Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:21 pm
mean(catscore/cattopscore) * 10000
10000 * 0.99^(mean(catscore - cattopscore))
The problem here boils down to one of two scenarios, depending on how want to look at it.
1) This works as intended and SSX 2012 scores just dominate due to more activity related to that game, or
2) The game weighting system we developed has collapsed under an onslaught of SSX 2012 scores.
So, let me explain just what is happening here. SSX 2012 has over 1000 more scores in the database than any other game. It's 224 scores short of having more scores than all the other games combined. This game has significantly more activity than any of the others, which causes it to be weighted more heavily than them in the calculations that factor in the scores over games. The weight of this game is so heavy that Rocklee1113's lack of scores in the other games (which means he is automatically assigned a value of one below than the lowest rank for all those games), cannot offset the boost of his 20ish first place scores in SSX 2012.
Here's a refresher on how the calculations for game weight are currently being performed, so you can see how SSX 2012's impact is manifesting and where we can make changes.
The weighting system we worked out in the past is based on the number of scores for a game and the total number of scores. The math formula is:
- Code:
((n * 100) / s) / 100
where n = number of scores for a game and s = number of total scores.
Currently, there are 3747 total scores (s in the formula). The number of scores per game break down like this:
SSX 3: 753
SSX: 187
SSX Blur: 124
SSX Tricky: 523
SSX On Tour: 398
SSX 2012: 1762
That makes the game weights (from the formula):
SSX 3: 0.20096076861489
SSX: 0.049906591940219
SSX Blur: 0.03309314117961
SSX Tricky: 0.13957832933013
SSX On Tour: 0.10621830797972
SSX 2012: 0.4702428609554
So, SSX 2012's 0.47 weight makes it count more than double the next heaviest game, SSX 3 with a 0.20 weight. SSX 2012 is more than 14 times more important to the calculations that SSX Blur, the game with the fewest total scores.
Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:24 pm
Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:55 pm
DannySeel wrote:EDIT: So, I put this out before you edited it yourself.
SSX 2012 has nearly twice as many scores posted already than all the other games combined with more likely to come (2012=1762, others=1985). Considering not many more scores will be posted for the others and the rough equality between those two statistics, why not make two separate formulas. One for 2012, the other for the rest.
I don't think there is a concrete value to perfect it, but weighing 2012 0.66 and the others 0.33 that would help, I believe. Or to get more technical, I suppose weighing 2012 with 0.75, 3-Tricky-On Tour with 0.5, and SSX-Blur with 0.25.
I am not the best on code and might be wrong here, but wouldn't putting in concrete values in replacement of the formula work. If that is the case, couldn't a like 2 month assessment be made and change possible outliers as needed?
Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:56 pm
If it was up to me I'd have Vix put a poll up that says "Which game(s) do you think should be weighted more when calculating the Scoreboard Overall Honors system?", leave it up for a good long while, then take the percentage calculated from those votes and put them in in place of that code up there.gondee wrote:The weighting system we worked out in the past is based on the number of scores for a game and the total number of scores. The math formula is:
- Code:
((n * 100) / s) / 100
where n = number of scores for a game and s = number of total scores.
Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:11 pm
MarcusAnnex wrote:If it was up to me I'd have Vix put a poll up that says "Which game(s) do you think should be weighted more when calculating the Scoreboard Overall Honors system?", leave it up for a good long while, then take the percentage calculated from those votes and put them in in place of that code up there.
Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:16 pm
Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:18 pm
RalphBattle wrote:Find some way to weight each game evenly by number of tracks?
Like SSX3 has 20 events, but SSX 2012 has what, 150? Each track in SSX3 needs to be worth 6 or 7x what each track in SSX2012 is worth..,
Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:44 pm
Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:49 pm
MarcusAnnex wrote:Hmmmmm....
What's your objection to them all being a weighted value of 1? I'm not proposing it, but your answer could spark some ideas maybe.
Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:33 pm
n / s
(n / s + 1 / g) / 2
GAME OLD NEW
SSX 3 20.1% 18.4%
SSX 5.0% 10.8%
SSX Blur 3.3% 10.0%
SSX Tricky 14.0% 15.3%
SSX On Tour 10.6% 13.6%
SSX 2012 47.0% 31.8%
SquareRoot(n) / SquareRoot(s)
GAME OLD NEW SQRT
SSX 3 20.1% 18.4% 20.0%
SSX 5.0% 10.8% 10.0%
SSX Blur 3.3% 10.0% 8.1%
SSX Tricky 14.0% 15.3% 16.7%
SSX On Tour 10.6% 13.6% 14.6%
SSX 2012 47.0% 31.8% 30.6%
Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:01 am
Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:10 am
Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:19 am
Rocklee1113 wrote:I just read everything going on here, and i cant say i fully understood it all. Some new things turned up on my score honors like overall #1 n best #2 hadnt ever noticed that. Is there a possibility to just take the titles from me? Or even if i have to delete my file to fix it, because i know im not the best at this game BUT i mean id be more than happy to do that. I apologize if my topic gets side tracked but why not just keep fixing the source than worryin about those numberss haha. U lost most of me after n + x = 0.776875 or whatever it was.
Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:08 pm
1 + (Sc - µSc) / σ
1 + (µSc - Sc) / σ
1000 * 2 ^ (Scores / Tracks)
Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:29 pm
THAT'S WHAT I SAID!!iTofu wrote:It's a good idea. I'm going to type out your formula, because it definitely could be explained more clearly. lolClick to reveal hidden content: show
Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:50 am
10 points to the person at the number 1 spot for any drop on any game
9 points to the person at the number 2 spot for any drop on any game
...
...
...
...
1 point to the person at the number 10 spot for any drop on any game
All the points are added together for that game and the person with the highest points is the best?
All the points are added together for all games combined and the person with the highest points is the best?
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:15 am
Clawz114 wrote:I've read this all and I get the general idea of how the system works, but I don't get why it needs to be so complex. Forgive me if I have missed something or if this is just absolutely ridiculous but why can't you just do the following,
- 1st place = 10 points... | Click to reveal hidden content
There must be a reason why it can't be this simple otherwise it would have been done, but can someone explain why?
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:46 am
ticklemeozmo wrote:It doesn't really show the magnitude of the greatness. For example, Rocklee would simply get 1 more point than the second place person. The problem with addition/subtraction is that it treats every score as being equal, which in RockLee's case, is not true. If I scored a MILLION meters and over 2 standard deviations higher than mean, I'd want it to be worth more! Each race has a theoretical minimum, even if you start at 300m/s+ and fly in perfectly straight to the end (think jet plane), you still CANNOT complete Serenity any faster than 2 mins. (I didn't do the math, it's just an example). If someone squeaks out of second closer to that theoretical minimum, it should be worth however much that new score is AWAY from the group, not just "one more point".
The standard deviation calculation allows for the acknowledgement of someone's GREATNESS on a track by having a (subdued) multiplier. Therefore, the farther you are AWAY from the group, the better your score is PERCEIVED.
If I beat the number 2 person on 150 drops, by 0.01 meters (or 1 point, or 0.01 seconds), my score with addition and subtraction is 150 points greater, and in order to beat me, you'd have to beat me 150 times. That's a VERY hard feat for such a small margin to win. It's out of proportion. With the STDDEV, my score would be only MINIMALLY higher (probably about 0.1 points higher). So that if the number 2 person, beat me by a LOT on a handful of tracks, it would weigh heavier, and he'd be number 1 by a very small margin.
The person with the MOST #1s isn't the best, it's the person who whips the MOST ass.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:03 am
Clawz114 wrote:However I'd just like to add that for example, in Formula 1 racing, the person who finishes 1st place gets the same amount of points whether he is 0.01 seconds faster than 2nd or 10 minutes faster than 2nd.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:00 pm
ticklemeozmo wrote:1000 years ago we thought the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years later we thought the earth was flat, and there are still people to this day that believe both, but smarter people know better.
Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:52 pm
Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:38 pm
Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:43 pm
This should be your tagline on the forums.TrickyEmu wrote:I don't really have anything to contribute to this...
Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:31 pm
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.