Mongrel wrote:

asm wrote: I'm calling it H-rating regardless. So.

Yep. H follows G, Hugh starts with an H, natural.

So, it's on Iroll11's to concoct the improved H-rating. Go.

If we're going alphabetically, so glad my name starts with an S. I've lost enough sleep over these "pure strategy" boards I need some time to let my brain stop hurting before I come up with the math equations for the S-Rating.

Ha! If it gets to M, get ready for however MegaBoobsMcGee wants to rank player proficiency.

Speaking of M, M57, do you work for standards of weights and measures? You sure do love you some categorizing and list making.

This will be my last derailing comment.

Then I'll take up the torch. Since H is one increment better than G, that means that as our resident 'A', I am tasked with coming up with a metric that is six orders of magnitude WORSE than G-Rating at measuring player skill. I'll let y'all know when I've figured it out.

Just wake me when we get to "O", then I'll unleash my "O" rating all over this site.

Ok, I'm going to give this one last try.  You are all a bunch of whiners..

PP: Power Percentage

WPP: Wargear Power Percentage

RSP: Relative Stength Percentage.

GASP: Gamesize Adjusted Strength Percentage

AWP: Adjusted Win Percentage

H-Rating

We only whine cause we care, plus I'm bored.

It's not a rating.

M57 wrote: It's not a rating.

Huh?  Of course it's a rating, it's being used to rate people.

Me and my few-gfs-back had a rating we used to describe how much we liked something.  1 on the scale is unprintable, 10 on the scale is NSFW, and 5 on the scale is a carrot.  Carrots being about the most neutral thing we could think of.  (And yes, it always bothered me that it was 5 and not 5.5, it didn't bother her.  She obviously wasn't a keeper.)

Doesn't matter what you use to define the scale, a rating is used to affix the position of stuff along that scale.

Despite the jabs, I probably liked GAWP the best. But not as much as I like H-rating.

A percentage is a rating, and a rating is a way of assessing value or comparing values between objects.

To say that a percentage is a rating is stretching the definition a bit.  No one I know would call a batting average a type of rating.  They might use that statistic in conjunction with others to assign a rating, which is more of a subjective assessment, though it still may be expressed numerically and fall on scale.

I can't think of anything that is officially called a rating that is expressed as a percentage. For instance A Neilsen rating is an artificially arrived at number.  It is based on percentages, but there are arbitrary points assigned that weight it based on demographics and other variables.

To call our number a rating decidedly misrepresents its intent.

asm wrote: Then I'll take up the torch. Since H is one increment better than G, that means that as our resident 'A', I am tasked with coming up with a metric that is six orders of magnitude WORSE than G-Rating at measuring player skill. I'll let y'all know when I've figured it out.

I have one all cooked up and would be happy to let you take ownership.  Just let me know and I will send you the formula.

Oh, and I think H-rating or H-score or H-percentage would be the best choice. Where did G-rating originate?

Alpha wrote:

asm wrote: Then I'll take up the torch. Since H is one increment better than G, that means that as our resident 'A', I am tasked with coming up with a metric that is six orders of magnitude WORSE than G-Rating at measuring player skill. I'll let y'all know when I've figured it out.

I have one all cooked up and would be happy to let you take ownership.  Just let me know and I will send you the formula.

Is it alphabetical? That's close but not good enough ('Alpha' would come before 'asm').

I shall pronounce GAWP as Gee-Wap; just to annoy the <Y-edit> perhaps just hit backspace instead of using strike through that can still be read (/Y edit> bejeezus (wow, i've got to say that keeping track of my language and trying to bring it back around to generally acceptable has provided an interesting bit of introspect) out of all of you.

I shall pronounce it as the sound of your armies being crushed:

gah-WAP!

M57 wrote:

To say that a percentage is a rating is stretching the definition a bit.  No one I know would call a batting average a type of rating.  They might use that statistic in conjunction with others to assign a rating, which is more of a subjective assessment, though it still may be expressed numerically and fall on scale.

I can't think of anything that is officially called a rating that is expressed as a percentage. For instance A Neilsen rating is an artificially arrived at number.  It is based on percentages, but there are arbitrary points assigned that weight it based on demographics and other variables.

To call our number a rating decidedly misrepresents its intent.

That's cool, my interpretation of rating doesn't care about context, or meaning for that matter. In the math world, we usually refer to this as "abstract nonsense", and we grin while we say it.

An example. Suppose I have 3 balls, one red, one blue, one green (When I teach probability courses, I always replace "balls" with "crayons" or "markers" because I'm still 13 in most ways).

I assign the number .25 to red, .5 to blue, .78 to green. I then declare that "one ball is better than the other, if the assigned number is greater". I then have a rating system on the set of balls. I know that a blue ball is better than a green ball, without any real world interpretation.

Wait.

You prefer blue balls?

Wait over.