On this particular point. It is difficult to get this right imo.God, I lost the thread. I still have to upload things into the first post, but one thing I'd like to see change is the replacement bonus/point allocation. I think either we need to adjust the points or give someone a spot in the next game they sign up for. I don't like to see people put on replacements twice in a row. Being a replacement is work and right now the bonus isn't enough, I think.
Yes, that is the problem there. It should still count as playing in some measure, but the current measure does not do enough, I think. Ideally, if there is some point number assigned, the two people in this scenario both adjust after the game, but the one who didn't still ends up with more priority.For the next sign up phase both players are still carrying high scores and neither make the roster for the next game on priority score. Your idea would give the person who played in a game priority over the other person who never got to play at all.
I think that if make the replacement score minimal it is fine to just add them together, the worst possible score is 1.01Instead of giving someone a pass to enter the next game due to replacing in, I think simply not counting priority for games you replace into would be the better method. It's closer to the spirit of what we initially wanted with the 'priority boost' and avoids reducing someone's priority for subbing into a game on D7 who only got to play for a phase or two (which is an excessively crappy situation in and of itself).
As a side benefit it would resolve Faddy's question of what do you do for someone that played one game, died, and then replaced into the second when we have multiple games running at once.
I think using .01 for subbing in is fine, it's essentially the same as I was suggesting but gives a slight tilt against them in a perfectly mirrored situation between them and another player which seems fair all told.So your aren't thinking we should have two different scores for early replacements vs late replacements. And the score should be low enough to not ever lose out on priority to someone that has regularly played more games.
So are we settled on 3 scores only?
Standard = 1
Early Death = slightly less than 1
Replacement = slightly more than 0
Honestly using 0.99 for early death and 0.01 for replacement works out quite well. You can see it on the sheet under "messing around" tab, it produces nice cascades of people who have played in similar games.
For me that does adequately fulfill points 1-4 and 6.
Do we need to do anything more for new players? I had them scoring the same as a replacement. The idea is essentially that like replacing in we give brand new players the absolute minimum score so they more or less remain at the top of the priority list. (That is factored into the messing about sheet, e.g. Bronson has a score of 0.01)
I think that if make the replacement score minimal it is fine to just add them together, the worst possible score is 1.01
Yes they do get multipliedI assume we're also saying the .99 and .01 are not impacted by the game multiplier (.95, .85, etc.)?
I think so. I see the purpose of the early death bonus to be for ensuring that those players get a boost over other people in the same sign up period. To have it do more than that doesn't feel right to me.should the player that died D1 of the most recent game lose out to someone that fully played in game 2
I don’t think the current spreadsheet required manual entry of anything except the sub ins as opposed to having to enter the whole score but Pedro would be able to speak to that better. It pulled the data automatically from the game data spreadsheet iirc.Yes they do get multiplied
I feel it is easier to track that way. Instead of independently tracking sub ins or early deaths it just goes in as a priority score for the round. And therefore will naturally fall out of the calculation.
But then what of the scenario where a player can have played in a full game and subbed into three others winning out over a player that played in one game and died D1?I think so. I see the purpose of the early death bonus to be for ensuring that those players get a boost over other people in the same sign up period. To have it do more than that doesn't feel right to me.
The full game would be less recent than the early death.But then what of the scenario where a player can have played in a full game and subbed into three others winning out over a player that played in one game and died D1?
The depreciation system doesn't need to be as fancy as I proposed because there are a few other factors that need to be considered especially around replacements but I don't think a simple degrade works. The numbers I put down does ensure that in normal circumstances the main factor in determining priority is games played in the period. Where as with the 0.2 deductions there are situations where someone who has played 2 games has priority over someone who has only played 1. I think that doesn't achieve the main aims of system.Ooof, we have one game left in the test period so I really need to get back to this. I haven't had much free time. I do have two points to raise, though.
What if we just do a simple degrade whereby each game starts to go down by .2? Most recent game is 1, before that is .8, before that .6, then .4, then .2. Not complicated. We could pull a random sample of people and test it.
Also I'd like to propose a rule adjustment. Anyone who replaces in late (see saenima in LB3) should just get the priority boost without the full point for the game. So for sae in this case it would just be. -.5. It doesn't have to be that, but I think we should recognize that replacing in late like that is not really playing in the traditional sense because it's so hard to catch up. You're really ONLY doing it as community service. I'd say this could be for anyone who replaces from D5 onward?
@Natiko? @Pedro? @Faddy? Anyone else have ideas here?
I think we can get 80% of the way there with the system I put out.1. Priority should be calculated over a period of games.
2. Players who have played in less games in the period should get priortity
3. When players have played the same number of games, whoever played less recently should have priority
4. There should be a bonus for replacing into a game
5. New Players should have priority
I agree with that, the replacement system doesn't need to be complex. That was just an idea.