Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:07 pm
not that spreadsheet, the crazy spreadsheet. which is a different, but much cooler spreadsheet with yet another strange scoring system.
In post 100, zoraster wrote:I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.
yeah thisIn post 101, hiplop wrote:in survivor often second place is a bad player
IT IS TO ME!In post 113, zoraster wrote:Technically xofelf has a lower win rate than TheBadOne and is higher ranked, but that's the difference between 6.25% and 6.67% so almost not worth mentioning
On the ones you mentioned, the total isn't exact because multiple players tied, I believeIn post 127, zoraster wrote:Oh wait a second, CC. You adjusted your total prize pool not by +2500 per person but by the percent increase over 16?
I'm getting different numbers than 92875 using your table for:
Seafoam Islands
Arkham Asylum
Conclave
NAH
EtU
Arkham 2
PSV
2016
LoL
Nexus
I mean, either we operate under the assumption that places matter and thus are relevant for the sorting of results or we don't. If we don't, then a pure Win % is more appropriate than a misleading $ amount.In post 128, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 100, zoraster wrote:I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.yeah thisIn post 101, hiplop wrote:in survivor often second place is a bad player
second place (or third place) is often someone who was bad at the game and therefore got dragged there by someone else for the free win
Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.In post 136, xRECKONERx wrote:meh money does something win % doesnt because like
ive won 3 times
ive played 12
3/12 aka 25% winrate doesnt look great
esp compared to bella winning 2/5
or jess winning 1/2
but when you consider that out of my 9 losses, 4/9 involved making merge it looks better?
i dunno i think $$$ amount is probably more indicative of someone's historical impact at least. like, even in the scenario where someone played 5 games, if they're placing in the bottom every time, that's gonna be overshadowed by one person making jury one time, right?
I have zero objection to that.In post 138, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:This also gives more weight to someone winning in a 24-person game than someone winning an 18-person game, for example
i sorta disagreeThen list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
can we skip past the part where people act like not giving a fuck is cool bc idk seems fruitlessIn post 143, Xalxe wrote:y'all take this shit so serious, man
It's a game, just have fun, find some idols, get your allies voted out, go home mid-jury, like the cool kids do!
Well shit, I will never a be a cool kidIn post 143, Xalxe wrote:find some idols
Your $ totals are made up 93.6% by your two first place finishes.In post 142, xRECKONERx wrote:i sorta disagreeThen list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
i dunno i think there's a system in which we say, okay
making FTC, there's x % of total value tied up in that
making jury, there's x % of total value tied up in that
then not making jury has a smaller value than either of the others