Forum
So the ranking is probably bad..
|
DoobiusMalcor wrote
at 7:03 AM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT
Ranking is all wrong. Half the players in the game can eek out a positive average per game played. Which means anyone is eligible to win who plays enough (looking at Ardent or Murti).
The best measure of skill now is your average points per game played (other than rndRiser who proxy cheat for +40 a pop but we shall ignore them). To keep the leaderboard free of statistical anomalies you have to merge the score with 0 as such: TotalPoints / (GamesPlayed + 25) |
Replies 1 - 3 of 3
|
MichWasHere wrote
at 7:09 AM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT It has always been that way. People who played more 'ranked' higher.
You're being a little generous with the half the people get a + score. I've seen 3rd place easily finish with 0. Give it a bit ;) it'll grow on you. |
|
|
DoobiusMalcor wrote
at 12:40 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT Has not always been that way whippersnapper, the first version of the scoring system had no long-term memory. Irrelevant anyway.
I think I am ahead of time here. The forum is drowned out by lower ranked players complaining about more fundamental things. However, by the end of the month you are gonna have an argument among the top players about how someone with 100 games and 800 points is soooo much better than the person with 400 games and 800 points. It's only obvious to me now because of my 250 IQ. |
|
JKD wrote
at 6:22 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT The better players can hopefully make it to the higher tables faster where they can hopefully get points even faster
|
