21 Feb 2016 17:26 GMT
admin1, thanks for the new formula in table 5!
16 Feb 2016 22:31 GMT
KyHarold: Hi neighbor! I'm only 7 yrs younger, so I'm recognizing the need to keep mentally agile. Just teasing about a balance that I sometimes lack. Best regards to KyCheryl.
16 Feb 2016 14:32 GMT
MnLsDad, when you're as old as I am, spending some time everyday in a, "... pointless pursuit of pushing little, digital boxes around a phantom maze ..." could help ward off dementia in later life. Keep up the good work.
15 Feb 2016 21:49 GMT
admin1, can you change the computation of Points in table 5, column 2? The algorithm must be: Completed levels (table 1, column 2) divided by Average place (table 5, column 4).
15 Feb 2016 08:23 GMT
MnLsDad, It's a nice challenge to kick the king (queen) off the hill - if you are not the king, and if you got only a few solo-first-places - like me - you don't want that a really good player is attacking your position. So for the average player it will be mostly a frustating challenge.
15 Feb 2016 07:52 GMT
Arnold, I thought about the same new-points-system to get it more balanced - the old system is overrating the good places and underrating the bad places. So solved levels divided by average place will be better - a bad score damage more your overall-performance. Thanks for your support.
14 Feb 2016 20:42 GMT
My idea for table 5 in July 2013 was to estimate more than first places (shortest solutions) only. A player that consistently scores second places is very good, but can't be found in tables 2 and 4. However I agree that the current computation of points in table 5 is not entirely fair and objective. For instance, in the spirit of utimm and MnLsDad: two players solve 2 levels each and score the same average place 5. The first player scores places 1 and 9, and gets 1.1 points now. The second player scores places 5 and 5, and gets 0.4 points only. So maybe this is a more fair and objective formula: total solved levels divided by average place per level. In the above example both players would get the same amount of points: 2/5=0.4 points each.
14 Feb 2016 17:35 GMT
admin1, thanks a lot for the extra column in table 5! By the way, utimm is right: Average points per level in table 5 isn't the inversion of Average place, but the outcome of Points in table 5 divided by Completed levels in table 1. In my case for instance: 6064 / 15078 = 0.4. So, the extra column isn't redundant, but offers new information.
14 Feb 2016 16:30 GMT
Utimm: I am intrigued by your "What about a new list with solo first places?" idea. Not from a "statistic" standpoint, but one that would then link to each puzzle that has a solo 1st place solution. It would be a "king of the hill" list that sends a challenge to everyone to come knock me off the top. Comments anyone? Admin1?
14 Feb 2016 16:15 GMT
Utimm: You are correct. Since that table was Arnold's baby (See posts: 11 Jul 2013 18:21 GMT, 27 Jul 2013 15:41 GMT) I should let him defend it, but it has some merit. I see Admin has added the requested column. Sorting on place I see no large alteration. JotaCartas stands out. I've seen that he radically changed his play style a couple of years ago. (He may actually be an AI agent being tested by Google - j/k - but if he is, he got a software rev.) I would still question the entire place scheme. If 25 people found a shortest 50 move solution and you do it in 51 moves, you get 2nd place status. Realistically you deserve 26th place. In your example, the table rewards a player with 1st & 99th over one with two 5th place finishes. If you were at a horse (or dog, people, turtle, auto)race, would you bet on a participant with consistent 5th place showings, or one who's won half his competitions?
Please login to add comments!