Originally posted by: bimmy_lee



PDork87 = Mega Tank

Originally posted by: Brock Landers


Frickin' name changes!

Thanks  
 

Originally posted by: bimmy_lee

Okay, I think I need to set things straight.  I'm not looking to start a war here and let's not have any drama over what I'm going to say.  You were a Tier 3 competitor, bottom line.  Yes, you played by Tier 1 rules and you posted a better score than arnpoly, but he was still the Tier 1 champion of 2014.  I'm not sure who awarded you the Tier 1 champion icon, but it looks as if it was in error.  Being a Tier 3 competitor that year, it should technically be a Tier 3 icon.  Or, we can even create a special icon for the honorary score.  I'm not looking to stir up controversy here and start fights with people, but for the sake of compiling data for championship wins and such, arnpoly is the Tier 1 champ of 2014.
 

Originally posted by: bimmy_lee

Also, bearcat-doug opted to give up his Tier 3 prize since he was able to beat the Twin Galaxies world record for Double Dragon 2. His score is so impressive, he will be awarded an honorary Tier 1 icon for his impressive score.
 

Originally posted by: bearcat-doug


Actually, you awarded me the Tier 1 icon.   Here's the post from page 11 of the 2014 finals thread:
 
I had actually forfeited my Tier 3 score so that the three remaining finalists would all recieve prizes and icons since I didn't feel right taking anything away from those players who had played all year and earned their way into the finals, so I posted a Tier 1 rules score for an added challenge so I could still participate. Like your post says, my Tier 1 rules score was the highest and I was given an honorary icon to reflect it, but I wouldn't really expect it to count towards the official standings since arnpoly was the true 2014 winter Tier 1 champion for the season. The only area that could cause confusion is that the final standings in the 2014 winter tournament thread do list me as the Tier 1 co-winner, so my Tier 1 rules score should probably be changed to honorary status as well so that arnpoly can be recognized as the actual champion.

Originally posted by: Brock Landers

2016
1st discrepancy - bert was given an extra sports point somewhere in 2016
2nd discrepancy - krunch was also given an extra sports point somewhere in 2016
3rd discrepancy - error on my end with Richardhead
4th discrepancy - laddersandcakes is missing 3 points from his point total.  He should be at 98 in an 11th place tie with Ferris
5th discrepancy - error on my end with Santa, smick, and Stryphos
6th discrepancy - Mega Tank has 3 extra action-platformer points, 3 extra puzzle points, 3 extra arcade points
7th discrepancy - PDork87 is missing from the leaderboard

Originally posted by: bertsampson
 
1st and 2nd discrepancy:  Ties resulted in 3rd place getting 10 points instead of 9, and 7th place getting 6 points instead of 5.
4th discrepancy - looks like I failed to give laddersandcakes participation points for Q*Bert.  I'm glad to see this didn't effect the tournament rankings.

As for the 6th and 7th discrepancies, these I'm sure work out when you add PDork87 and Mega Tank together.
 

Originally posted by: Brock Landers
  Interesting.  I will check and update.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

Originally posted by: bertsampson

I would think you wouldn't include the tournament weeks, or keep them separated.  Kind of like season and post season.

Originally posted by: arnpoly

Nice to see my name on the top of that list and by a significant margin! (But to be fair that's probably the only way you could slice the data and have me come out on top.) You can put me in the Hall of Fame whenever!  

Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
  I'd be interested to the see a second list that is normalized by participation level.  

 

Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
  I'd be interested to the see a second list that is normalized by participation level.  

 

Originally posted by: Brock Landers
  That would shoot up more selective players like erizisto and Bea who consistently post top 3 finishes when they deem us worthy of an appearance.

Perhaps some sort of hybrid formula could be established.

 

Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
 
Yeah, I'm not sure what formula would be of most interest.

But the "total across all years" is going to create an odd blend of those who participated the most, and those who did the best over a limited number of seasons.

That is, it's neat to see, but "it doesn't mean much" in the sense of clarifying skill versus presence.
(not saying that's the case for arnpoly, obviously, since he was a top bracket player across all seasons he was involved with)
 

Originally posted by: Brock Landers
  That would shoot up more selective players like erizisto and Bea who consistently post top 3 finishes when they deem us worthy of an appearance.

Perhaps some sort of hybrid formula could be established.

 

Originally posted by: Brock Landers

Say we came up with a metric like RPI (GPI?). You'd get a score for that season that would have to be a combination of placement, participation rate, and competitor strength. Perhaps a 0-100 scale.

I don't exactly have an MS in statistics or anything, but I could probably take a shot at creating something, but if anyone smarter than me wanted to help out I'd appreciate it.

Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
 
How would you rate competitor strength?  Is the idea that the computation would be iterative as the various players balance their scores against each other?  (since every competitor would influence all other players scores and thus "their strength"?)

Or did you have something else in mind?

I definitely think the level of competition is important, though, for coming up with a 1-number-rating.
 

Originally posted by: mbd39

Every contest participant should get a GDV rating based on an analysis of their reflexes, memory, judgement and application power.