| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2012 08:31:35 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Historically, there have been issues, even WITH peer-selected teams, with some team members not being willing (or able) to participate as frequently as they ought to. This is my main objection to random draws of teams; you're at the mercy of folks who may lose interest if the team's not doing well.
It still seems to me that seeding potential players and limiting how many of the top players can be on a single team, requiring each team to have a couple relative newbies, would be the ideal leveling method this time around. |
Let me figure out how to do this in a reasonable manner.
Looking at the last WPL, I don't know who would want to compete in the same division as Drive By Shooters and Team Ephemera. Looking at the participation of the other two teams in that division, looks like they didn't want to either by the end. At least with the team assignments I was proposing, theoretically, it should be really close all the way to the end.
What's the point of having a team, like Drive By Shooters, who would currently have 6/7 members in the top 25 for most ribbons ever. The whole point I was thinking is to have a complete mix of people on teams so hopefully everyone benefits. If Team Ephemera was in any other division, it would have been 10-0 for them as well. The only reason they suffered defeat is because they had two weeks against Drive By Shooters. I see another team won the entire thing, but that was only a one week event. The entire league up to that point was pretty much written in stone weeks out in three of the divisions. Had Team Ephemera been in the other division, it would have been four for four.
Look, if that's what people really want, I apologize for bringing this whole idea up. There'd be nothing I enjoy more than running against ten year olds to boost my ego, but I'm not going to set up others for the same. |
If you took a look at the previous DPL, even with limits on teams, there was a team equivalent to Drive by Shooters.
Regardless of how it's set up, you'll most likely end up with a projected winner. (who doesn't always win, btw).
Again, I want to throw out the idea of a wildcard team -- that could shake things up quite a bit, and give hope if something looks like it's a runaway race.
(But I have no problem with ranking the players and putting limits on the team)
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 08:38:40.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:37:54 AM · #52 |
Also, I like the idea of random -- to a certain extent. I'd like the opportunity to get to know other people. I just want to know that I can count on them.
Perhaps teams can create a team of 4 people and then they must pick 3 from a random list?
I'm thinking there may be enough people that don't have a team that would sign up to be on the random list. (in the threads, there were always people looking for a team)
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:51:09 AM · #53 |
| Why are we reinventing the wheel here? Look how complicated this is getting already... |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:54:54 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Why are we reinventing the wheel here? Look how complicated this is getting already... |
Naw... It's always interesting seeing if there's anyway to improve before going out and doing the same thing. :)
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:08:37 AM · #55 |
Some good discussions going on with regards to DPL/WPL and I think it's important to seriously consider the ingredients that has made this such a succes. Im not agains change but changing something that works well, should be carefully reviewed and we should rather look at things, get feedback from previous players as to what could be inproved, rather than bring a whole new recipy to the table and then try and mould into a winning formula by knocking and denting it into a changed WPL/DPL type competition.
As previous player in the WPL leugue I can only further add that arguments such as strong players agains weak players really holds very little water when looking back from my experience in the WPL. It's definitely about team work and yes. Your average of 6 on this site does not make you a better photographer than the next person with an average of 5.5. We all had our strengths in the various fields of photography but most of all, if you had the time to look back at the stats of the last WPL, some interesting things would pop up with regards to participation, and scoring of the various persons in our team. It was brillaint to see how our various team members contributed to the scores at various times throughout league. The cherry on the cake saw our lower average score team members actually taking honours and even ribboning in the end.
Other stats which you wont see is the actual conversations that took place between 7 members split all over the world. Italy, South Africa, Canada, USA, Tel-Aviv. Time diffrenvces made it soemtimes really hard for me and Im sure Alessandro. I would wake up in the morning to a whole conversation between guys from the west and have to catch, converse and wait for replys. I would then be able to chat to Mita and Alex who was mostly on my time line but when the deadlines came..burning the midnight oil was inevitible often as Roll-over is 6am here and I had to often wait for team members are able to start chatting..which was my 10pm and later.
Lot's of yadayada but as a team I believe we worked together and it improved every single member's photography both in the field as well as with PP work. Thats I think the best part of a team competition like this. Winning a ribbon is a personal honour. Seeing a team member improving and doing well holds even greater rewards and joy, even to this day as we converse and even have healthy competition amongst ourselves
Hope this contribution helps to shape further thoughts in the Competition as Im sure we all want this to work as good as it did last time...and even better.
(As English is not my first language, please pardon gross grammar and spelling errors here. Some friends on this site have teased me before and though it's a joke between us, I can appreciate that in an open forum like this it could be interpreted differently)
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 09:17:06. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:11:04 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Why are we reinventing the wheel here? Look how complicated this is getting already... |
Naw... It's always interesting seeing if there's anyway to improve before going out and doing the same thing. :) |
Oh, I'm all for improvement...but there's an old saying.."If it ain't broke, don't fix it" |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:11:05 AM · #57 |
Double
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 09:12:04. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:24:35 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Historically, there have been issues, even WITH peer-selected teams, with some team members not being willing (or able) to participate as frequently as they ought to. This is my main objection to random draws of teams; you're at the mercy of folks who may lose interest if the team's not doing well.
It still seems to me that seeding potential players and limiting how many of the top players can be on a single team, requiring each team to have a couple relative newbies, would be the ideal leveling method this time around. |
Let me figure out how to do this in a reasonable manner.
Looking at the last WPL, I don't know who would want to compete in the same division as Drive By Shooters and Team Ephemera. Looking at the participation of the other two teams in that division, looks like they didn't want to either by the end. At least with the team assignments I was proposing, theoretically, it should be really close all the way to the end.
What's the point of having a team, like Drive By Shooters, who would currently have 6/7 members in the top 25 for most ribbons ever. The whole point I was thinking is to have a complete mix of people on teams so hopefully everyone benefits. If Team Ephemera was in any other division, it would have been 10-0 for them as well. The only reason they suffered defeat is because they had two weeks against Drive By Shooters. I see another team won the entire thing, but that was only a one week event. The entire league up to that point was pretty much written in stone weeks out in three of the divisions. Had Team Ephemera been in the other division, it would have been four for four.
Look, if that's what people really want, I apologize for bringing this whole idea up. There'd be nothing I enjoy more than running against ten year olds to boost my ego, but I'm not going to set up others for the same. |
I would try this... I participated in one DPL and one WPL. Had fun, met new people. I think putting each team at a a level percentage would be a new approach and might be a lot of fun....
Are you looking at percentage based on life history at DPC or would it be even more fair/accurate to use percentages from the last year only... or last 50 challenges entered or something like that? |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:59:15 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Historically, there have been issues, even WITH peer-selected teams, with some team members not being willing (or able) to participate as frequently as they ought to. This is my main objection to random draws of teams; you're at the mercy of folks who may lose interest if the team's not doing well.
It still seems to me that seeding potential players and limiting how many of the top players can be on a single team, requiring each team to have a couple relative newbies, would be the ideal leveling method this time around. |
Let me figure out how to do this in a reasonable manner.
Looking at the last WPL, I don't know who would want to compete in the same division as Drive By Shooters and Team Ephemera. Looking at the participation of the other two teams in that division, looks like they didn't want to either by the end. At least with the team assignments I was proposing, theoretically, it should be really close all the way to the end.
What's the point of having a team, like Drive By Shooters, who would currently have 6/7 members in the top 25 for most ribbons ever. The whole point I was thinking is to have a complete mix of people on teams so hopefully everyone benefits. If Team Ephemera was in any other division, it would have been 10-0 for them as well. The only reason they suffered defeat is because they had two weeks against Drive By Shooters. I see another team won the entire thing, but that was only a one week event. The entire league up to that point was pretty much written in stone weeks out in three of the divisions. Had Team Ephemera been in the other division, it would have been four for four.
Look, if that's what people really want, I apologize for bringing this whole idea up. There'd be nothing I enjoy more than running against ten year olds to boost my ego, but I'm not going to set up others for the same. |
I would try this... I participated in one DPL and one WPL. Had fun, met new people. I think putting each team at a a level percentage would be a new approach and might be a lot of fun....
Are you looking at percentage based on life history at DPC or would it be even more fair/accurate to use percentages from the last year only... or last 50 challenges entered or something like that? |
Actually, maybe the best way to get a more accurate number is to take the top 50% of a person's score and average that. Because there's two types of people: Those who enter everything and have a lower average because of it, or those who enter only the challenges in which they can do well. Would the top 50% show more of their scoring potential?
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:59:57 AM · #60 |
 Venser, I am elated that you have stepped in and have begun a conversation on DPL again.
It could bring a lot of activity back into DPC. Whatever you do, I sure will support the effort.
Now, stepping in where 'angels fear to tread,' has anyone considered some sort of handicap system?
I'm thinking of the one used by bowling leagues here in the USA. League handicap calculator illustrates various handicapping measures. For those who don't know this type of bowling, a "Perfect Game" is 300. Handicapping uses a bowler's average + "x" pins adding up to 200. Anyone with an average of over 200, bowls "scratch" or without handicap.
The mathematicians among us could determine what number would designate a "scratch shooter" (6.0?) and set up a calculator to determine handicaps.
Okay, that's my thought for the day.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:11:08 AM · #61 |
The Handicap system could work even if the 'let people decide their teams and see what happens' is always the best one IMHO :)
Just a little help for Venser: our name was 'Long Shots', not 'Another Team' ;)
And it was not just a week of glory, because you should consider at least two weeks of glory ;)
We all have strongly improved our skills and the reason was our incredible collaboration and friendship during WPL. We almost entered every challenge during those weeks because we were extremely motivated! |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:12:59 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Oh, I'm all for improvement...but there's an old saying.."If it ain't broke, don't fix it" |
Seeing that the previous WPL used average score instead of percentile, I see that as being somewhat broke. Mathematically, using percentiles would be a more accurate comparison across the different challenges.
Originally posted by sfalice:
.... talk about handicap .... |
I'm all for this, but in an effort to save time the first iteration through, I would skip over this. Once the wheels are greased, this would be something to implement. Then teams can be composed of whoever and it wouldn't matter. It's an idea I like a lot.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Also, I like the idea of random -- to a certain extent. I'd like the opportunity to get to know other people. I just want to know that I can count on them. |
Extremely valid point.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Perhaps teams can create a team of 4 people and then they must pick 3 from a random list? |
I wouldn't make it random, but based on their averages relative to the small group already formed. Again, it would be an effort to try and get the averages of the team to the same number prior to the start of the season.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Actually, maybe the best way to get a more accurate number is to take the top 50% of a person's score and average that. Because there's two types of people: Those who enter everything and have a lower average because of it, or those who enter only the challenges in which they can do well. Would the top 50% show more of their scoring potential? |
First time through, I would only look at overall average. There's a lot of menial tasks which need to get done so I need to conserve my efforts elsewhere in the beginning. Second time through I wouldn't be adverse to doing this.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:17:47 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
The Handicap system could work even if the 'let people decide their teams and see what happens' is always the best one IMHO :)
Just a little help for Venser: our name was 'Long Shots', not 'Another Team' ;) |
I know, I went through the entire season last night and checked everything out. I analyzed everything from members, participants, and week over week scores. The weakest division for participation was the one with Drive By and Ephemera from the other two teams. The other divisions experienced something similar when certain teams pulled ahead.
Let me think about implementing a handicap system which could be updated week over week. Then teams which pull ahead would have to keep kicking ass to maintain their spot. I really want to make this as fair as possible without a runaway winner. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 01:12:34 PM · #64 |
I might have a solution for handicapping. Thanks  sfalice for making me think about this, and it would benefit teams to have everyone participating.
Just have to work out the math, and if it works, anything can go as far as teams. Let me make sure the numbers work out first.
If someone else wants/can check numbers, here's what I'm proposing.
Assume four teams, three participants on each team. Actual numbers don't matter, just keeping is small for my example.
Week 1
A vs B
C vs D
A - 1, 3, 12
B - 2, 5, 7
C - 4, 6, 8
D - 9, 10, 11
So as far as percentile scoring, we would have the following. A = 60.6, B = 66.3, C = 54, D = 18.
Week one would have B beating A, and C beating D.
Now week two are the following matches:
Week 2
A vs C
B vs D
A - 1, 2, 12
B - 4, 7, 11
C - 3, 5, 8
D - 6, 9, 10
Except now C would have 6.6 handicap versus A and D would have a 48.3 handicap versus B. Now after percentile scoring A = 63.6, B = 42, C = 60.3, D = 33. When we now apply the handicap set from the previous week, C and D would both win even though they did worse overall.
For week three, the new average would be the following for the teams to use in terms of handicapping:
A = (63.6 + 60.6)/2 = 62.1
B = (42 + 66.3)/2 = 54.2
C = (60.3 + 54)/2 = 57.2
D = (33 + 18)/2 = 25.5
So when A vs D happens, there would be a 36.6 handicap for D and in B vs C, a 3.0 handicap for B.
And so on as the season went on.
The beginning of the season some of these would be a little off, but presumably as the season went on, it should tend towards the middle and everyone would have a good chance winning. So teams which kick ass, would always have to kick ass to stay at the top. If they falter, then via the handicap, could get beat by a lesser team based on handicap. This ensures that if everyone wants to make their own teams, stacked teams always have to be on point.
edit - Under my proposed methodology, a stacked team would be at the greatest disadvantage. Also, if some teammates didn't participate, it would still work. There would be no problems with missing teammates in a given week.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 14:48:42. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 01:23:47 PM · #65 |
| It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 01:38:10 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
I would have it updated every week and hopefully in a nice format that would be obvious for even people with a casual understanding of math. I'm not going to skip over a fair system because some people find it complicated. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:09:37 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
Agree, and I'm a math guy. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:32:37 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Kelli:
It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
Agree, and I'm a math guy. |
He's trying to set it up so his all black entries win each week. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:42:16 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Kelli:
It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
Agree, and I'm a math guy. |
Really? It's relatively simple. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:43:21 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Kelli:
It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
Agree, and I'm a math guy. |
He's trying to set it up so his all black entries win each week. |
And on that note, I'm going to scrap the entire idea.
I've also got PMs from others who have no interest in any kind of fair system and only want a reiteration of the previous WPL, even though there was clearly some areas to improve.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 18:45:04. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:44:34 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Kelli:
It sounds really complicated. It seems no one would be able to figure out who won without your calculations. |
Agree, and I'm a math guy. |
Really? It's relatively simple. |
Yes, really... It just gives the APPEARANCE of extreme complication, and most people won't like it. I'm not sure that a "moving handicap" is a good idea anyway; We HAVE had competitions for "beat your own average" and those are handicapped, but the handicap was determined at the outset and it didn't change. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:45:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by bassbone:
He's trying to set it up so his all black entries win each week. |
And on that note, I'm going to scrap the entire idea. |
Geesh, he's just kidding, dude. It'd be GREAT if someone could take over for Scott and run the teams again, but the devil's in the details... |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:47:48 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, really... It just gives the APPEARANCE of extreme complication, and most people won't like it. |
Too late, I'm going to scrap the entire thing. I was simply trying to come up with a fair system and it's not flying. I have no interest in repeating a broken system. Look, mathematically I can see flaws and was trying to rectify them.
The onus shouldn't have to be on me to simplify things down because of the appearance of complication. It really is a simple system. There is a lot of groundwork to get this thing moving, and I can appreciate the work SDW must have put in. I started to work on spreadsheets earlier today to keep track of everything. But people push, and sometimes they push too far.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 18:50:05. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:49:13 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, really... It just gives the APPEARANCE of extreme complication, and most people won't like it. |
Too late, I'm going to scrap the entire thing. I was simply trying to come up with a fair system and it's not flying. I have no interest in repeating a broken system. Look, mathematically I can see flaws and was trying to rectify them. |
And we appreciate that, it's a worthy project, it just needs more work. There has to be a more transparent way to do this that also will be fairer than the previous system. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 06:51:10 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And we appreciate that, it's a worthy project, it just needs more work. There has to be a more transparent way to do this that also will be fairer than the previous system. |
Was my example too complicated? I ask seriously.
edit - My example eliminates the worry of members not participating, stacked teams, and weak teams. As the season moves along, there wouldn't be a runaway winner during the season. I can see two downfalls, but I'll ponder them further before I say what they are.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 18:54:19. |
|
