-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
By the way, why am I not the consensus #2?
Loch ness has never won a big game. How can he tie me? Also, I have one more big game win than Jonti. You cannot count big game/Lite wins as equal. If you are going to give me the game where AOK12 finished the job as a victory for me, then I am #2.
I now declare myself the consensus #2.
Loch ness has never won a big game. How can he tie me? Also, I have one more big game win than Jonti. You cannot count big game/Lite wins as equal. If you are going to give me the game where AOK12 finished the job as a victory for me, then I am #2.
I now declare myself the consensus #2.
That game pretty much destroyed any faith I had in democracy. Althought it was Picko who botched the game for me.Avernite said:heh, I love that game almo, allonEU and I won
AOK. 11 said:
Hang on, does that mean I've wrongly credited you with a win? Hm. *goes away to check*
EDIT: no, if you were the live sub at the end of the game, then the win is yours by my arbitrary rules.
Last edited:
I will have some free time at work in the next week or so and will try to set up a ranking of players by score (cuz we all know Avernite is not the best). To do so however, we need to agree on how to track scores. Please tell me what you think of:
100 points for winning
50 points if you outlive 50% of the starting population but die, AND your side wins
25 points if you survive but lose
10 points if you outlive 50% of the starting population but die, AND your side loses
divided by the number of games you have played, to get an average score.
also, if you died once in the game and came back as a sub your score would be the average of the two scores you would have achieved.
And if you started a game but were subbed you do not get credit for the game.
I was testing this out for the first few games, and it really balances things out. For instance, Bash is a pretty good player, but for some reason people love to kill him, so should he be scored a 0%? I disagree. From the first few games he played he was hanging around 20% which is much fairer to him. Avernite, meanwhile, who has 5 big game wins, has played in so many games that his average would be around 65% - still very good, but there are others who were better (like curtis and Ayeshteni).
100 points for winning
50 points if you outlive 50% of the starting population but die, AND your side wins
25 points if you survive but lose
10 points if you outlive 50% of the starting population but die, AND your side loses
divided by the number of games you have played, to get an average score.
also, if you died once in the game and came back as a sub your score would be the average of the two scores you would have achieved.
And if you started a game but were subbed you do not get credit for the game.
I was testing this out for the first few games, and it really balances things out. For instance, Bash is a pretty good player, but for some reason people love to kill him, so should he be scored a 0%? I disagree. From the first few games he played he was hanging around 20% which is much fairer to him. Avernite, meanwhile, who has 5 big game wins, has played in so many games that his average would be around 65% - still very good, but there are others who were better (like curtis and Ayeshteni).
I think this is better than the previous proposal. The idea which I think you should include is weighting the Full & Lite scores, to reflect Full games being longer and more complicated, such as the 3:2 weighting you suggested. No credit for players who are subbed is fair.Ironhead 5 said:
Anyway, this idea is complementary to my tables, which are brutally true to the rules: if you're alive and on the winning team at the end, you win. Otherwise, you lose. Your score will flag up good but losing players. I'm glad you've offered to do the adding up, btw...
The problem is that the final rating will be an average - a percentage. So how do I weight the Lite vs. Full games without negatively affecting those who play a lot of Lite games? Unless maybe a calculate the Full game rating, then the Lite game rating, then average the two (based on number of Full games vs. number of Lite games)...Quercus said:
Ironhead 5 said:
You could reduce the points awarded for a lite game by 33%, say. So
66 pts survive & win
33 pts die in last 50%, side wins
16 pts survive & lose
6 pts die in last 50%, side loses.
That way the points/game works out while crediting Lite winners with fewer points.
Let's say you have someone who is perfect at Werewolf. He wins every single time he plays. Therefore, his rating should be 100%, yes?
Let's say he plays four big games and wins them all. His rating is 100%. He then plays a Werewolf Lite game and wins that as well. His rating is now 93.2% [(100+100+100+100+66)/5]. He is being punished for playing in a Lite game.
Lowering the value of the Lite games would be fine if we were doing a "total score" where everything is added up and you do not divide by anything. But doing something like that makes jacob-Lundgren look awesome (because he has played in every game except one), while Petrarca looks bad (because he started playing in the first Werepenguin game). That's why I was looking for an average.
Maybe the answer is to have two scores - one would be an average, and the other would be the total. That way we are ranking players based on both scales.
Let's say he plays four big games and wins them all. His rating is 100%. He then plays a Werewolf Lite game and wins that as well. His rating is now 93.2% [(100+100+100+100+66)/5]. He is being punished for playing in a Lite game.
Lowering the value of the Lite games would be fine if we were doing a "total score" where everything is added up and you do not divide by anything. But doing something like that makes jacob-Lundgren look awesome (because he has played in every game except one), while Petrarca looks bad (because he started playing in the first Werepenguin game). That's why I was looking for an average.
Maybe the answer is to have two scores - one would be an average, and the other would be the total. That way we are ranking players based on both scales.
Ironhead 5 said:
But you're not calculating a percentage, but a points-per-game score.
In your example, the player who wins 4 full + 1 lite game will be on 93 points, whereas a player who wins 5 full games out of 5 will be on 100 points and a player who wins 5 lite games will be on 66: in other words, players with equal numbers of wins in different games will be differently ranked.
I think a Werewolf scoring system is a great idea. It may even reduce the number of dropouts.
A lot of the dropouts are people who end up as villagers and dropout because they think its a boring role, but they may still stay in if they think they can still up their Werewolf points.
Ayeshteni
A lot of the dropouts are people who end up as villagers and dropout because they think its a boring role, but they may still stay in if they think they can still up their Werewolf points.
Ayeshteni
65%? Am I that high even at weighted score?
(And yes, I knew people like Aye prolly have a better average )
(And yes, I knew people like Aye prolly have a better average
)
Haha, that was your percentage, but with a revamped scoring system it will change. I'm working on it now.Avernite said:65%? Am I that high even at weighted score?
(And yes, I knew people like Aye prolly have a better average
Ironhead 5 said:
Let's see...
100 pts for WWII
25 for WWV
0 for WWVII.V
0 for WWXII
10 for WWXIII
10 for WWXIV.
145 in total, divided by six...
24.17. I coulda been a contender.
Well, me and Avernite can kiss our short lived time at the top goodbye. It was good while it lasted...
I predict Jonti will be crowned the new WW King. As many wins as me in half the time. Congrats Jonti!
I predict Jonti will be crowned the new WW King. As many wins as me in half the time. Congrats Jonti!
Not bad, though. I am almost done, only have a few more LITE games to add up. It looks like the best scores are around the upper 30's... AOK 11 is near the top, and Avernite is right below him. Of course there are some players who only played a game or two and did pretty well, so they have hugely inflated scores - but we will just count a minimum number of games (or still currently active) for compiling the top ten list.Shy Kid said:Let's see...
100 pts for WWII
25 for WWV
0 for WWVII.V
0 for WWXII
10 for WWXIII
10 for WWXIV.
145 in total, divided by six...
24.17. I coulda been a contender.
By the way, I think you might be amused to hear the Bash's score is less than 3. Poor guy gets killed so early, so often.
Poor bash. :rofl: :rofl:
We should also have a players poll. The best 10-15 in the rankings would vote who they think the best 5-10 players are. Then, there would be some kind of bonus for being voted highly by one's peers. That way people like bash could get a better score, and the system would be better overall at judging skill.
We should also have a players poll. The best 10-15 in the rankings would vote who they think the best 5-10 players are. Then, there would be some kind of bonus for being voted highly by one's peers. That way people like bash could get a better score, and the system would be better overall at judging skill.
Last edited: