Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scoreboard MGL 27 [All Complete]

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Yep sort of true that the perception of the granularity changes - but the outcome doesn't.

    Think of it this way 1 point out of 25 which is what you'd gain by jumping one position is 4%, so if you improve your score by more than 4% over the player above you then %age is better, but maybe the psychology of those playing changes too?

    Comment


    • #47
      thanks for doing that [MENTION=5366]Fire_Power[/MENTION], i was hoping someone would.

      very interesting to see that the top wouldn't change, this is as suspected but how it affects the middle is very interesting and where the most change is.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	SCORE.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	15.2 KB
ID:	1813707

      Thats a huge difference.

      I would like to see how the % would have looked without OOO's score for a comparison as he only stole 1 point with the points system of everyone but i think it would have put Barra ahead of margrinder...

      As OOO only played the 1 game i think it highlights a flaw with the % system where someone can come and play 1 game they are good at and change the outcome of the winner.

      just to clarify incase this is read the wrong way, i'm happy for people to come and play one game, we are not playing for sheep stations and i like to see how good you guys really are but with the points system seems to work better in this regard

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Batfink View Post
        thanks for doing that [MENTION=5366]Fire_Power[/MENTION], i was hoping someone would.

        very interesting to see that the top wouldn't change, this is as suspected but how it affects the middle is very interesting and where the most change is.

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]93718[/ATTACH]

        Thats a huge difference.

        I would like to see how the % would have looked without OOO's score for a comparison as he only stole 1 point with the points system of everyone but i think it would have put Barra ahead of margrinder...

        As OOO only played the 1 game i think it highlights a flaw with the % system where someone can come and play 1 game they are good at and change the outcome of the winner.

        just to clarify incase this is read the wrong way, i'm happy for people to come and play one game, we are not playing for sheep stations and i like to see how good you guys really are but with the points system seems to work better in this regard
        Yeah, damn! I like percentage better now
        Danny Galaga- the man with no signature...

        Comment


        • #49
          interesting score analysis by the King of score Analysis

          In the end, I don't think what matters is what positions change where, but is the competition closer ? this is where the current systerm is better.

          IE in % points Barra beat Rmac to 2nd place by 50 % points, but in the current system it was a single point... and Dkong beat Camaro to 4th by a mere 3 points, but in % terms it was alkmost 100.

          still think the current system is better.

          Comment


          • #50
            Yep....I have long ranted for current system as above..........but seeing as I XXXXXXX whatever game on
            Winter is here and I'm still riding more than gaming, my current goal = 100,000 meters elevation gain for the year - well ahead so far

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Batfink View Post

              I would like to see how the % would have looked without OOO's score for a comparison as he only stole 1 point with the points system of everyone but i think it would have put Barra ahead of margrinder...

              As OOO only played the 1 game i think it highlights a flaw with the % system where someone can come and play 1 game they are good at and change the outcome of the winner.
              The entire topic is interesting. A few points to consider:

              The margin of difference on a game that caps out, say as an example Stocker, versus a game with no realistic cap like Galaga makes a difference. If we had a tournament with more games that cap than not, the tighter the delta would be. If most games were games that a few could blow out, the further the delta would become.

              [MENTION=14985]Batfink[/MENTION]: in a percentage based tournament, OOO blowing out Barra's score would have actually greatly benefited my overall tourney percentage. I don't recall the exact scores, but let's say Barra had 800K and I had 400K on that game. Barra receives 100%, I receive 50%. A 50% difference.

              If OOO blows out Barra's score with a 1.8 mil, OOO receives 100%, Barra receives 44% and I would receive 22%. Now my difference to Barra is only 22%, or a net gain of 28%. I actually gained on Barra due to OOO's mad skillz, but personally did not do a thing to gain the percentage points.

              Personally I tend to prefer the point system to percentage based system. While I'll never get 1.8 mil on the OOO game or even come close, psychologically I feel as if I might get second, third or fourth place and not feel so blown out as I'm receiving a similar tournament point score, albeit a bit lesser.

              Percentage wise, I'm far less apt to try to play more against the 1.8 score as I feel as if I'll never earn more than 20%. If I try and try and try, maybe I'll get 30%. Is it worth all that effort for 10%?

              What's the best method? Whatever everyone likes best I suspect.

              Again, interesting topic.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by magrinder View Post
                in a percentage based tournament, OOO blowing out Barra's score would have actually greatly benefited my overall tourney percentage. I don't recall the exact scores, but let's say Barra had 800K and I had 400K on that game. Barra receives 100%, I receive 50%. A 50% difference.

                If OOO blows out Barra's score with a 1.8 mil, OOO receives 100%, Barra receives 44% and I would receive 22%. Now my difference to Barra is only 22%, or a net gain of 28%. I actually gained on Barra due to OOO's mad skillz, but personally did not do a thing to gain the percentage points.
                yer thats the same conclusion i came to in my head, you beat Barra by 17% and it could be said that it was the result of OOO's score, does this actually deter people from playing the one game they like or piss others off that have played all games and move down because of it .. but to me it was an interesting view, oh and your point that its game dependent due to the scoring possibilities of marathon-able games vs. others was good, hadn't considered that.

                I'm only a noob at these comps and i have no doubt the pros and cons for each scoring method have been debated at length for eons past, I'll play either, i'd even play if there was no scoring system, just an excuse to play is all i want

                What's the best method? Whatever everyone likes best I suspect.
                Or perhaps the best method is what everyone hates, perhaps too philosophical for a Wednesday arvo...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Batfink View Post
                  yer thats the same conclusion i came to in my head, you beat Barra by 17% and it could be said that it was the result of OOO's score, does this actually deter people from playing the one game they like or piss others off that have played all games and move down because of it ..
                  Yes. Had this been a percentage based tournament, OOO's lack of participation on this marathon type game would have had Barra as the victor. If OOO came in and beat Barra by 1,000 points on a game that caps out at 60Kish like Stocker, while that would be a massive Stocker point increase (and impossible on Stocker), it would not have made a difference in the overall standings.


                  Originally posted by Batfink View Post
                  I'll play either, i'd even play if there was no scoring system, just an excuse to play is all i want
                  Yup. Could not agree more.


                  Originally posted by Batfink View Post
                  Or perhaps the best method is what everyone hates, perhaps too philosophical for a Wednesday arvo...

                  Haha. Nice.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    My suggestion either way is that for the final scoreboard, those who don't play all games have their scores removed from the final rankings?? Thereby the next placegetter moves up 1 point/ranking on that game
                    Might increase the amount of people prepared to put a score in for each game?

                    I like the % system as it made me play a few more goes of each game whereas the point system (depending on how close i was to the next placegetter) might say too hard to bother.
                    Both systems have some pros and cons to them.

                    Just my thoughts.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      My thoughts is don't be too hard on those that don't play all the games, myself and a few others here have been playing the MGL about 10 years. I used to play them all and try for the win but now I often find that time because of other commitments such as shift work away from home and wanting to go for a ride on my bike instead mean that sometimes I have little time for gaming. If the MGL game of that week is one that I am not enjoying at all that means I get no gaming fun if I focus on that game as it would not leave me time to play others.

                      So now days usually I just play the games I enjoy, there will hopefully come a day in the future where I have more time and I will give all of them a go, who knows. But having a mix of players where some play all the games and some don't is not a bad thing, I agree that it would be better if most of the players play all the games, I think they do now or close to a majority?

                      OOO already encourages people to play ALL the games by having a mystery prize drawn at random for people who play them all, that is a good incentive and works to a degree although you do see people post a quick one game score just to say they played, which I don't mind. If we head down the path of discouraging or penalising those who don't play all games we could end up with more players playing them all but less players participating.
                      It seems OOO doesn't mind being generous and funding this prize himself, I understand that as I don't mind funding trophies etc when I hold meets here. But perhaps we could set up an MGL fund where interested people can donate towards these prizes? It would get tiring to call for donations every time, but I would have no problem giving $20 every six months for example. Just an idea

                      Here is another idea.....have one game in the comp as a special prize game...drawn at random after the comp, if you won that game you get the special mini prize That is another way to incentify people to play as well as they can in each game, rather than just posting a quick score to say they participated.

                      These days I look at the MGL as both an Over All place comp for the winner of all games and also a single game comp where I will go for a place in one game, such as last time where I enjoyed having a go at Moon Patrol

                      More carrots

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	7340046-Cheerful-cartoon-carrot-raising-his-hands-Stock-Vector-vegetable.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	84.7 KB
ID:	1813795


                      Less Sticks

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Colored_Stick.png
Views:	1
Size:	21.9 KB
ID:	1813796
                      Winter is here and I'm still riding more than gaming, my current goal = 100,000 meters elevation gain for the year - well ahead so far

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Too much to put into a quote but I think Rat hit the carrot on the head (with the stick) there. The comp is about fun, many of us have families and children etc and are shorter on time to put into games and should not be penalised because of that.

                        As for prizes, these days we have far more MGL's in a year so constantly calling for donations / supplying prizes can be a bit of a drain/liability. years ago there used to be months between tournaments, which allowed you to the time to get back into other gaming.
                        Last edited by Jed; 31st May 2016, 02:09 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by camaro View Post
                          My suggestion either way is that for the final scoreboard, those who don't play all games have their scores removed from the final rankings?? Thereby the next placegetter moves up 1 point/ranking on that game
                          Might increase the amount of people prepared to put a score in for each game?
                          That's an interesting take on it, if personX only submits to a couple of games they are not really interested in the final rankings anyway.
                          You could still show their position in the final rankings with parenthesis around there score... although seems like a bit of work and i don't think its worth worrying about,
                          as the other side of the coin is if personX finish 1st in a game then its a moot point as everyone is affected equally by scoring 1 point less,
                          it's only when personX finishes down the places that everyone below is 1 point less and those above are unaffected which (from the point of view of myself as a 12th? place getter on average) hardly matters anyway.

                          I just thought it was interesting that with the %system that 000's score on 1 game would have changed the winner but with the points system it has minimal effect.

                          and I think it would be better encourage more to play even a single game here or there than look to be discouraging it

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Just looking at ways to increase participation. Only really noticed after doin the scoreboard last MGL that the participation rate drops off during the later games.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by camaro View Post
                              Just looking at ways to increase participation. Only really noticed after doin the scoreboard last MGL that the participation rate drops off during the later games.
                              this always has happened, traditionally. The higher places are still jostling for position but everyone else drops off a bit. Personally I don't see it as an issue for a fun comp. The amount of players and the calibre of players has already increased dramatically from the early days of MGL when we sometimes had only 5-6 people submitting scores regularly. And final games maybe only 2 or 3 scores. As someone who used to run these comps I am personally very happy to see how this comp has grown and improved but would be cautious about trying to make it too big and lose it's indie charm, have to go to .inp submissions, and the like.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Jed View Post
                                this always has happened, traditionally. The higher places are still jostling for position but everyone else drops off a bit. Personally I don't see it as an issue for a fun comp. The amount of players and the calibre of players has already increased dramatically from the early days of MGL when we sometimes had only 5-6 people submitting scores regularly. And final games maybe only 2 or 3 scores. As someone who used to run these comps I am personally very happy to see how this comp has grown and improved but would be cautious about trying to make it too big and lose it's indie charm, have to go to .inp submissions, and the like.
                                Not complaining at all. I'm happy with the way it has been run thus far since I joined. There is a fine line between what we have here and say the IGBY about to be launched (INP's for every score?).....way too much hassle me thinks.
                                Love the whole MGL concept and I've played some games I've never seen (and some I'll NEVER see again)
                                Won't be as active in the next one as escaping this crap weather and going to Fiji for 11 days.

                                Comment

                                Users Viewing Topic: 0 members and 1 (guests)
                                Working...
                                X