Board 8 > Adjusting the contest scoring system based on prediction percentages

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
ZeldaTPLink 05/18/20 6:09:24 PM #1:	Greetings! In the past few weeks, both in this board and Discord, I've noticed a discussion about whether the current points scheme of the contests is fair. I refer to the system that awards points for each round in geometrical progression, which is the following way: Round 1 - 1 Round 2 - 2 Round 3 - 4 Round 4 - 8 Round 5 - 16 Round 6 - 32 Round 7 - 64 The argument I've often seen against this system is that it places too much weight on later matches, in the sense that someone who did very well in early rounds would lose to someone who did not but who got a single great upset in the later rounds. We have seen that in this contest with the Skyrim vs Witcher match, whose 32 point prize made entire early rounds pointless. This system does follow a mathematical logic, which is that, assuming each game has an equal chance of winning any match, the probability of a given game winning a match goes down by half each round. Therefore, it makes sense for that match to be worth double points. But this logic skips over the fact that not all matches are made equal: while Rocket League vs DBZ was a very debated match, Dark Souls beating Hotline Miami and then beating the winner of that debated match was all but a foregone conclusion. Even the most casual bracket makers would overwhelmingly agree on that. Yet, the Rocket League vs DBZ match is only worth 1 point, while the winner vs Dark Souls is worth 2. Arguments in favor of this system include its simplicty, and the fact it's based on systems used in bracket contests of real life sports tournaments. Whoever, a sports tournament can have much more variance than a bracket contest, since it depends on human parformance in the moment, while the tastes of a gaming community are much easier to predict based on sales, reviews, overall word of mouth, and previous contests. Hotline Miami will never beat Dark Souls, except with a rally, and rallies big enough to flip such a match around are extremely rare. Based on this argument, I had an idea to calculate what would be a fairer scoring scheme. Turns out we actually have data on the difficulty of predicting matches for each round, and it's the prediction percentages available in the Contests Stats page! Using that data, I've made a formula to calculate the ideal points for each round. I'm setting Round 1 with 1 point as the standard, then calculating the score for later rounds by dividing the average prediction % of Round 1 by the average prediction % of each round. DISCLAIMER: the goal of this topic is not to question the merits of any contest winners or winners of any side contest, of this year or any other year. Everyone who have won contests here made a great bracket. The goal is to propose an improvement the scoring system so that future contests award points based on a more accurate measuring of the relative difficulty of each match. So let's get to the numbers already. Based on the formula I just explained, here is what the points for the recent Game of the Decade should look like: (note: decimals appear with commas instead of points because that's the Brazilian standard and it's what my Excel is set to. Just pretend you are seeing points instead) That's very different from a geometrical progression, huh? Looking closely, Rounds 1 to 4 seem to follow something similar to an arithmetical progression, with each round adding 0.3 points. Round 5 onwards is when it gets wonky, though. I suspect one reason is the BotW effect: as BotW starts making for a larger fraction of the round, the round itself becomes easier to predict. Another thing is that in this year, Round 4 was where most debated matches happened, while Round 5 and beyond were fairly chalky, with the exception of the Skyrim matches. Still, that doesn't give us an accurate representation of what the diffficulty for each round should be, so I decided to dig deeper. I made the same analysis for a few other contests. For the sake of simplicity, I restricted myself to contests that have 128 entries, 1v1 matches, and 7 rounds. That means GotD1, Character Battle 2010 and Best Game Ever 2015. Here are the results. BGE3 is also pretty wonky in the later rounds. That said, the first 4 rounds do show a good degree of consistency. That 77 in the finals has an obvious reason: Undertale. While this means we can't really take that score as our standard, it does offer a good perspective. 77 is not much above 64, so this shows what it takes for a finals match to actually be worth the 64 points we normally award them: a turbofodder indie game almost nobody heard of getting a Tumblr-fueled rally and winning 7 upsets in a row until it beats Ocarina of Time and wins the contest. Not something that is too likely to happen again, imo. And even then, previous rounds are way below their normal awarded points in difficulty, thanks to being populated by obviously strong games instead of fodder. Round 5 is worth more than Round 6, and the reason for that is that R6 consisted of Undertale and Ocarina of Time, while R5 was Undertale, Ocarina, Meelee and Super Mario RPG, so on average, R5 has more crazy upsets, including two mega rallies. The first game of the decade gives us the more smooth results. Rounds 6 and 7 feel like they spiked a bit more than the usual, but hey, those are the last two rounds so maybe they should do that! And it's still a lot less than 32 and 64. This can also be explained by the fact this contest is famously one of the least predictable ones we've had, with legendary results such as Brawl beating Melee and then losing to Majora's Mask. Also rounds 1 to 3 seem pretty similar to the two previous charts, while 4 and 5 go a big higher. I didn't think I would see a contest chalkier than GotD2, but here we are. The finals are only twice as hard to predict as the average Round 1 match, which makes sense because, well, it's Link > Cloud. Although there are crazy results here and there (i. e. Charizard), they get dampened by the majority of the bracket being a standard Noble Nine, 1v1, no items, final destination story. This is also the easiest Round 4 of the pack, being even easier than Round 3 somehow. This makes some sense if you think this is the 8th character battle during a time spam of 9 years. There was a ton of data to make predictions from, such as a quick read on the board or the wiki could give someone an idea of what is likely to win here. (on an unrelated note, this does give us a good idea of what will happen if the next Character Battle doesn't make any big innovation in terms of what characters are in, such as an All Fictional bracket. Expect that contest to even more predictable and have fewer upsets than this year's Game of the Decade). --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939357512] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Greetings! In the past few weeks, both in this board and Discord, I've noticed a discussion about whether the current points scheme of the contests is fair. I refer to the system that awards points for each round in geometrical progression, which is the following way: Round 1 - 1 Round 2 - 2 Round 3 - 4 Round 4 - 8 Round 5 - 16 Round 6 - 32 Round 7 - 64 The argument I've often seen against this system is that it places too much weight on later matches, in the sense that someone who did very well in early rounds would lose to someone who did not but who got a single great upset in the later rounds. We have seen that in this contest with the Skyrim vs Witcher match, whose 32 point prize made entire early rounds pointless. This system does follow a mathematical logic, which is that, assuming each game has an equal chance of winning any match, the probability of a given game winning a match goes down by half each round. Therefore, it makes sense for that match to be worth double points. But this logic skips over the fact that not all matches are made equal: while Rocket League vs DBZ was a very debated match, Dark Souls beating Hotline Miami and then beating the winner of that debated match was all but a foregone conclusion. Even the most casual bracket makers would overwhelmingly agree on that. Yet, the Rocket League vs DBZ match is only worth 1 point, while the winner vs Dark Souls is worth 2. Arguments in favor of this system include its simplicty, and the fact it's based on systems used in bracket contests of real life sports tournaments. Whoever, a sports tournament can have much more variance than a bracket contest, since it depends on human parformance in the moment, while the tastes of a gaming community are much easier to predict based on sales, reviews, overall word of mouth, and previous contests. Hotline Miami will never beat Dark Souls, except with a rally, and rallies big enough to flip such a match around are extremely rare. Based on this argument, I had an idea to calculate what would be a fairer scoring scheme. Turns out we actually have data on the difficulty of predicting matches for each round, and it's the prediction percentages available in the Contests Stats page! Using that data, I've made a formula to calculate the ideal points for each round. I'm setting Round 1 with 1 point as the standard, then calculating the score for later rounds by dividing the average prediction % of Round 1 by the average prediction % of each round. DISCLAIMER: the goal of this topic is not to question the merits of any contest winners or winners of any side contest, of this year or any other year. Everyone who have won contests here made a great bracket. The goal is to propose an improvement the scoring system so that future contests award points based on a more accurate measuring of the relative difficulty of each match. So let's get to the numbers already. Based on the formula I just explained, here is what the points for the recent Game of the Decade should look like: (note: decimals appear with commas instead of points because that's the Brazilian standard and it's what my Excel is set to. Just pretend you are seeing points instead) That's very different from a geometrical progression, huh? Looking closely, Rounds 1 to 4 seem to follow something similar to an arithmetical progression, with each round adding 0.3 points. Round 5 onwards is when it gets wonky, though. I suspect one reason is the BotW effect: as BotW starts making for a larger fraction of the round, the round itself becomes easier to predict. Another thing is that in this year, Round 4 was where most debated matches happened, while Round 5 and beyond were fairly chalky, with the exception of the Skyrim matches. Still, that doesn't give us an accurate representation of what the diffficulty for each round should be, so I decided to dig deeper. I made the same analysis for a few other contests. For the sake of simplicity, I restricted myself to contests that have 128 entries, 1v1 matches, and 7 rounds. That means GotD1, Character Battle 2010 and Best Game Ever 2015. Here are the results. BGE3 is also pretty wonky in the later rounds. That said, the first 4 rounds do show a good degree of consistency. That 77 in the finals has an obvious reason: Undertale. While this means we can't really take that score as our standard, it does offer a good perspective. 77 is not much above 64, so this shows what it takes for a finals match to actually be worth the 64 points we normally award them: a turbofodder indie game almost nobody heard of getting a Tumblr-fueled rally and winning 7 upsets in a row until it beats Ocarina of Time and wins the contest. Not something that is too likely to happen again, imo. And even then, previous rounds are way below their normal awarded points in difficulty, thanks to being populated by obviously strong games instead of fodder. Round 5 is worth more than Round 6, and the reason for that is that R6 consisted of Undertale and Ocarina of Time, while R5 was Undertale, Ocarina, Meelee and Super Mario RPG, so on average, R5 has more crazy upsets, including two mega rallies. The first game of the decade gives us the more smooth results. Rounds 6 and 7 feel like they spiked a bit more than the usual, but hey, those are the last two rounds so maybe they should do that! And it's still a lot less than 32 and 64. This can also be explained by the fact this contest is famously one of the least predictable ones we've had, with legendary results such as Brawl beating Melee and then losing to Majora's Mask. Also rounds 1 to 3 seem pretty similar to the two previous charts, while 4 and 5 go a big higher. I didn't think I would see a contest chalkier than GotD2, but here we are. The finals are only twice as hard to predict as the average Round 1 match, which makes sense because, well, it's Link > Cloud. Although there are crazy results here and there (i. e. Charizard), they get dampened by the majority of the bracket being a standard Noble Nine, 1v1, no items, final destination story. This is also the easiest Round 4 of the pack, being even easier than Round 3 somehow. This makes some sense if you think this is the 8th character battle during a time spam of 9 years. There was a ton of data to make predictions from, such as a quick read on the board or the wiki could give someone an idea of what is likely to win here. (on an unrelated note, this does give us a good idea of what will happen if the next Character Battle doesn't make any big innovation in terms of what characters are in, such as an All Fictional bracket. Expect that contest to even more predictable and have fewer upsets than this year's Game of the Decade). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/18/20 6:09:31 PM #2:	Conclusions: One one hand, this research failed to provide a realiable measure of what scoring system will most accurately reflect the difficulty of each round, due to not having a ton of contests to pick from (I could look at other contests, but then I'd have to make arbitrary adjustments for the different bracket sizes). On the other hand, I believe it gave us a great sense of scale: we can see that even in particularly unpredictable contests, the current system still gives way too much weight to late rounds compared to their actual prediction difficulty. A finals match, in order to be actually worth 64 points, should have a prediction rate of 1.56% (assuming Round 1 had 100%, otherwise it should be lower), the semifinals should have 3.13% on average, and so on. And what we usually see instead for later rounds are prediction %s in the double digits. And this is all taking in consideration the fact I'm using data for the overall brackets submitted, not just gurus or B8. If I had to take a guess at an actual system, my instinct is to take GotD1 as the standard, since it's the one that looks the most neat. I'll then multiply all the numbers by 10 and do some rounding, to get more manageable numbers: Round 1 - 10 Round 2 - 13 Round 3 - 18 Round 4 - 28 Round 5 - 40 Round 6 - 100 Round 7 - 180 If you think the last two rounds are two high compared to the first one, then you should assume it's because Majora and Brawl getting to the finals is a crazier result than average. In that case, you could settle for something chalkier, and reduce those numbers a bit. I made that adjustment, and also did a little more rounding for early matches. Round 1 - 10 Round 2 - 15 Round 3 - 20 Round 4 - 30 Round 5 - 45 Round 6 - 75 Round 7 - 120 So, what do you think? Do you agree with this analysys? Do you have a better idea of that system would work best? Give me your opinions, and thanks for reading this! --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939357520] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Conclusions: One one hand, this research failed to provide a realiable measure of what scoring system will most accurately reflect the difficulty of each round, due to not having a ton of contests to pick from (I could look at other contests, but then I'd have to make arbitrary adjustments for the different bracket sizes). On the other hand, I believe it gave us a great sense of scale: we can see that even in particularly unpredictable contests, the current system still gives way too much weight to late rounds compared to their actual prediction difficulty. A finals match, in order to be actually worth 64 points, should have a prediction rate of 1.56% (assuming Round 1 had 100%, otherwise it should be lower), the semifinals should have 3.13% on average, and so on. And what we usually see instead for later rounds are prediction %s in the double digits. And this is all taking in consideration the fact I'm using data for the overall brackets submitted, not just gurus or B8. If I had to take a guess at an actual system, my instinct is to take GotD1 as the standard, since it's the one that looks the most neat. I'll then multiply all the numbers by 10 and do some rounding, to get more manageable numbers: Round 1 - 10 Round 2 - 13 Round 3 - 18 Round 4 - 28 Round 5 - 40 Round 6 - 100 Round 7 - 180 If you think the last two rounds are two high compared to the first one, then you should assume it's because Majora and Brawl getting to the finals is a crazier result than average. In that case, you could settle for something chalkier, and reduce those numbers a bit. I made that adjustment, and also did a little more rounding for early matches. Round 1 - 10 Round 2 - 15 Round 3 - 20 Round 4 - 30 Round 5 - 45 Round 6 - 75 Round 7 - 120 So, what do you think? Do you agree with this analysys? Do you have a better idea of that system would work best? Give me your opinions, and thanks for reading this! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Seanchan 05/18/20 6:17:41 PM #3:	Since all the guru brackets are out there for analysis, what's their difference in results using your proposed system? --- "That was unnecessarily dramatic". - NY Mets motto (courtesy of InnerTubeHero) Congratulations to azuarc, the guru of gurus and winner of GotD 2020! <cite>Seanchan posted [p:939357879] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Since all the guru brackets are out there for analysis, what's their difference in results using your proposed system? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NFUN 05/18/20 6:21:41 PM #4:	you keep saying "round" instead of "match". the current system is designed around each round having equal weight, which affects the relative importance of individual matches --- You shine, and make others shine just by being near them. <cite>NFUN posted [p:939358035] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>you keep saying "round" instead of "match". the current system is designed around each round having equal weight, which affects the relative importance of individual matches </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/18/20 6:41:45 PM #5:	NFUN posted... you keep saying "round" instead of "match". the current system is designed around each round having equal weight, which affects the relative importance of individual matches And if that's the case then it does not accurately reflect the difficulty in getting each point, since predicting Link will win in the finals is not as easy as predicting all 64 Round 1 matches right! What I'm trying to do is index the actual difficult of each match to their individual score. I'm referring to rounds because points vary by round, but what I want is to adjust the scoring per match, not the scoring per round. You could, in the same vein, say each match should have equal weight, and that would be as arbitrary as saying each round having equal weight! Instead, I'm trying to calculate the score proportional to the daverage difficulty of getting the match right, to get a scoring system that is better indexed to skill. --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939358963] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>NFUN posted... </cite> <quote>you keep saying "round" instead of "match". the current system is designed around each round having equal weight, which affects the relative importance of individual matches</quote> And if that's the case then it does not accurately reflect the difficulty in getting each point, since predicting Link will win in the finals is not as easy as predicting all 64 Round 1 matches right! What I'm trying to do is index the actual difficult of each match to their individual score. I'm referring to rounds because points vary by round, but what I want is to adjust the scoring per match, not the scoring per round. You could, in the same vein, say each match should have equal weight, and that would be as arbitrary as saying each round having equal weight! Instead, I'm trying to calculate the score proportional to the daverage difficulty of getting the match right, to get a scoring system that is better indexed to skill. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/18/20 6:46:16 PM #6:	Seanchan posted... Since all the guru brackets are out there for analysis, what's their difference in results using your proposed system? I'll see if I can calculate that later, since it will take a lot more manual labor than copying the %s from the standing pages (since the guru site doesn't list the winner %s in a structured way, just the %s per pick) --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939359163] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Seanchan posted... </cite> <quote>Since all the guru brackets are out there for analysis, what's their difference in results using your proposed system?</quote> I'll see if I can calculate that later, since it will take a lot more manual labor than copying the %s from the standing pages (since the guru site doesn't list the winner %s in a structured way, just the %s per pick) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Keltiq 05/18/20 7:55:49 PM #7:	I like this idea a lot. I definitely approve of some sort of scoring reform, and this is a good direction to come at it from. --- Heap your praises upon the Guru of Gurus, azuarc! Ultimate champion of Game of the Decade 2! <cite>Keltiq posted [p:939362109] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I like this idea a lot. I definitely approve of some sort of scoring reform, and this is a good direction to come at it from. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GildedFool 05/18/20 8:45:39 PM #8:	What does averaging all the contests together look like? --- https://i.imgtc.com/tP0gkiQ.png <cite>GildedFool posted [p:939364348] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>What does averaging all the contests together look like? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/18/20 9:53:20 PM #9:	GildedFool posted... What does averaging all the contests together look like? Ok that doesn't take as much manual labor. I'll post it this week and see what we get. --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939367495] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>GildedFool posted... </cite> <quote>What does averaging all the contests together look like?</quote> Ok that doesn't take as much manual labor. I'll post it this week and see what we get. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 05/18/20 10:34:25 PM #10:	Very interesting analysis! --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:939369291] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Very interesting analysis! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Haste_2 05/18/20 11:43:17 PM #11:	I like these ideas. --- Congrats to azuarc for winning the Guru challenge! <cite>Haste_2 posted [p:939372123] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I like these ideas. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 05/18/20 11:49:04 PM #12:	Should just go with the Oracle system for every match! Including the penalty for incorrect versus a flat out 0 like the second chance bracket has <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:939372340] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Should just go with the Oracle system for every match! Including the penalty for incorrect versus a flat out 0 like the second chance bracket has </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Joelypoely 05/19/20 3:27:20 AM #13:	Keltiq posted... I like this idea a lot. I definitely approve of some sort of scoring reform, and this is a good direction to come at it from. --- https://philoetryblog.wordpress.com/ <cite>Joelypoely posted [p:939378729] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Keltiq posted...</cite> <quote>I like this idea a lot. I definitely approve of some sort of scoring reform, and this is a good direction to come at it from. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#14	Post #14 was unavailable or deleted.
ctesjbuvf 05/19/20 6:01:32 AM #15:	I think it's interesting to see it highlighted through prediction percentages how much more important it is to get later matches right than early matches. No one is actually arguing that rounds should be worth the same, just that the number of possible entries divided by two format has issues. --- Guinness Book of World Records is the name of the diary that belongs to azuarc, the winner of the Game of the Decade II guru contest. <cite>ctesjbuvf posted [p:939381404] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I think it's interesting to see it highlighted through prediction percentages how much more important it is to get later matches right than early matches. No one is actually arguing that rounds should be worth the same, just that the number of possible entries divided by two format has issues. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vlado 05/19/20 6:17:07 AM #16:	ZeldaTPLink posted... someone who did very well in early rounds would lose to someone who did not but who got a single great upset in the later rounds. We have seen that in this contest with the Skyrim vs Witcher match, whose 32 point prize made entire early rounds pointless. Witcher being stronger than Skyrim was not an upset, it was just as obvious as Zelda winning the contest. --- Blitzball fan? Try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES! *Best game reviews: http://betweenlifeandgames.com* <cite>Vlado posted [p:939381667] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>ZeldaTPLink posted... </cite> <quote>someone who did very well in early rounds would lose to someone who did not but who got a single great upset in the later rounds. We have seen that in this contest with the Skyrim vs Witcher match, whose 32 point prize made entire early rounds pointless.</quote>Witcher being stronger than Skyrim was not an upset, it was just as obvious as Zelda winning the contest. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Seanchan 05/19/20 6:47:29 AM #17:	Vlado posted... Witcher being stronger than Skyrim was not an upset, it was just as obvious as Zelda winning the contest. WHAT?!? That's some revisionist history right there. Skyrim was favored by the Gurus before the contest. It was only after the first round or two that Witcher's path became "obvious". --- "That was unnecessarily dramatic". - NY Mets motto (courtesy of InnerTubeHero) Congratulations to azuarc, the guru of gurus and winner of GotD 2020! <cite>Seanchan posted [p:939382158] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Vlado posted... </cite> <quote>Witcher being stronger than Skyrim was not an upset, it was just as obvious as Zelda winning the contest.</quote> WHAT?!? That's some revisionist history right there. Skyrim was favored by the Gurus before the contest. It was only after the first round or two that Witcher's path became "obvious". </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 05/19/20 6:54:11 AM #18:	Seanchan posted... That's some revisionist history right there Ah I see you've met vloldo --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:939382267] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Seanchan posted... </cite> <quote>That's some revisionist history right there</quote>Ah I see you've met vloldo </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 05/19/20 7:00:26 AM #19:	The idea I threw out for this a few years ago (which I still like) is Fibonacci scoring (e.g. matches in round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... would be worth 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc points). This is still exponential (the ratio between point values of matches in successive rounds very quickly converges to ~1.61), but goes up slower than powers of 2 and you still get integer point values. --- Congrats to azuarc, GotD2 Guru champ! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:939382393] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>The idea I threw out for this a few years ago (which I still like) is Fibonacci scoring (e.g. matches in round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... would be worth 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc points). This is still exponential (the ratio between point values of matches in successive rounds very quickly converges to ~1.61), but goes up slower than powers of 2 and you still get integer point values. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vlado 05/19/20 7:39:03 AM #20:	Seanchan posted... Skyrim was favored by the Gurus before the contest. Not my fault "gurus" couldn't see the obvious. Just checked and if I had gone cookie-cutter with Witcher in the final, I would've ended with 400 points and on that leaderboard, too. And I had some terrible picks outside of Witcher's path, like Kingdom Hearts III winning its division. WTF. --- Blitzball fan? Try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES! *Best game reviews: http://betweenlifeandgames.com* <cite>Vlado posted [p:939383012] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Seanchan posted... </cite> <quote>Skyrim was favored by the Gurus before the contest.</quote>Not my fault "gurus" couldn't see the obvious. Just checked and if I had gone cookie-cutter with Witcher in the final, I would've ended with 400 points and on that leaderboard, too. And I had some terrible picks outside of Witcher's path, like Kingdom Hearts III winning its division. WTF. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 05/19/20 8:18:22 AM #21:	i wish vlado had shared this knowledge of witcher 3 > skyrim being super obvious before the contest. if i'd known that, i would have won! --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:939383834] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>i wish vlado had shared this knowledge of witcher 3 > skyrim being super obvious before the contest. if i'd known that, i would have won! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PostContestUlti 05/19/20 9:23:56 AM #22:	ctesjbuvf posted... I think it's interesting to see it highlighted through prediction percentages how much more important it is to get later matches right than early matches. No one is actually arguing that rounds should be worth the same, just that the number of possible entries divided by two format has issues. The prediction percentage on Octopath Traveler > Undertale is almost identical to picking Witcher 3 to make the final. As someone who picked the first and missed the second one, it's patently absurd to suggest I deserve the same credit as people who picked the most important match of the contest right. --- https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page <cite>PostContestUlti posted [p:939385604] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>ctesjbuvf posted... </cite> <quote>I think it's interesting to see it highlighted through prediction percentages how much more important it is to get later matches right than early matches. No one is actually arguing that rounds should be worth the same, just that the number of possible entries divided by two format has issues.</quote>The prediction percentage on Octopath Traveler > Undertale is almost identical to picking Witcher 3 to make the final. As someone who picked the first and missed the second one, it's patently absurd to suggest I deserve the same credit as people who picked the most important match of the contest right. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/19/20 9:27:37 AM #23:	Actually what you posted is a great example of why early matches should be worth more, since calling Undertale to lose is as hard as calling Skyrim to lose. The fact many people called that and yet it barely mattered in the grand scheme of things shows why the current scoring system is broken. Thanks for providing another example, Ulti! --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939385708] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Actually what you posted is a great example of why early matches should be worth more, since calling Undertale to lose is as hard as calling Skyrim to lose. The fact many people called that and yet it barely mattered in the grand scheme of things shows why the current scoring system is broken. Thanks for providing another example, Ulti! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PostContestUlti 05/19/20 9:37:01 AM #24:	Fail trolling is fail, as is typical of the Discord clique. It is not a good example, since in the latter you have to correctly choose the path of two games through five rounds before they see each other, and then get the actual match right. Claiming any match in round one should matter as much as a match in round six in a seeded bracket tournament is just hilariously dumb. The problem this year was not the scoring system. It was having an incredibly obvious overall winner. This entire idea falls flat on its face in a contest where the winner isn't obvious. Hell if you just remove Zelda this year, picks for the overall winner would be spread out all over the place. Thankfully Allen would never implement something so stupid in the main scoring system. This would maybe be secondary, but I doubt it. The idea you're looking for is bringing the battle bracket win streaks back, which was really neat and never should have gone away. LordoftheMorons posted... The idea I threw out for this a few years ago (which I still like) is Fibonacci scoring (e.g. matches in round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... would be worth 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc points). This is still exponential (the ratio between point values of matches in successive rounds very quickly converges to ~1.61), but goes up slower than powers of 2 and you still get integer point values. This is not the worst idea. --- https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page <cite>PostContestUlti posted [p:939385995] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Fail trolling is fail, as is typical of the Discord clique. It is not a good example, since in the latter you have to correctly choose the path of two games through five rounds before they see each other, and then get the actual match right. Claiming any match in round one should matter as much as a match in round six in a seeded bracket tournament is just hilariously dumb. The problem this year was not the scoring system. It was having an incredibly obvious overall winner. This entire idea falls flat on its face in a contest where the winner isn't obvious. Hell if you just remove Zelda this year, picks for the overall winner would be spread out all over the place. Thankfully Allen would never implement something so stupid in the main scoring system. This would maybe be secondary, but I doubt it. The idea you're looking for is bringing the battle bracket win streaks back, which was really neat and never should have gone away. LordoftheMorons posted... </cite> <quote>The idea I threw out for this a few years ago (which I still like) is Fibonacci scoring (e.g. matches in round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... would be worth 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc points). This is still exponential (the ratio between point values of matches in successive rounds very quickly converges to ~1.61), but goes up slower than powers of 2 and you still get integer point values.</quote>This is not the worst idea. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Steiner 05/19/20 9:41:50 AM #25:	UltimaterializerX posted... The scoring is fine, and is based on the NCAAs. An early round match having the same weight as the semifinals and finals is just unbelievably dumb. Im not surprised this sort of nonsense came from the Board 8 Discord server, either, because low T men have been coming up with bad ideas all around since the coronavirus quarantine started. ulti, please stop tying every little thing that happens anywhere in the world on any subject into your stupid little worldview. --- Advokaiser makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion. <cite>Steiner posted [p:939386167] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>UltimaterializerX posted... </cite> <quote>The scoring is fine, and is based on the NCAAs. An early round match having the same weight as the semifinals and finals is just unbelievably dumb. Im not surprised this sort of nonsense came from the Board 8 Discord server, either, because low T men have been coming up with bad ideas all around since the coronavirus quarantine started.</quote> ulti, please stop tying every little thing that happens anywhere in the world on any subject into your stupid little worldview. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Steiner 05/19/20 9:42:13 AM #26:	Steiner posted... ulti, please stop tying every little thing that happens anywhere in the world on any subject into your stupid little worldview. actually never mind i'm never gonna see one of your posts again so do whatever --- Advokaiser makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion. <cite>Steiner posted [p:939386189] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Steiner posted... </cite> <quote>ulti, please stop tying every little thing that happens anywhere in the world on any subject into your stupid little worldview.</quote> actually never mind i'm never gonna see one of your posts again so do whatever </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 05/19/20 9:47:08 AM #27:	The contest has 127 matches Calling the correct 2 finalists and getting the winner correct is worth 200 points (13 matches / 10.23% of the contest) Calling the first 3 rounds perfectly is worth 192 points (112 matches / 88.18% of the contest) It is pretty obvious that whilst later rounds should be worth more, they should not be worth that much more. Calling 112 matches in a row correct is significantly more difficult that calling the correct 2 finalists and winner. We have the prediction percentages so someone could run the numbers if they wanted but even when we have an unexpected finalist, I'm sure the chances of getting 2 finalists and the winner right are way higher than the chances of getting the first 112 matches correct. <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:939386347] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>The contest has 127 matches Calling the correct 2 finalists and getting the winner correct is worth 200 points (13 matches / 10.23% of the contest) Calling the first 3 rounds perfectly is worth 192 points (112 matches / 88.18% of the contest) It is pretty obvious that whilst later rounds should be worth more, they should not be worth that much more. Calling 112 matches in a row correct is significantly more difficult that calling the correct 2 finalists and winner. We have the prediction percentages so someone could run the numbers if they wanted but even when we have an unexpected finalist, I'm sure the chances of getting 2 finalists and the winner right are way higher than the chances of getting the first 112 matches correct. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Seanchan 05/19/20 9:51:00 AM #28:	Battle bracket was cool and should definitely come back again. Part of this comes down to whether the seeding is "correct". A first round match could be the most important match if, for (an extreme) example, it was Zelda vs Witcher in Round 1. The winner then trounces the rest of the field. You pick that match wrong, you're fucked, even though it's "only" a Round 1 match. --- "That was unnecessarily dramatic". - NY Mets motto (courtesy of InnerTubeHero) Congratulations to azuarc, the guru of gurus and winner of GotD 2020! <cite>Seanchan posted [p:939386460] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Battle bracket was cool and should definitely come back again. Part of this comes down to whether the seeding is "correct". A first round match could be the most important match if, for (an extreme) example, it was Zelda vs Witcher in Round 1. The winner then trounces the rest of the field. You pick that match wrong, you're fucked, even though it's "only" a Round 1 match. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShadowDoomBlaze 05/19/20 9:54:36 AM #30:	Steiner posted... ulti, please stop tying every little thing that happens anywhere in the world on any subject into your stupid little worldview. LOL Steiner. Grow up. That stuff works both ways, not that you're mature enough to have figured this out yet. There are people in your personal life who bailed on you over your maturity issues, yet here you are still trolling a dead gaming forum like I'm supposed to be impressed. Weren't you also the guy dumb enough to think I actually committed account suicide? But hey, go hang out in an exclusionary gaming chat room loaded with dudes in their 30s who still live at home with their parents. That'll help you be a man for sure. There are some good people in there, but not many, and it's not like your typical garbage is preventing me from seeing what I need to in there anyway ;) <cite>ShadowDoomBlaze posted [p:939386578] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Steiner posted... </cite> <quote>ulti, please stop tying every little thing that happens anywhere in the world on any subject into your stupid little worldview.</quote>LOL Steiner. Grow up. That stuff works both ways, not that you're mature enough to have figured this out yet. There are people in your personal life who bailed on you over your maturity issues, yet here you are still trolling a dead gaming forum like I'm supposed to be impressed. Weren't you also the guy dumb enough to think I actually committed account suicide? But hey, go hang out in an exclusionary gaming chat room loaded with dudes in their 30s who still live at home with their parents. That'll help you be a man for sure. There are some good people in there, but not many, and it's not like your typical garbage is preventing me from seeing what I need to in there anyway ;) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Steiner 05/19/20 10:01:03 AM #31:	ShadowDoomBlaze posted... There are people in your personal life who bailed on you over your maturity issues what --- Advokaiser makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion. <cite>Steiner posted [p:939386816] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>ShadowDoomBlaze posted... </cite> <quote>There are people in your personal life who bailed on you over your maturity issues</quote> what </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hylianknight3 05/19/20 10:01:47 AM #32:	I am a huge fan of the Fibonacci scoring proposal. Strikes a good balance! --- The azuarc of the contest universe is long, but it bends toward Guruship. <cite>hylianknight3 posted [p:939386843] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I am a huge fan of the Fibonacci scoring proposal. Strikes a good balance! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/19/20 10:07:53 AM #33:	You people can stop using my analysis thread to throw shit at each other, or I can block you all to make you stop throwing shit at each other. Pick one. Disagreeing with me is fine and well, but I don't care about any of your interpersonal drama. --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939387045] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>You people can stop using my analysis thread to throw shit at each other, or I can block you all to make you stop throwing shit at each other. Pick one. Disagreeing with me is fine and well, but I don't care about any of your interpersonal drama. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PostContestUlti 05/19/20 10:08:04 AM #34:	hylianknight3 posted... I am a huge fan of the Fibonacci scoring proposal. Strikes a good balance! It seriously isn't the worst idea. It's way better than basing it on prediction percentage, which is just dumb given all the alts, trolling, zero brackets, favorites brackets, and everything else. --- https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page <cite>PostContestUlti posted [p:939387048] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>hylianknight3 posted... </cite> <quote>I am a huge fan of the Fibonacci scoring proposal. Strikes a good balance!</quote>It seriously isn't the worst idea. It's way better than basing it on prediction percentage, which is just dumb given all the alts, trolling, zero brackets, favorites brackets, and everything else. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PostContestUlti 05/19/20 10:09:14 AM #35:	ZeldaTPLink posted... You people can stop using my analysis thread to throw shit at each other, or I can block you all to make you stop throwing shit at each other. Pick one. Disagreeing with me is fine and well, but I don't care about any of your interpersonal drama. I have every right to defend myself if someone attacks me for literally no reason off-topic. --- https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page <cite>PostContestUlti posted [p:939387083] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>ZeldaTPLink posted... </cite> <quote>You people can stop using my analysis thread to throw shit at each other, or I can block you all to make you stop throwing shit at each other. Pick one. Disagreeing with me is fine and well, but I don't care about any of your interpersonal drama.</quote>I have every right to defend myself if someone attacks me for literally no reason off-topic. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 05/19/20 10:13:06 AM #36:	ZeldaTPLink posted... You people can stop using my analysis thread to throw shit at each other, or I can block you all to make you stop throwing shit at each other. how does that work people can still post in your topic even if you block them --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:939387212] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>ZeldaTPLink posted... </cite> <quote>You people can stop using my analysis thread to throw shit at each other, or I can block you all to make you stop throwing shit at each other.</quote> how does that work people can still post in your topic even if you block them </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ringworm 05/19/20 10:15:39 AM #37:	I would be interested to see how a scoring system purely based on the prediction percentages would work. Have a pool of say 10,000 points per match available, this pool get divided by the amount of people picking the match correctly and that's how much the match is worth. As an example, lets say there are 10,000 entries and 10,000 points available per match (to keep the maths simple). Match 1, 8,000 people predict correctly. This match would be worth (10,0000 / 8,000) or 1.25 pts. Match 2 is an upset which only 2,000 predict. This would be worth 5 pts (10,000 / 2,000). You could still have later rounds worth more points by increasing the total points per match (say 10K for Rd 1, 20K Rd 2, 30K Rd 3 etc). I know this will never happen. I would be interested to know if someone who had traditionally won would have been beaten by someone who tipped more upsets correctly though. As an example, would anyone have beaten Azuarc, who went near perfect from Rd 3 onwards this contest, by picking up enough points in the earlier rounds in the matches he missed (and also correctly predicting enough later round matches)? I would say it's possible, but I wouldn't expect many people would have managed it in this last contest. Probably much more likely in contests with an upset winner, such as L-block, Draven or Undertale. Edit: I know there's issues with a system like this, especially with people entering zero brackets etc. It'd balance out. --- ~ Ringworm ~ Congrats to azuarc - Guru champion - GotD <cite>Ringworm posted [p:939387304] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I would be interested to see how a scoring system purely based on the prediction percentages would work. Have a pool of say 10,000 points per match available, this pool get divided by the amount of people picking the match correctly and that's how much the match is worth. As an example, lets say there are 10,000 entries and 10,000 points available per match (to keep the maths simple). Match 1, 8,000 people predict correctly. This match would be worth (10,0000 / 8,000) or 1.25 pts. Match 2 is an upset which only 2,000 predict. This would be worth 5 pts (10,000 / 2,000). You could still have later rounds worth more points by increasing the total points per match (say 10K for Rd 1, 20K Rd 2, 30K Rd 3 etc). I know this will never happen. I would be interested to know if someone who had traditionally won would have been beaten by someone who tipped more upsets correctly though. As an example, would anyone have beaten Azuarc, who went near perfect from Rd 3 onwards this contest, by picking up enough points in the earlier rounds in the matches he missed (and also correctly predicting enough later round matches)? I would say it's possible, but I wouldn't expect many people would have managed it in this last contest. Probably much more likely in contests with an upset winner, such as L-block, Draven or Undertale. Edit: I know there's issues with a system like this, especially with people entering zero brackets etc. It'd balance out. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GildedFool 05/19/20 10:17:10 AM #38:	PostContestUlti posted... I have every right to defend myself if someone attacks me for literally no reason off-topic. You literally wandered in here to shit on an idea with the phrase "Im not surprised this sort of nonsense came from the Board 8 Discord server, either, because (they're) low T men". And you're the one defending yourself? --- https://i.imgtc.com/tP0gkiQ.png <cite>GildedFool posted [p:939387355] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>PostContestUlti posted... </cite> <quote>I have every right to defend myself if someone attacks me for literally no reason off-topic.</quote>You literally wandered in here to shit on an idea with the phrase "Im not surprised this sort of nonsense came from the Board 8 Discord server, either, because (they're) low T men". And you're the one defending yourself? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/19/20 10:17:27 AM #39:	Mr Lasastryke posted... how does that work people can still post in your topic even if you block them Hmm I thought I could ban them from posting in my thread, but I can only ban them from seeing my thread it seems. --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939387369] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Mr Lasastryke posted... </cite> <quote>how does that work people can still post in your topic even if you block them</quote> Hmm I thought I could ban them from posting in my thread, but I can only ban them from seeing my thread it seems. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RPGlord95 05/19/20 10:18:27 AM #40:	I am fairly certain most of the discord are not 30 year old men living with their parents. Just Luster --- Whiskey Nick on his cell phone "Every man's heart one day beats its final beat." -Warrior <cite>RPGlord95 posted [p:939387401] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I am fairly certain most of the discord are not 30 year old men living with their parents. Just Luster </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PostContestUlti 05/19/20 10:20:27 AM #41:	GildedFool posted... You literally wandered in here to shit on an idea with the phrase "Im not surprised this sort of nonsense came from the Board 8 Discord server, either, because (they're) low T men". And you're the one defending yourself? You people have been trolling me for literally years while I've said barely anything, so yes. I'm not even in there anymore and you people still bitch about me on a regular basis. Do you honestly think I don't see what's in that chat? By the way, low T men is a statement of fact and hardly an insult. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. --- https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page <cite>PostContestUlti posted [p:939387477] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>GildedFool posted... </cite> <quote>You literally wandered in here to shit on an idea with the phrase "Im not surprised this sort of nonsense came from the Board 8 Discord server, either, because (they're) low T men". And you're the one defending yourself?</quote>You people have been trolling me for literally years while I've said barely anything, so yes. I'm not even in there anymore and you people still bitch about me on a regular basis. Do you honestly think I don't see what's in that chat? By the way, low T men is a statement of fact and hardly an insult. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 05/19/20 10:21:21 AM #42:	Some permutations 1 > 2 > 3 > 5 > 8 > 13 > 21 Perfect score = 295 points Correct final 2 and winner = 85 points / 28.8% of possible points Correct winner only = 53 points / 18% of possible points 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 Perfect score = 247 points Correct final 2 and winner = 49 points / 19.8% of possible points Correct winner only = 28 points / 11.3% of possible points 1 > 2 > 4 > 6 > 8 > 10 > 12 Perfect score = 304 points Correct final 2 and winner = 74 points / 24.3% of possible points Correct winner only = 43 points / 14.1% of possible points 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8 Perfect score = 312 points Correct final 2 and winner = 70 points / 22.4% of possible points Correct winner only = 39 points / 12.5% of possible points 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 > 32 > 64 Perfect score = 448 Correct final 2 and winner = 200 points / 44.6% of possible points Correct winner only = 127 points / 28.3% of possible points How much of the max possible points do you want calling the winner to be worth? <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:939387516] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Some permutations 1 > 2 > 3 > 5 > 8 > 13 > 21 Perfect score = 295 points Correct final 2 and winner = 85 points / 28.8% of possible points Correct winner only = 53 points / 18% of possible points 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 Perfect score = 247 points Correct final 2 and winner = 49 points / 19.8% of possible points Correct winner only = 28 points / 11.3% of possible points 1 > 2 > 4 > 6 > 8 > 10 > 12 Perfect score = 304 points Correct final 2 and winner = 74 points / 24.3% of possible points Correct winner only = 43 points / 14.1% of possible points 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8 Perfect score = 312 points Correct final 2 and winner = 70 points / 22.4% of possible points Correct winner only = 39 points / 12.5% of possible points 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 16 > 32 > 64 Perfect score = 448 Correct final 2 and winner = 200 points / 44.6% of possible points Correct winner only = 127 points / 28.3% of possible points How much of the max possible points do you want calling the winner to be worth? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GildedFool 05/19/20 10:23:30 AM #43:	So you've got an alt in discord. No-one cares. Yes. People that don't like you will still talk about you behind your back when they have to deal with you, or perceive you saying something dumb on the board. That doesn't mean insulting everyone on discord every time any of the 150+ people on discord make a comment you disagree with counts as defending yourself. --- https://i.imgtc.com/tP0gkiQ.png <cite>GildedFool posted [p:939387588] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>So you've got an alt in discord. No-one cares. Yes. People that don't like you will still talk about you behind your back when they have to deal with you, or perceive you saying something dumb on the board. That doesn't mean insulting everyone on discord every time any of the 150+ people on discord make a comment you disagree with counts as defending yourself. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ninkendo 05/19/20 10:24:03 AM #44:	I am 100% a low T man my doctor even says so --- https://imgtc.com/i/iJnhdkc.gif https://imgtc.com/i/j45EVGx.png <cite>ninkendo posted [p:939387622] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>I am 100% a low T man my doctor even says so </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GildedFool 05/19/20 10:25:32 AM #45:	And unless you've tested discorders yourself, defining anyone as low T is not a statement of fact is it? --- https://i.imgtc.com/tP0gkiQ.png <cite>GildedFool posted [p:939387671] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>And unless you've tested discorders yourself, defining anyone as low T is not a statement of fact is it? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Steiner 05/19/20 10:28:42 AM #46:	all i ever do is insult people unprovoked, why won't they be my friend after 15 years of it :( --- Advokaiser makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion. <cite>Steiner posted [p:939387771] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>all i ever do is insult people unprovoked, why won't they be my friend after 15 years of it :( </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Steiner 05/19/20 10:30:04 AM #47:	bro i swear bro, look it's me your friend bro, i just want to chat and chill with my homies and pals in the discord who i've been nothing but an agitator to for 15 years. come on steiner bro it's me your old pal ulti. i'm begghing on my hands nd knees, an old guy like me just needs his gamer bros, you know so please unban me so i can talk about the video game contests and my enormous t-levels, please bro --- Advokaiser makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion. <cite>Steiner posted [p:939387822] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>bro i swear bro, look it's me your friend bro, i just want to chat and chill with my homies and pals in the discord who i've been nothing but an agitator to for 15 years. come on steiner bro it's me your old pal ulti. i'm begghing on my hands nd knees, an old guy like me just needs his gamer bros, you know so please unban me so i can talk about the video game contests and my enormous t-levels, please bro </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Steiner 05/19/20 10:30:57 AM #48:	maybe i'll actually open the second dm he sent me begging to be allowed to chat in the discord server with his pals now --- Advokaiser makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion. <cite>Steiner posted [p:939387853] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>maybe i'll actually open the second dm he sent me begging to be allowed to chat in the discord server with his pals now </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/19/20 10:32:55 AM #49:	Ok I've decided to do this for the rest of the contests. We are going to do it from the most recent to the oldest. First, CBX: Hmm that is a lot to unpack. The first four rounds have very similar scorings to GotD1, which suggests my hunch of taking it as the standard was a good one. The later rounds, though, can't really compare to anything else though, due to Legends/Losers structure. Looking at it, we can see "Round 5" showed a drop in difficulty, due to the possibility of just betting on noble niners to win everything (which worked except for Pikachu and Zeld matches). The next two rounds show a fibonacci-like increase of difficulty (yes, I second on the Fibonacci idea being great). The last legends bracket seems another drop, thanks to Link. Losers matches are worth 8, but we can see they maybe should have been worth 4. The final Link match is only twice as hard as Round 1 ones, which seems to be a global trend. In a given contest, about 30-40% of casual bracket makers will correctly identify the Zelda entry that is guaranteed to win. Best Year in Gaming only has one format weirdness, the Wildcards round. I decided to keep Round 1 as the normal instead, so we can see Wildcards is worth about 80% of it (due to having obvious blowouts between old years). The rest is actually pretty smooth. Years is one of the chalkier brackets, but aside from, again, the finals, it shows a soft progression (1.3, 1.4, 1.4). Not much that I can compare with other contests: not only it's a 5-round contest so round 1 should be intrinsecally more valuable than usual, but it's also fucking Years. Moving on. So it seems Character Battle 2013 doesn't have prediction % data in the site. This sucks, because I wanted to see how much the Draven picks were worth. Someone feel free to provide them to me if they have it. Let's go to Rivals, then. Eh this one is all over the place. I wasn't around at the time of Rivals though, so I don't really know how to explain it. It seems every round after the first one is worth roughly 1.3, until we get to the Link finals which again, is worth about 2. I think this is another very chalky contest though, so it makes sense for numbers to be lower, and the wonkiness could just be the normal statistical deviation. And with this I think I covered the whole decade, except for 2013. I'll cover the previous decade later this week. --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939387918] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Ok I've decided to do this for the rest of the contests. We are going to do it from the most recent to the oldest. First, CBX: Hmm that is a lot to unpack. The first four rounds have very similar scorings to GotD1, which suggests my hunch of taking it as the standard was a good one. The later rounds, though, can't really compare to anything else though, due to Legends/Losers structure. Looking at it, we can see "Round 5" showed a drop in difficulty, due to the possibility of just betting on noble niners to win everything (which worked except for Pikachu and Zeld matches). The next two rounds show a fibonacci-like increase of difficulty (yes, I second on the Fibonacci idea being great). The last legends bracket seems another drop, thanks to Link. Losers matches are worth 8, but we can see they maybe should have been worth 4. The final Link match is only twice as hard as Round 1 ones, which seems to be a global trend. In a given contest, about 30-40% of casual bracket makers will correctly identify the Zelda entry that is guaranteed to win. Best Year in Gaming only has one format weirdness, the Wildcards round. I decided to keep Round 1 as the normal instead, so we can see Wildcards is worth about 80% of it (due to having obvious blowouts between old years). The rest is actually pretty smooth. Years is one of the chalkier brackets, but aside from, again, the finals, it shows a soft progression (1.3, 1.4, 1.4). Not much that I can compare with other contests: not only it's a 5-round contest so round 1 should be intrinsecally more valuable than usual, but it's also fucking Years. Moving on. So it seems Character Battle 2013 doesn't have prediction % data in the site. This sucks, because I wanted to see how much the Draven picks were worth. Someone feel free to provide them to me if they have it. Let's go to Rivals, then. Eh this one is all over the place. I wasn't around at the time of Rivals though, so I don't really know how to explain it. It seems every round after the first one is worth roughly 1.3, until we get to the Link finals which again, is worth about 2. I think this is another very chalky contest though, so it makes sense for numbers to be lower, and the wonkiness could just be the normal statistical deviation. And with this I think I covered the whole decade, except for 2013. I'll cover the previous decade later this week. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ninkendo 05/19/20 10:33:21 AM #50:	ZeldaTPLink posted... Ok I've decided to do this for the rest of the contests. We are going to do it from the most recent to the oldest. First, CBX: Hmm that is a lot to unpack. The first four rounds have very similar scorings to GotD1, which suggests my hunch of taking it as the standard was a good one. The later rounds, though, can't really compare to anything else though, due to Legends/Losers structure. Looking at it, we can see "Round 5" showed a drop in difficulty, due to the possibility of just betting on noble niners to win everything (which worked except for Pikachu and Zeld matches). The next two rounds show a fibonacci-like increase of difficulty (yes, I second on the Fibonacci idea being great). The last legends bracket seems another drop, thanks to Link. Losers matches are worth 8, but we can see they maybe should have been worth 4. The final Link match is only twice as hard as Round 1 ones, which seems to be a global trend. In a given contest, about 30-40% of casual bracket makers will correctly identify the Zelda entry that is guaranteed to win. Best Year in Gaming only has one format weirdness, the Wildcards round. I decided to keep Round 1 as the normal instead, so we can see Wildcards is worth about 80% of it (due to having obvious blowouts between old years). The rest is actually pretty smooth. Years is one of the chalkier brackets, but aside from, again, the finals, it shows a soft progression (1.3, 1.4, 1.4). Not much that I can compare with other contests: not only it's a 5-round contest so round 1 should be intrinsecally more valuable than usual, but it's also fucking Years. Moving on. So it seems Character Battle 2013 doesn't have prediction % data in the site. This sucks, because I wanted to see how much the Draven picks were worth. Someone feel free to provide them to me if they have it. Let's go to Rivals, then. Eh this one is all over the place. I wasn't around at the time of Rivals though, so I don't really know how to explain it. It seems every round after the first one is worth roughly 1.3, until we get to the Link finals which again, is worth about 2. I think this is another very chalky contest though, so it makes sense for numbers to be lower, and the wonkiness could just be the normal statistical deviation. And with this I think I covered the whole decade, except for 2013. I'll cover the previous decade later this week. keep up the good work --- https://imgtc.com/i/iJnhdkc.gif https://imgtc.com/i/j45EVGx.png <cite>ninkendo posted [p:939387934] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>ZeldaTPLink posted... </cite> <quote>Ok I've decided to do this for the rest of the contests. We are going to do it from the most recent to the oldest. First, CBX: Hmm that is a lot to unpack. The first four rounds have very similar scorings to GotD1, which suggests my hunch of taking it as the standard was a good one. The later rounds, though, can't really compare to anything else though, due to Legends/Losers structure. Looking at it, we can see "Round 5" showed a drop in difficulty, due to the possibility of just betting on noble niners to win everything (which worked except for Pikachu and Zeld matches). The next two rounds show a fibonacci-like increase of difficulty (yes, I second on the Fibonacci idea being great). The last legends bracket seems another drop, thanks to Link. Losers matches are worth 8, but we can see they maybe should have been worth 4. The final Link match is only twice as hard as Round 1 ones, which seems to be a global trend. In a given contest, about 30-40% of casual bracket makers will correctly identify the Zelda entry that is guaranteed to win. Best Year in Gaming only has one format weirdness, the Wildcards round. I decided to keep Round 1 as the normal instead, so we can see Wildcards is worth about 80% of it (due to having obvious blowouts between old years). The rest is actually pretty smooth. Years is one of the chalkier brackets, but aside from, again, the finals, it shows a soft progression (1.3, 1.4, 1.4). Not much that I can compare with other contests: not only it's a 5-round contest so round 1 should be intrinsecally more valuable than usual, but it's also fucking Years. Moving on. So it seems Character Battle 2013 doesn't have prediction % data in the site. This sucks, because I wanted to see how much the Draven picks were worth. Someone feel free to provide them to me if they have it. Let's go to Rivals, then. Eh this one is all over the place. I wasn't around at the time of Rivals though, so I don't really know how to explain it. It seems every round after the first one is worth roughly 1.3, until we get to the Link finals which again, is worth about 2. I think this is another very chalky contest though, so it makes sense for numbers to be lower, and the wonkiness could just be the normal statistical deviation. And with this I think I covered the whole decade, except for 2013. I'll cover the previous decade later this week.</quote> keep up the good work </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaTPLink 05/19/20 10:39:58 AM #51:	Ringworm posted... I know this will never happen. I would be interested to know if someone who had traditionally won would have been beaten by someone who tipped more upsets correctly though. As an example, would anyone have beaten Azuarc, who went near perfect from Rd 3 onwards this contest, by picking up enough points in the earlier rounds in the matches he missed (and also correctly predicting enough later round matches)? I would say it's possible, but I wouldn't expect many people would have managed it in this last contest. Probably much more likely in contests with an upset winner, such as L-block, Draven or Undertale. It's probably Jonaleon, tbh. --- There is only one Guru of the Decade, and his name is azuarc. Congratulations! <cite>ZeldaTPLink posted [p:939388164] in Adjusting ... [t:78700159]...</cite> <quote>Ringworm posted... </cite> <quote>I know this will never happen. I would be interested to know if someone who had traditionally won would have been beaten by someone who tipped more upsets correctly though. As an example, would anyone have beaten Azuarc, who went near perfect from Rd 3 onwards this contest, by picking up enough points in the earlier rounds in the matches he missed (and also correctly predicting enough later round matches)? I would say it's possible, but I wouldn't expect many people would have managed it in this last contest. Probably much more likely in contests with an upset winner, such as L-block, Draven or Undertale.</quote> It's probably Jonaleon, tbh. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Board 8 > Adjusting the contest scoring system based on prediction percentages (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Adjusting the contest scoring system based on prediction percentages