Forum
Leaderboard Recommendations
|
JeremyS wrote
at 9:01 PM, Wednesday January 30, 2008 EST
Couple ideas:
1. Minimum threshold for being on the luckiest or unluckiest of the month list. Nobody cares about people who played 2 games and blew out, and never came back to kdice. 2. A second leaderboard based on average points per game. This would reward players who play at the riskiest levels of the game, but who do not have the time to put in to play the 6-700 games in a month it takes for first. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 9:53 PM, Wednesday January 30, 2008 EST Obviously #1 is a great idea.
I'd like to see number 2 also. If it isn't too much trouble to make Ryan, I think it would be cool to measure in another way who some of the better players are. This would be a great way to do so. |
|
montecarlo wrote
at 12:42 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST the biggest rank gainers and losers are a bit mundane too. im sure they enjoy seeing themselves there, but no one top 500 will ever be there unless they tank to get on the biggest losers list. perhaps something akin to the old news page, where you had some algorithm that seemed to reward big jumps for lower players (i.e. 2500th to 1500th), and small jumps for higher players (i.e. 20th to 16th).
|
|
|
JeremyS wrote
at 12:49 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST I just scoped out the leaderboard.
I am 15th overall with 148 games played. The only other player on the leaderboard with under 300 games played is longhair with 207, and he is 10k below me. I'd like some recognition of my bang for the buck accomplishment here. I may be wrong, but wouldn't I likely be first overall in the ELO days? |
|
Awesomeness! wrote
at 3:33 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST i posted idea 1 yesterday and got nothing but negative feedback from non other than kdice'ass kisser'freak...i totally agree jez and jurg said its cool too
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 4:07 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST Awes, don't forget to collect your copyrights when Jeremys ideas are implemented
I love the second idea too but I think both ranks should be installed in parallel. For Medals I think we need to stick with the current ranking since that rank rewards both being good and playing enough games. |
|
kdicefreak wrote
at 7:49 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST #1 - also use monte carlo simulation to calculate the possible outcomes if that luck trend continues, and than take 95% percentile of the results as the bases for ranking
#2 - the players who play the riskiest of games are those so-called elite players currently in the top 25. so no need to put in extra effort to create a separate list, just copy the top 25.......or how about we differentiate the average score, and then take the limit to infinity, and then calculate the expected value........ |
|
RageUnleashed wrote
at 8:09 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST Jeremy, mmm i was at top 25 when i was still playing :P
|
|
|
RageUnleashed wrote
at 8:10 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST And with 170 games, so u arent alone :P
|
|
|
JeremyS wrote
at 11:09 AM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST kdicefreak, the 10k table pool is much larger than the top 25 players, AND it would show a way different picture than pure score.
|
|
|
JeremyS wrote
at 9:28 PM, Thursday January 31, 2008 EST I don't bump often, but I wanted to make sure Ryan saw this.
|
