- Designer Workshop - w/ Tutorials
“Funny discussion to me. All of these big stats we have, whether CP or GR or ranking on an individual board, are effort-based stats. Skill plays a role, but a minor one.
And GR depends on the choice of game you play as MB/Smoke indicated. A “well-rounded” aggregate stat will suffer the same fate. But, it doesn't matter! It's a goofy/fun accomplishment system and there is no claim about “true skill” being made when someone wins an award like that. It would be a fun award for some people, so why not develop it? I'm all for it!”
Summary: An aggregate stat could reflect the sum total of a players abilities and give a better “whole picture” of the player. However, it is combining stats that are totally different – and unrelated, and would necessarily create different values for the stats. This may or may not become the most sought after stat on the site.
Summary: The purpose of the aggregate stat is to give players another score to strive for (“bragging rights”) and to try to create a meaningful comparison system of either all of the players stats, or to just amalgamate their individual play stats (CP and GR).
Summary: There are two big topics here. The inclusion of team, tournament, trophy and H-rating stats in an aggregate, and how much each of the included stats should be weighted. The problems are centered around: what is most important to encourage in players on the site, how easy the stat will be to game, and whether or not team inclusion still reflects an individuals’ skills levels. It has also become important to ensure the stat cannot be dominated by one particular skill, but still rewards someone for having that skill.
Summary: The debate is centered on whether or not an individual’s skill is reflected by team play, or if it is a different and desirable skillset. There is also some worry about “super teams” being exclusive in order to get points, but the point system works with diminishing returns, so that team would be forced to diversify eventually.
Summary: Tournament stat inclusion is argued for by the aggregate being an inclusion of all stats, and against by Tournaments being a coveted practice ground, and being a narrow subset of all games.
Summary: H-rating inclusion is argued for by it being a stable and decent indicator, and should be included for completeness, which would balance out the other more volatile stats. It is argued against because of it’s complexity and it measuring a completely different thing than the other stats, in a different way – so how to include it?
First, put forth a vote/tally on what scores should be included in the composite, If more than two options are offered then I suggest a voting system where the lowest vote getting option is dropped and another vote is taken on the remaining options - rinse and repeat. Second, based on the winner from above. I/we can present formulaic options for the composite which will then be voted upon.
Summary: The proposed systems all fall into one of the following categories: - No aggregate - Combination of GR and CP – with equal weighting - Combination of all stats with equal weighting – based either on their normalized scores, or their ranking positions - Combination of all stats with simple ratios for weighting - Some mathy ones I don’t get, because I do people, not math. - Alternatives
No aggregate at all - combining stats is like bunching apples and oranges or fruit salad
log10 ( CP+2) * GR * HR * TP / 4000
Here's a long thought on how to “combine rankings” -
We have a Public Global Ranking (currently called GR, but I'll call it PGR) and we have a Tournament Global Ranking (currently called T Score, but I'll call it TGR.) Soon (I expect) we will have a Team Global Ranking - but actually we should have a Public Team Global Ranking and a Tournament Team Global Ranking - call them PTGR and TTGR respectively.
Each of these can be calculated separately with the standard start-with-1000-point-system, but we could also create a Composite Global Ranking (CGR) by (retroactively) starting everyone off with 1000 points here and performing the standard calculation on this at the end of every (public/tournament/team) non-private game.
We also have a Ranking Score for each board that uses the standard start-with-a-1000 -points system. These currently change only for public non-team games and are used to determine Board Championship points. (There are also stats for private games calculated but we won't consider those here) I would like to see all games (public/team/tournament) count in those calculation also, but since that probably won't happen we could also have a PRS (Public Ranking Score), a TRS (Tournament Ranking Score), a PTRS (Public Team Ranking Score) and a TTRS (Tournanment Team Ranking Score) for each board. (Note the PRS and TRS are already calculated, and the others probably will be when Tom does Team Rankings). Then we could also have a Composite Ranking Score CRS that is calculated at the end of every non-private game where everyone again starts with the 1000 points and we go from there.
So, at the end of every game your CGR and CRS will change and either your PGR and PRS, or your TGR and TRS, or your PTGR and PTRS, or your TTGR and TTRS will change depending on the type of game. There are a couple of directions then we could go with the BC points, but I suggest keeping them on just the PRS as they are now, but the graphics that say what boards you are #1 on, and the rankings on the board info page be based on the CRS for that board. +1 from himself