My opinions:

take the score and multiple by 100 route as Hugh suggests and think of it as a normalize percent (which is what it is).

Since I like this stat, I have kept my log stat to myself.

By the Hugh Conjecture, I must play a high proportion of good players (High global score, relative Hugh score). I think it should be called the H-score of a player.

tom wrote: So what's the score for a completely average player? Is it still 1 as per G-rating?

Also what's the actual calculation for this Hugh / Alpha?

For each player there is an array of game sizes : number of wins at this game size to work with, is this sufficient?

11's answered the first three questions in post #46:  average player is 0.5 (50% if you will) and that works regardless of game size (1/4 in 4-player normalizes to 50%).  You can make it more like G-rating (with 1.0 as the middle) by doubling.  

To answer the last Q:  Wins at each game size is sufficient as long as you know total losses.

Numerator could be then be calculated via

1*(# of 2-player wins) + 2*(# of 3-player wins) + 3*(# of 4-player wins) + ...

Denominator via

LOSSES + 1*(# of 2-player wins) + 2*(# of 3-player wins) + 3*(# of 4-player wins) + ...

If you multiplied it by 100, you could call it a True WarGear Idealized Relative Percentage

"You have just lost. You now have a 52.5, Twirp"

I kind of like what the comma adds to its meaning.

H Rating is now showing on the rankings table.

Tie's on Ranking score are still being decided by G rating, see what you guys think if the consensus is that this is a better stat then I'll cut over all the calcs to use the H rating.

Awesome!

Of course, you need to add what it means in the help menu. The thing's starting to look like a bunch of baseball statistics that mean nothing even to a great number of people who like baseball. Maybe somewhere near the top of the Rankings Table there can be a link to the appropriate help/description page.

Hmmm.. H-Ratings make it pretty easy to find potential cheaters.

black-ops is clearly using the mjhodges account to win all of his games and boost his ratings.

Not to play down Hugh's achievement and contribution, but why not call it something that actually describes what it is. Like a Normalized Win Percentage, ..or a Gamesize Adjusted Win Percentage? Hmm.. GAWP. I like it.

And seriously, you've got to doot black-ops..

M57 wrote: Awesome!

Of course, you need to add what it means in the help menu.

I have no idea what to put in the Help for this .  Someone write it (so that you don't need a doctorate in math to understand it ) and I'll throw it in there.

The plan is to remove the G Rating assuming everyone agrees that this is a better measure? Perhaps a vote on the best name.... GAWP is pretty good :)

Gamesize Adjusted Win/Victory Average GAWA or GAVA, pronounced Jawa or Java.

Edward Nygma wrote: Gamesize Adjusted Win/Victory Average GAWA or GAVA, pronounced Jawa or Java.

Well?  Which way?  My first instinct was to pronounce the G hard, like in guava.

Everyone knows how to pronounce GAWP!

How about YAMS?

My YAMS is better than your YAMS. Gawp!

Or H-rating since, you know, Hugh came up with it? Or let him name it instead of voting.

I don't like YAMS and GAVA. They make me wanna GAWP.

Why don't we just call it a "Hugh"? Then you can say things like "My Hugh is bigger than your Hugh!", "My Hugh is so huge!", and "They're just waking up, I know just what they'll do. Their mouths will hang open a minute or two, then the Hughs down in Hughville will all cry, 'Boo Hoo.'"

Wow that made my day Oat. Thanks =]

Ahhhh.... suddenly finding myself reliving my childhood... and my teen years... oh wait my whole life is full of Hugh jokes! (curse you Simpsons and Curb!)

Anyway Yertle, I'll set about writing a decent description for the help file (others who understand it should feel free to do the same).

I like "Normalized Win %" (I prefer it be displayed as a % like win % is, not as it currently is) or "H-Score".

Normalised Win % is not exactly catchy though is it... unless it's just abbreviated to 'NW%' or 'NWP'.

True :) I could make a pretty good case for me having nothing to do with the picking of the name!

Oatworm wrote: Why don't we just call it a "Hugh"? Then you can say things like "My Hugh is bigger than your Hugh!", "My Hugh is so huge!", and "They're just waking up, I know just what they'll do. Their mouths will hang open a minute or two, then the Hughs down in Hughville will all cry, 'Boo Hoo.'"

My first ALN.  Thanks, and by the way I support calling it Hugh.

*edit HUGH - Heuristic Used for Gradation of Humans

not great, but it works.

Alternatively, if Hugh would prefer that he didn't have an eponymous rating assigned to him, we could go all ST:TNG-nerdly on this and call it a "Topological Anomaly", since that was the form of "virus" that was supposed to get passed to Hugh in "I Borg" and destroy the Collective.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/I_Borg_(episode)

Could call it a "TA Rating" for short.