Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Jan 29, 2004 11:29:00 GMT
Yesterday at dinner time me and 2 of my wormy friends (both of them future CWTers, Frozenstein and Manolo) were chatting about the ranking formula I use in CWT and we came to realize (I knew it from the start though) that there is a major flaw in it. All the factors are well put but the rank system should have in mind the diference between the players's rankings also. So, if the last wormer in the ranking would beat the first he would gain a tremendous amount of points and the first would lose much points too. Also, if the wormer in 1st place would beat a last placed wormer he would gain very few points. Although I did know about this I never thought about it too much because it's extremely dificult to come up with a general formula valid for all players because the values of the new variable would change game after game, so that would generate a huge and complicated formula, I guess. As we were ending the conversation, Manolo said to me: "I'll think about that and I'll get you a formula." As we separated and went home, after about 1 hour I received an sms message on my mobile phone saying "I've came up with the formula. You'll see it tomorrow (today). Probably it won't be easy to set it up in Excel." I'm wondering what did he come up with.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Jan 29, 2004 14:53:52 GMT
Just had lunch with me fellows and here's the Manolo formula for CWT ranking:
PR (your previous ranking value) OPR (your oponnent's previous ranking value) W (the total number of wins in CWTs) L (the total number of losses in CWTs) T (the total number of games you made in CWts)
For every win you make you get the following amount of points:
rank = PR + [ln(OPR/PR)+((OPR/PR)x100)]/50 + [(W/T)x10]
while if you lose a game then you rank suffers the effect of this:
rank = PR - [ln(PR/OPR)+((OPR/PR)x100)]/50 - [(L/T)x10]
This is not yet tested. Test it all you want. I must reflect over this matter with Manolo himself these next days. If any changes are made (probably they will be) i'll notify you guys asap.
Stay fine.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Jan 30, 2004 11:07:40 GMT
Well we've been discussing this issue on dinner time and we got to some conclusions. There are some flaws in the original Manolo ranking formula (I'll call it MRF) and he took the paper with him in order to think about it. He will try and get it perfect. The final MRF could be one close to perfection. The hard work should be putting the MRF working in MS Excel.
|
|
|
Post by Bytor on Jan 30, 2004 19:19:51 GMT
I will leave the mathematics up to U but one thing is for certain, anyone willing to put that much time and effort in to helping a tournament he is not even competing in would make a fine addition to CWT.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Feb 2, 2004 11:58:20 GMT
Correction Bytor, he is competing this year. That fellow's nick is Manolo and he'll be playing Penguin, RUSforce and Gforce in Group B.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Feb 6, 2004 13:51:58 GMT
I've been testing the formula and I might tell you that it is almost done and complete. In one week I'll update the new rankings (standings are almost the same as the old rank). Last exams coming up next week. The only thing needed to be done is an improvement of some multiplying factors. So, hold your horses laddies. P.S.: Yesterday I've tested it and the first 6 or 7 places were exactly the same with minor changes. However I must test it again with other multipliers cuz' the formula's factor related with the wormer's history was taking out the effect of the wormer's diferent ranks factor.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Feb 11, 2004 23:58:29 GMT
I think I should have reached a point here on testing the formula. I reached somewhat consistent results by testing several multiplying factors. (Simon is currently ahead of me instead tied, like in the old ranking ) Instead of starting with 100 points each wormer starts with 200 points. This is due to the faster speed of decreasing/increasing scores if you lose/win some games in a row, so that the last wormer never gets negative scoring (I ve tested multipliers that made the last wormer close to 60 or 70 points). One more thing: timekeeping penaltys will not consist of 7 points but 10 points in 1st penalty, 15 in 2nd penalty, 20 in 3rd penalty and so on... Try getting penaltys, just try. I'll have no mercy. (Crespo laughs devilishly)
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Feb 15, 2004 14:03:12 GMT
Well don't know if you guys saw it but everything is updated on CWT site by now.
As for the ranking, good ol' Steve got himself a bigger leading margin, which makes the task for us pursuiters, more difficult. Otherwise the ranks should be perfect now.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Mar 13, 2004 14:49:26 GMT
Just to say that I've decided to remove all ranking entrys of players that participated in 2002 and 2003 CWT that left the comunity or quitted. Because after this year there will be 6 games in group stage then the wormers who end up last wil certainly be even lower in the rank than those who finished last before because they played more games and that wasn't fair to them, so I removed those guys fromthe ranking.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Mar 27, 2004 14:20:09 GMT
relating the rankings: take a look at mielu, he looks fearsome... still hasn t lost a game which takes him far in the ranking...
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Mar 27, 2004 16:27:06 GMT
As I was saying to Xaositect the other day, I thought I could give him a hand with his ranking: I tried to get as many points as I could out of the group stage, to give him a decent score boost when he kicks my ass in the playoffs. ;D
Wow, first post... take it easy, guys, I was nervous...
mielu
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Jun 16, 2004 11:51:49 GMT
Well guys I have been thinking and perhaps there will be remodelings (once more) in the rank formula. Through the course of this year's cwt I realized that a decent group stage will be enough to hold your rank spot, while the playoffs don't matter much. I will probably take the history factor in the formula cuz' that was the main factor in the formula and give points awards to the wormers who go further in the playoff... For instance, by looking at Steve's performance we'll see that he only lost 2 spots while losing twice against an average player (eheh no offense stevo but your example is the best to describe the formula's problem ). He should have lost more spots and tixas should have won more by beating the first in the ranking twice. Another example, fury and normalpro got to quarter finals and are below spot 20, while MajesticJara for instance didn't got to quarter finals and is in 16th. Whilst this diference is obviously originated by the wins on the group games I think that extra points for passing through each playoff level would be awarded (aditioned to the rank value originated by the diference between the rank of the wormers). For example, for reaching the eight-quarter-finals an award of 5 points, the quarter-finals 8 points, semi-finals 11 points and final 15 points. (the diferences between 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th would be due to the games outcome, cuz' the winners would gain rank and losers to lose rank). These values have to be tested. I will improve the formula again so it gets perfect and I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Jun 16, 2004 17:04:18 GMT
I'm pleased to see I'm now the highest-ranked non-medalist
|
|
fury
Member
Ninja Furries
Posts: 347
|
Post by fury on Jun 16, 2004 19:04:08 GMT
It's good you planned to change the formula because it also seemed a bit weird to me. The ranks don't reflect the current quality of the wormers. Hallq being just below Raven is insane! About NormalPRO and me, I think we have a bad rank because we weren't the same level when CWT started (we both improved a lot). Also we were both in groups with lots of newcomers, which doesn't help to get good ranks when winning, even when winning against a terrific wormer like mielu.
|
|
Crespo
Member
CWT founder
Posts: 758
|
Post by Crespo on Jun 24, 2004 22:43:55 GMT
Well I changed the formula. I took out the history factor so now the only things counting are the diference between the players and the bonus for reaching further in the playoff. And I think some improvements were achieved.
|
|