A totally arbitrary adjustment to Hugh's formula might be to add an exponent (maybe 2?) to the number of eliminations. That changes the results to:

Player kills 1, killed 2nd: (1^2)/(1/5) = 5
Player kills 2, killed 3rd: (2^2)/(1/5 + 1/4) = 8.89
Player kills 3, killed 4th: (3^2)/(1/5 + 1/4 + 1/3) = 11.49

Player kills 1, killed 3rd: (1^2)/(1/5 + 1/4) = 2.22
Player kills 2, killed 4th: (2^2)/(1/5 + 1/4 + 1/3) = 5.11

It seems to have the right behavior, but I'm sure there's something better.

tom wrote:

Hugh I'm not sure where Norseman's post leaves your proposed system, is it dead in the water?

Well, the stat would produce a number that can be calculated where things near the center behave well, but I suspect it would be a fairly noisy stat, so I'm giving up on trying to find the right approach.  Norseman's suggestion might produce a meaningful stat, but I can't tell.

For simplicity, I like Andernut's eliminations per game in a 3-player, 4-player, etc game, though I think it would also be good to have average finishing spot for comparison (so that the low or high number of eliminations can be compared to where the player usually finishes).  Maybe the ratio of those two works as long as it is tabulated separately for different amounts of players.  Doesn't Cram have thoughts on this matter? 

Hugh wrote: Doesn't Cram have thoughts on this matter? :)

I think he said he quit math somewhere

Yertle wrote:

Hugh wrote: Doesn't Cram have thoughts on this matter? :)

I think he said he quit math somewhere

I did. Sitting around doing calculations and coming up with formulas was taking up time I would rather be rambling on here or making maps.

Math and I don't get along so i don't have a formula but what if you just use Total games, Average game size and Number of knockouts for a formula

it would be nice to have the # of people you have eliminated on your profile

it would also be good to have average finishing spot

i like this part of it...i usually have been ending up as a second place man. i should get some recognition for that!

KrocK wrote: Math and I don't get along so i don't have a formula but what if you just use Total games, Average game size and Number of knockouts for a formula

it would be nice to have the # of people you have eliminated on your profile

I've added it to the Player Stats page.

weathertop wrote:

it would also be good to have average finishing spot

 

i like this part of it...i usually have been ending up as a second place man. i should get some recognition for that!

I think average finishing spot would be the worst thing you could add to warfish.  NO recognition for second place.  There is no skill to finishing second last, none.  And people vying for second gives the game away to first place.

Every game that I've been in that offers any type of recognition for 2nd place has, in my opinion, gone down the tubes.  Better than everyone goes down taking first than having someone say "Well, at least I got second."

With all the vetoing power that I wish I had, I veto this idea.

I agree with Andernut -- 2nd place is merely the first loser. That's your recognition.

Kjeld wrote: I agree with Andernut -- 2nd place is merely the first loser. That's your recognition.

I concur.

mpicKjeld wrote: I agree with Andernut -- 2nd place is merely the first loser. That's your recognition.

Olympic Silver Medal - Badge of Shame

(or, in some countries I think it can also be redeemed for one free execution)

Cramchakle wrote:

mpicKjeld wrote: I agree with Andernut -- 2nd place is merely the first loser. That's your recognition.

Olympic Silver Medal - Badge of Shame

 

(or, in some countries I think it can also be redeemed for one free execution)

I tend to agree with that, but make an exception for the Olympics.  What?  You could only pole vault 87' 98/100" when the person who won did a 87' 99/100"?  You must be a loser...

IRoll11s wrote:

 What?  You could only pole vault 87' 98/100" when the person who won did a 87' 99/100"?  You must be a loser...

There. I fixed it for you.

;)

Man i really didn't think i'd get this much support on the idea, it was meant as a joke; but if you all feel i should be getting the '1st Loser' ribbon; or even a 2nd Place Badge - hell i'm up for that!

Durability should be measured, but I also don't want people playing for runner-up.

The thread spun way out of its originally intended question which was this: Can we devise a stat that measures headhunting (takeouts) aggressiveness? Period.

We stayed on topic until Captain Anti-context insisted we had to mean what he wanted aggressiveness to mean, and then decided that the reason for keeping track of durability was to reward runner-ups (granted he was spurned on by the humor of another poster - context and humor were both lost on him).

The actual context of tracking durability is for this reason, which I may not have explained well, but should be obvious: Tracking pure elimination averages will, among equally aggressive players, measure durability !!! This is because the more durable player will get more elimination opportunities.

Thus, one must track (and in some mathematical way cancel) durability to get a stat that doesn't skew towards durability!! The right way to do this eludes me, so I gave up, but I am still in a state of shock at how the thread got so thoroughly mangled into meaninglessness.

-H

You and me both Hugh :)

How about for each game, calculate

((number of players eliminated)/(finishing place)) - 1= aggression points.

Then average the aggression points over all games.

Not very original, but I think this formula handles the extreme cases very well. For instance

2 player game, winner gets

1/1 - 1 = 0 aggression points

8 player game, person camps all game, gets the final elimination and wins

1/1 - 1 = 0 aggression points.

8 player game, I eliminate the 8th player, but spread too thin and go out 7th. I get

1/7 - 1 = -6/7 aggression points.

Although for an 8 player game, If a player eliminates 3 players and finishes third, they get

3/3 - 1 = 0 aggression points.

So I think it does worse "in the middle" than Hugh's formulae.

If you win, then you get full credit for each elimination after the obvious one (had to eliminate 2nd place to win!). So I sort of mixed win %, aggression and durability together, meaning this probably won't help.

I agree with the last part. The penultimate example in particular shows the formula's flaws. Making the first elimination and thereby getting yourself knocked out is exactly the kind of behavior that I would want this stat to measure.

Negative aggression makes sense though, for being both aggressive and silly. So I think -6/7 is a fine assignment to that scenario.

I have problems with the last example- Knocking out 3, finishing 3rd, and only 0 aggression points. Should be higher IMO.