It's a tournament game and different rules apply there.

Different rules inside tournaments, but the same calculation for the tournaments ranking : 1819/395*20 = 92 points !!!

Ok,  I knew about the T-scores but for some reason, I didn't think they were calculated similarly.  Right now the lowest T-Score is 487.   There are about a dozen players with scores below 800; and yes, when you lose to them, you will take a hit.

I think we need to realize that the system that we use for both global ratings and T-Scores, though theoretically unlimited (assuming that you get 1 point no matter what the ratio), is:

1. self-regulating and essentially range restricted
2. more volatile on the edges of its range.

This is basically two ways of saying that players with very high and very low scores are subject to wider swings in their scores towards the center (better players lose more points than average players when they lose, and lesser players win more points than average players when they win).

Because of this, its virtually impossible to hold onto the top positions for very long. Some consider the volatility on the edges a flaw with the system, and in some ways I agree with this sentiment. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that a simple 50-game moving average, while constraining the range of all scores even more, would provide a much more consistent and accurate indicator of player strength, and we would see top players emerge who are able to hold their positions.

Advantage:

A player's 50d-MA would go down only 1 point when they lose 50 global rating points in a game.  My guess is that top 10 players would settle into a G-Rating 50-day MA somewhere around 2200-2400 that stays in a range of around 50 points.

Making up acronyms in the middle of a post really does make it hard to follow.

M57 wrote:

Ok,  I knew about the T-scores but for some reason, I didn't think they were calculated similarly.  Right now the lowest T-Score is 487.   There are about a dozen players with scores below 800; and yes, when you lose to them, you will take a hit.

I think we need to realize that the system that we use for both global ratings and T-Scores, though theoretically unlimited (assuming that you get 1 point no matter what the ratio), is:

1. self-regulating and essentially range restricted
2. more volatile on the edges of its range.

This is basically two ways of saying that players with very high and very low scores are subject to wider swings in their scores towards the center (better players lose more points than average players when they lose, and lesser players win more points than average players when they win).

Because of this, its virtually impossible to hold onto the top positions for very long. Some consider the volatility on the edges a flaw with the system, and in some ways I agree with this sentiment. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that a simple 50-game moving average, while constraining the range of all scores even more, would provide a much more consistent and accurate indicator of player strength, and we would see top players emerge who are able to hold their positions.

Advantage:

A player's 50d-MA would go down only 1 point when they lose 50 global rating points in a game.  My guess is that top 10 players would settle into a G-Rating 50-day MA somewhere around 2200-2400 that stays in a range of around 50 points.

I don't know where you found those figures (487). The lowest T-score is actually 278 for Speedbump, followed by Camajan with 395.

To make is clearer, I am not saying that such a system is bad in itself, just that there should be a ceiling, much lower than 100. I suggest 40 which is twice the usual number.

I fully support your idea of a moving average which would give a better idea of someone's strength.

Toto wrote:

I don't know where you found those figures (487). The lowest T-score is actually 278 for Speedbump, followed by Camajan with 395.

To make is clearer, I am not saying that such a system is bad in itself, just that there should be a ceiling, much lower than 100. I suggest 40 which is twice the usual number.

I fully support your idea of a moving average which would give a better idea of someone's strength.

Interesting.. When I go to speedbumps page I get 287, but on the Rankings Tab when I do a sort by T-score, I find tyler at 487 at the bottom:

http://www.wargear.net/rankings/show/Board%20Championship/2/?&sortfield=rank_tscore&sortorder=ASC

Yeah, I was thinking that the H-Score is the most telling of statistics because it is very stable, but I'm rethinking this because technically it doesn't take into account the caliber of your opponents. 

Come to think of it, a 50-DMA on an H-score would be a fascinating stat, but if I had to choose between which one I'd like to see, I'd go for the Global Rankings.

M57 wrote:

Interesting.. When I go to speedbumps page I get 287, but on the Rankings Tab when I do a sort by T-score, I find tyler at 487 at the bottom:

Reset your Min games played filter on the Rankings page.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

Interesting.. When I go to speedbumps page I get 287, but on the Rankings Tab when I do a sort by T-score, I find tyler at 487 at the bottom:

Reset your Min games played filter on the Rankings page.

Of course..

RiskyBack wrote:

Oh, and I really thing that drinking and wargearing should be a stat we keep track of somewhere.  I specifically remember a great fail and rambling post by a certain Dwarf over on ToS that still makes me smile low the many years later.

Damn! I did something good/funny and have no recollection at all. it is me right? You don't have other Dwarves in your life, do you?

When I get into multiple games of Ant Farm or Bomb Factory tourneys, I always take different colours. It helps somewhat in keeping associations clear. But also find too many of the same board gets me into a zombie zone, where everything is just sorta on autopilot. Or if I have too many games going.

Really, I didn't care much about rankings. Medal hunting on warfish wasn't really a care of mine. I played for fun, and it shows in my ranked games to public "just for fun" games ratio. But I did care about 10 medalling on Pirates of Malta and Bomb Factory. Other than that, when I stumbled onto top 25, it was a surprise. I think I am 19 there. So that was by accident.

Here, I do sorta care more, mostly cuz there are more ways for rewarding seeking variety. I have a good tourney score, even though I don't have many trophies. Some of that is from playing bomb factory: low luck factor, and you can't be picked on by groups of players cuz you have a high score (why Bubble is leaving wargear). That was sorta fluky too. H Rating is pretty cool.

I think people will play what they like... and winning is quite likeable! Sometimes you "click" with a board, have insights others lack and you can do well. You'll probably play more of those and win more.

Being in top 10 for score overall we pretty cool. A few losses and you are down and out, but a few wins and I can crawl back in. But unlike championship boards, you can't really target something, you just have to hope for wins.

Gimli wrote:

you can't be picked on by groups of players cuz you have a high score (why Bubble is leaving wargear).

This and people saying "gg" too early are the two things that bug me the most!

Some of that is from playing bomb factory: low luck factor

And here I was avoiding bomb factory because of the high luck factor..

Saying GG too early is bad, but I haven't seen it. I might do it early, but that's just to make sure people see it. You know like when you own 4/5 of ant farm but it will still take ~ 3 turns to finish.

BD, if you play BF more, you'll see how luck can affect starts, but it can be handled. Of my losses, only about 3 were cuz of bad dice against me. The rest were being outplayed.

Yay, I've managed to get 0 points from somebody!

Finally finished one of Genesis' Antastic games. He's on 59, so I can't score off him. Ha.