| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
discgolferpro 
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 861
Location: Kansas City, Mo
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: I NEED MORE COWBELL ! |
 |
|
OK, I've been reading and thinking about how to compare scores based on some kind of 'equivalency' rating and I think I've come up woth a solution.
The problem lies in Ranks that differ in meaning between songs, tiers, difficulty etc... It becomes more problematic because there are different sample sizes of songs and so getting a 31st Rank in a heavily played song/difficulty might actually be equivalent to getting a 14th place in a song that only has half as many entries.
Sooo... I've come up with Cowbells! Well I'm calling them Cowbells cause I don't have a better name yet. If you're not familiar with this reference go out and rent this http://imdb.com/title/tt0382275/ right now!
The following formula should get everyone a Cowbell score for extra bragging rights.
| Code: | | CB = ((x+1)-y) * (100/x) |
Where:
CB = Cowbells (natch)
x = the total number of ranks to be distributed (must be > 0)
y = the current rank that the player has in this list
That's it! It'll always produce a number between 1 and 100 (actually it'll give a lower limit based of the number of elements in the list so it'll be 1 when there are exactly 100 ranked elements).
Let me know how that works out for everyone!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OtherBill
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's easier to say:| Code: | | CB = 100 (1- (y-1)/x ) |
Not to piss in your Wheaties or anything, but I'm not sure there's a real need for a metric like this. If you're looking for a way to compare player skill, then it's easy to use scores on songs that they have in common at the hardest skill level they've both played (and if one is only playing at an easier skill level, then it's a moot point). If you're looking to judge song difficulty, then there's only a weak correlation between song difficulty and player rankings. If you're looking for a way to express that a player finds a song unusually hard, then...well, just say that.
(I mean, as embarassing as it is to say, Fat Lip kicks my ass far more than it should. I don't need to attach some number to it to say that.)
The biggest flaw here, though, is that it's based on player rankings instead of score. For example, look at I Love Rock & Roll on Expert: over a dozen people have 100%'ed it, and there's a large group of people within a few thousand points of #1. Does that mean that #1 is significantly better than #12? No, it just means that #12 hasn't perfected star power usage (which is important, yes, but star power doesn't matter if you can't carry a x4).
I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't understand how/why someone would use this to compare...well, anything. Perhaps you could give some examples?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
discgolferpro
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 861
Location: Kansas City, Mo
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is not meant to be a measure of a player's skill. This is a way to represent all Rankings within the same scale.
An obvious use for it would be to apply the formula to all current rankings which could then be averaged through all 4 Difficulties for an overall score on a scale of 1 to 100.
PS: #1 is precisely 11 ranks better than #12 regardless of score. The 'significantly' part of your question has no bearing on the ranks themselves. If a player is not satisfied with a #12 that is just a few thousands out of #1, then they better keep practicing!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like this merely because I am a Will Ferral fan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RiskyChris
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| discgolferpro wrote: | This is not meant to be a measure of a player's skill. This is a way to represent all Rankings within the same scale.
An obvious use for it would be to apply the formula to all current rankings which could then be averaged through all 4 Difficulties for an overall score on a scale of 1 to 100.
PS: #1 is precisely 11 ranks better than #12 regardless of score. The 'significantly' part of your question has no bearing on the ranks themselves. If a player is not satisfied with a #12 that is just a few thousands out of #1, then they better keep practicing! |
Too bad ranking means less than percentage of the #1 score.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OtherBill
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| discgolferpro wrote: | This is not meant to be a measure of a player's skill. This is a way to represent all Rankings within the same scale.
An obvious use for it would be to apply the formula to all current rankings which could then be averaged through all 4 Difficulties for an overall score on a scale of 1 to 100. |
Maybe I'm dense, but I'm still left scratching my head over what "represent all Rankings within the same scale" means. If you're trying to compare two players, in any way, score is a far more fair comparison than ranking. Even if you're trying to compare two scores on two different songs, score as a percentage of the corresponding #1 score is more fair than a ranking.
So, if you're *not* trying to compare two players, what are you trying to compare? A 130,000 on Killer Queen (Hard) to a 350,000 on Unsung (Expert)? A five-star on Ace Of Spades (Expert) to a four-star on Texas Flood (Expert)? Again, score as a percentage of #1 is easy to compute and scales reasonably across songs and difficulties.
If by "within the same scale" you mean you want to combine everyone's scores across all four difficulties and create a grand unified Master Ranking, then...well, first, again, total scores as a percent of the #1 total score is fairer. Second, the current ranking system gives no real reason for the gods who can five-star everything in Expert to go back and play in Easy and Medium (or even Hard, for that matter). As a result, their placement in any "master" list would be artificially low unless they endure the relative tedium of the easier difficulties.
(Really, I don't mean to be an ass, I just:
- don't understand how this "cowbell" metric would be used, and
- think score-based percentages are a fairer comparison than rankings.)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redeyesly
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 15
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"endure the relative tedium of the easier difficulties"
I will admit to it being boring at times, but I was pretty much stuck where I am on expert until I found this site the other day. Getting to 1st place on medium does seem like a dubious honor, but its something competitive to work for while I'm trying to re-learn some fundamentals. I rule compared to all my friends, so seeing some of the ungodly scores you guys put up was a bit shoking, and quite humbling. I'm 4 songs away from 'guitar god' on hard, cowboys, bark, de cuntroll, and the stupid breaking wheel, which I can't even 4 star. So smoking easy songs is less boring than sucking at those 4 songs anymore.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaksiel 
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 778
Location: Troy, NY or Hooksett, NH
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OtherBill wrote: | | For example, look at I Love Rock & Roll on Expert: over a dozen people have 100%'ed it, and there's a large group of people within a few thousand points of #1. Does that mean that #1 is significantly better than #12? |
I was going to say "Yes!" until I checked and saw that someone had knocked me out of #1...
| redeyesly wrote: | | Getting to 1st place on medium does seem like a dubious honor |
Heh. It's not going to be easy for you to get there. :wink:
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redeyesly
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 15
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right on, its on then, lol. The only real competition I've gotten out of my friends sofar is where I'm handicapped with no rock outs and I have to win by double.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCirri
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 4576
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think percentage of the top score is probably the best measure players' skill on the same scale, mainly because this method is not in any way dependent on the number of ranks available and is based on score (which determines the rankings).
This scale is relative to the current highest scores (we'll never know the maximum possible scores). But as the #1 scores approach the maximum scores, the scale becomes more absolute (as an actual percentage of possible points).
This method will work. The only problem I can see is users could drastically throw off the scale by entering a false score.
I'll have to think about this for a bit.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
