing*
|
|
|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 27, 2008 18:50:51 GMT -5
The bold names are probably the ones who've replied to his PM and said that yes, they're fine with being on the list. *is half-guessing* xD Even by guessing, you'd always get it right. And if someone's wondering, I will exclude all the matches done against someone unranked. I will implement that someday, but I'll keep notes.
|
|
|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 27, 2008 19:13:49 GMT -5
PFA and I finished our duel, before I fought Christos. I won. Added. I can already see the flaw of my equation. Omni's Deck Strength skyrockets to three. I might've add her winning streak.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jun 27, 2008 20:21:07 GMT -5
The obvious flaw is that the opponents are not taken into account. For example: You have a high grade player, and a low grade player. Both play people of similar difficulty, and, on average, win 50% of the games. This means they have exactly the same deck strength. And yet, the high grade player is of course better. I think you need something a little more complicated, and a spreadsheet to do it with Why not look into chess ratings, they could work for this.
|
|
|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 28, 2008 5:44:47 GMT -5
The obvious flaw is that the opponents are not taken into account. For example: You have a high grade player, and a low grade player. Both play people of similar difficulty, and, on average, win 50% of the games. This means they have exactly the same deck strength. And yet, the high grade player is of course better. I think you need something a little more complicated, and a spreadsheet to do it with Why not look into chess ratings, they could work for this. The problem with Elo rating system (the one used in chess games) is that for beginners the scorers would have to put up a random score for their win-loss records and adjust them when more games show up. Also, I also need someone who has a fair enough win-loss record for me to even be able to judge the others' performances. I'll look into more possible and reasonable equations.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jun 28, 2008 6:05:41 GMT -5
The obvious flaw is that the opponents are not taken into account. For example: You have a high grade player, and a low grade player. Both play people of similar difficulty, and, on average, win 50% of the games. This means they have exactly the same deck strength. And yet, the high grade player is of course better. I think you need something a little more complicated, and a spreadsheet to do it with Why not look into chess ratings, they could work for this. The problem with Elo rating system (the one used in chess games) is that for beginners the scorers would have to put up a random score for their win-loss records and adjust them when more games show up. Also, I also need someone who has a fair enough win-loss record for me to even be able to judge the others' performances. I'll look into more possible and reasonable equations. How about this then: You keep the current system, but you also add another standardized rating for people to be compared to an equal opponent, something like this: You make 5 decks of slightly above average difficulty, and each with different tyes and strategies. The person getting their rating must face each of these decks, and the results (including the number of card won/lost by) are put into an equation. The rating that comes out of it is put in another column on the above table, along with on what day the rating was taken. People are welcome to update their rating whenever (but not if they go stupid and get rating after rating after rating )
|
|
|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 28, 2008 6:25:44 GMT -5
The problem with Elo rating system (the one used in chess games) is that for beginners the scorers would have to put up a random score for their win-loss records and adjust them when more games show up. Also, I also need someone who has a fair enough win-loss record for me to even be able to judge the others' performances. I'll look into more possible and reasonable equations. How about this then: You keep the current system, but you also add another standardized rating for people to be compared to an equal opponent, something like this: You make 5 decks of slightly above average difficulty, and each with different tyes and strategies. The person getting their rating must face each of these decks, and the results (including the number of card won/lost by) are put into an equation. The rating that comes out of it is put in another column on the above table, along with on what day the rating was taken. People are welcome to update their rating whenever (but not if they go stupid and get rating after rating after rating ) That'll look more than simulated battles, and will really fit in another column. The problem with that is, unless I'm getting some volunteers to make such decks, I won't be able to hold such test battles for players to do so. Or we can hold "Gym Battles" as alternatives and appoint someone to take charge of the gyms as simulators for other players.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jun 28, 2008 6:33:12 GMT -5
How about this then: You keep the current system, but you also add another standardized rating for people to be compared to an equal opponent, something like this: You make 5 decks of slightly above average difficulty, and each with different tyes and strategies. The person getting their rating must face each of these decks, and the results (including the number of card won/lost by) are put into an equation. The rating that comes out of it is put in another column on the above table, along with on what day the rating was taken. People are welcome to update their rating whenever (but not if they go stupid and get rating after rating after rating ) That'll look more than simulated battles, and will really fit in another column. The problem with that is, unless I'm getting some volunteers to make such decks, I won't be able to hold such test battles for players to do so. Or we can hold "Gym Battles" as alternatives and appoint someone to take charge of the gyms as simulators for other players. Yeah, that could work (it's basically the same thing, except you get a fancy title to attract people into doing it) EDIT: Why is Spoons rating lower than mine?
|
|
|
Post by Vyt not logged in on Jun 28, 2008 6:46:41 GMT -5
That'll look more than simulated battles, and will really fit in another column. The problem with that is, unless I'm getting some volunteers to make such decks, I won't be able to hold such test battles for players to do so. Or we can hold "Gym Battles" as alternatives and appoint someone to take charge of the gyms as simulators for other players. Yeah, that could work (it's basically the same thing, except you get a fancy title to attract people into doing it) EDIT: Why is Spoons rating lower than mine? By the time you two battled, Spoon's rating was higher than yours and was expected to win. The reverse happened however and reduced his rating low enough to sink past yours.
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jun 28, 2008 6:49:30 GMT -5
Yeah, that could work (it's basically the same thing, except you get a fancy title to attract people into doing it) EDIT: Why is Spoons rating lower than mine? By the time you two battled, Spoon's rating was higher than yours and was expected to win. The reverse happened however and reduced his rating low enough to sink past yours. I see. Wait a minute... so, according to this.... I am theoretically the best player :3
|
|
|
Post by Vyt: Down, but Not Out on Jun 28, 2008 6:56:50 GMT -5
By the time you two battled, Spoon's rating was higher than yours and was expected to win. The reverse happened however and reduced his rating low enough to sink past yours. I see. Wait a minute... so, according to this.... I am theoretically the best player :3 Unless Spoon fights you again, you are right now. Still, Spoon's three wins dominate the rankings. The deck strength will only be the secondary standard to break ties between players with the same amount of wins.
|
|