| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2012 10:46:52 AM · #126 |
Personally, If i participate in a competetion, i want all my efforts to count. I don't want to be in a team that might feel i m dragging them or one my low scores is a detriment.
Its not that i have no competetive spirit, I have plenty. I just want all my efforts to show rather than worry about "how i make the team look". The fact that i m on a team, already means that I'll be putting my best effort into getting the win. If my pic after all my selecting, editing, etc still doesn't make the cut, I m fine with it, but i m not ok with my vision being cast off because it didn't do well. This would totally kill the competetion for me especially if it happened continuously.
So far, i m diggin this idea because it looks to be fair.
just my two cents
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 10:47:44. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 10:50:28 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team. |
The way the handicapping works takes care of this.
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week. |
Again, the whole point of the handicap. There is no "holding up their end". If you look, it's actually better if they're around improving over the weeks. That should be all the incentive required to participate. If I improve, my team benefits. Hopefully people on my team help me improve.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Knowing that the bottom 3 scores are dropped each week takes a lot of pressure off of you. Pressure to do well takes much of the fun out of the game. |
Or just eliminates them from the game altogether. Which is the more realistic scenario as opposed to the one you described. |
Wendy, here's the way I see it: all previous iterations of WPL and DPL have basically favored teams that were successful in attracting "heavy hitters" into the fold. It has always been an individual competition with the "teams" serving to aggregate individual scores, and it has always favored absolute score over any other metric.
At the same time, we've had in recent years a couple "beat your own average" knockout competitions, where individuals competed in brackets to outscore their own average by more than their opponent does each week in order to advance. These competitions have favored differentials, not absolute score, and everybody has had a chance to win those outright by improving during the course of the competition.
What Venser is proposing, what he WANTS to create, is a variation on the DPL/WPL model that incorporates the differential approach into the scoring. It's a different animal altogether, and a very interesting one. Any discussion of the pros and cons of this approach versus the old, top-heavy approach is really neither here nor there, because he doesn't want to do that.
So let's go with the flow on this one, help him fine-tune it on his own terms. It's a very interesting concept and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 10:51:31 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
.... your thoughts .... |
Don't worry about it. When I get around to start the season, under my system, if from one week to the next your percentile goes down, you'll hurt your team. If your percentile goes up, your team will benefit. Kind of like you'd expect.
If you improve significantly faster than a person who had similar ability at the beginning of the season on another team, when you compete against them, you'll be expected to be even better now.
Does this above make sense? To me, this seems to be what the entire site was founded upon. Getting together and improving. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 10:55:55 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team. |
The way the handicapping works takes care of this.
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week. |
Again, the whole point of the handicap. There is no "holding up their end". If you look, it's actually better if they're around improving over the weeks. That should be all the incentive required to participate. If I improve, my team benefits. Hopefully people on my team help me improve.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Knowing that the bottom 3 scores are dropped each week takes a lot of pressure off of you. Pressure to do well takes much of the fun out of the game. |
Or just eliminates them from the game altogether. Which is the more realistic scenario as opposed to the one you described. |
I'm just going off my experiences. In both cases (dpl and wpl) we had people who couldn't compete each week. They were valued members, and I was so happy that they were on the same team as I. Even when they knew that their score wasn't necessary that week, they kept apologizing on weeks were they couldn't compete. Two of the people never would have signed up if it was mandatory that they compete or the lack of score could hurt the team.
That's all I'm saying. Over the two teams that I was on, we probably would have lost 3 or 4 of the people if all scores counted. I'd rather have more people participate.
And I'm not saying that people aren't holding up their end -- I'm saying what people thought when they couldn't participate during a week. I felt the same when I thought I was missing a week. I'm letting the team down. But there wasn't anything I could do. It just was a week in which I couldn't participate.
I'll play regardless of the rules and how they're set up. But I really think that having all scores count each week isn't the best idea. Look at any of the competitions in the past -- dpl, wpl, beat your own average, any of them -- not everyone can compete all the time. It just adds stress to something that's supposed to be fun.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 10:59:54.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 10:58:57 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
1. Some people will not commit if they know that they might not be able to participate each week. They don't want to let down their team. |
The way the handicapping works takes care of this.
Originally posted by vawendy:
2. It could cause hard feelings if a team is doing well, but a person "isn't holding up their end" by having an entry each week. |
Again, the whole point of the handicap. There is no "holding up their end". If you look, it's actually better if they're around improving over the weeks. That should be all the incentive required to participate. If I improve, my team benefits. Hopefully people on my team help me improve.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Knowing that the bottom 3 scores are dropped each week takes a lot of pressure off of you. Pressure to do well takes much of the fun out of the game. |
Or just eliminates them from the game altogether. Which is the more realistic scenario as opposed to the one you described. |
Wendy, here's the way I see it: all previous iterations of WPL and DPL have basically favored teams that were successful in attracting "heavy hitters" into the fold. It has always been an individual competition with the "teams" serving to aggregate individual scores, and it has always favored absolute score over any other metric.
At the same time, we've had in recent years a couple "beat your own average" knockout competitions, where individuals competed in brackets to outscore their own average by more than their opponent does each week in order to advance. These competitions have favored differentials, not absolute score, and everybody has had a chance to win those outright by improving during the course of the competition.
What Venser is proposing, what he WANTS to create, is a variation on the DPL/WPL model that incorporates the differential approach into the scoring. It's a different animal altogether, and a very interesting one. Any discussion of the pros and cons of this approach versus the old, top-heavy approach is really neither here nor there, because he doesn't want to do that.
So let's go with the flow on this one, help him fine-tune it on his own terms. It's a very interesting concept and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out. |
Like I said, I'll play either way. And new is interesting. Just with the decreased participation in DPC, we want to draw in more people. If it's clear that it's not a problem if they don't compete each week, then we'll get more people.
I'll shut up now. :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:11:41 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Like I said, I'll play either way. And new is interesting. Just with the decreased participation in DPC, we want to draw in more people. If it's clear that it's not a problem if they don't compete each week, then we'll get more people. |
They won't have to.
I'm going to try and explain the likely result of someone not participating. Hopefully it's simplistic enough everyone can understand; I know you're not the only person with this question or thought.
Team 1 has four people, A, B, C and D. Their respective finishes are normally in that order in every challenge.
Week 1 finishes and we find their score. (A+B+C+D)/4 = score_1. This is used to determine handicap against other teams.
Week 2 finishes and D couldn't participate for some reason. Their score for week 2 is (A+B+C)/3 = score_2. Now we assume this score will be higher because the weakest member is missing. To find the new score used to calculate handicaps, we calculate (score_1 + score_2)/2 = modified_score_2. If D did participate, the modified_score_2 would be slightly lower. This now affects the handicapping for week 3. If D comes back, it does make winning week 3 a little more difficult for that team, but their presence makes winning week 4 a little easier.
It's an attempt to self regulate people jumping in and out of the competition without having to worry about logistics, omitting individuals, or anything of that nature. There are flaws with this system, but they'll exist in any system. Off the top of my head this is the fairest for all involved.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 11:12:14. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:24:01 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Like I said, I'll play either way. And new is interesting. Just with the decreased participation in DPC, we want to draw in more people. If it's clear that it's not a problem if they don't compete each week, then we'll get more people. |
They won't have to.
I'm going to try and explain the likely result of someone not participating. Hopefully it's simplistic enough everyone can understand; I know you're not the only person with this question or thought.
Team 1 has four people, A, B, C and D. Their respective finishes are normally in that order in every challenge.
Week 1 finishes and we find their score. (A+B+C+D)/4 = score_1. This is used to determine handicap against other teams.
Week 2 finishes and D couldn't participate for some reason. Their score for week 2 is (A+B+C)/3 = score_2. Now we assume this score will be higher because the weakest member is missing. To find the new score used to calculate handicaps, we calculate (score_1 + score_2)/2 = modified_score_2. If D did participate, the modified_score_2 would be slightly lower. This now affects the handicapping for week 3. If D comes back, it does make winning week 3 a little more difficult for that team, but their presence makes winning week 4 a little easier.
It's an attempt to self regulate people jumping in and out of the competition without having to worry about logistics, omitting individuals, or anything of that nature. There are flaws with this system, but they'll exist in any system. Off the top of my head this is the fairest for all involved. |
Ah -- so technically, their score is not counted that week. It's not (A+B+C+0)/4, it's (A+B+C)/3.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:30:59 AM · #133 |
 Venser having 4 players per team makes WPL less interesting. And for some users it's very hard to submit each week an entry.
Ps. I appreciate your effort, but you should understand that if the majority of people don't like this system we can't use it only because you're spending time studying it... |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:33:22 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Venser having 4 players per team makes WPL less interesting. And for some users it's very hard to submit each week an entry.
Ps. I appreciate your effort, but you should understand that if the majority of people don't like this system we can't use it only because you're spending time studying it... |
Alex, the 4-per-team was just to illustrate the scoring method. The number of team members hasn't been talked about yet as far as I can see. And follow Venser's most recent post: it's OK not to submit every week.
This looks like a well-conceived proposal, I'm interested in it. And I was initially negative about it.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 11:33:49. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:37:44 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
it's OK not to submit every week. |
Not really. If I use the same example than previously:
- if A can't play week X, the team is likely to lose (their average is likely to go down, and they will hate A)
- if D can't play week Y, the team is likely to win (their average is likely to go up), and is likely to lose week Y+1 when D is back (their average will go super-down compared to the previous week, and they will hate D and ask him to never come back)
I'm caricaturing things, but I don't see how the system tolerates absence smoothly. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:40:08 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Venser having 4 players per team makes WPL less interesting. And for some users it's very hard to submit each week an entry.
Ps. I appreciate your effort, but you should understand that if the majority of people don't like this system we can't use it only because you're spending time studying it... |
Alex, the 4-per-team was just to illustrate the scoring method. The number of team members hasn't been talked about yet as far as I can see. And follow Venser's most recent post: it's OK not to submit every week.
This looks like a well-conceived proposal, I'm interested in it. And I was initially negative about it. |
I had lost that part, sorry :)
In any case in sports handicaps are very rare. I'm just of thinking of the most famous soccer Italian team, Juventus, having a handicap for winning last title - supporters would be VERY angry. Last year we were the underdogs and we won without 'helps'. The point is: who wants this system? If the majority say they want it, ok, let's have it, otherwise let's keep the other system that worked very good :) |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:42:05 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Ah -- so technically, their score is not counted that week. It's not (A+B+C+0)/4, it's (A+B+C)/3. |
Correct. The only way to get zero would be to submit quality images like the following:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
having 4 players per team makes WPL less interesting. |
Like Bear mentioned, I just pulled four out of my ass for the example. Enough to show my point without typing endless equations. The size of the teams, I would think, should be in the order of 5-8. Again, let me start to iron out some of the spreadsheets I'll be using later tonight before we seriously talk about participation. I want most things put in place before the start, so hopefully, it runs smoothly.
One thing for sure, is I won't limit the number of teams. I'll figure out how to fandangle everything together because, in my opinion, there'd be nothing worse then telling people they can't participate because even though they tried to join before the deadline, they're late. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:43:36 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
If the majority say they want it, ok, let's have it, otherwise let's keep the other system that worked very good :) |
Then you set everything up and run the season. Bear touched upon this a couple of posts ago. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:45:24 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
it's OK not to submit every week. |
Not really. If I use the same example than previously:
- if A can't play week X, the team is likely to lose (their average is likely to go down, and they will hate A)
- if D can't play week Y, the team is likely to win (their average is likely to go up), and is likely to lose week Y+1 when D is back (their average will go super-down compared to the previous week, and they will hate D and ask him to never come back)
I'm caricaturing things, but I don't see how the system tolerates absence smoothly. |
But the week after if A comes back, they'll most likely win because their average went down. The converse for your example with D. There is a lag of one week before it corrects itself. The second last week of the season could have people trying to game the system.
So in your example, with relation to D, you're correct. But if D never comes back, in week Y+2, they'll have a harder time winning. If people seriously try to game the system, I can simply make it a weighted average over the season, that would rectify this.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 11:56:51. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:46:34 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
If the majority say they want it, ok, let's have it, otherwise let's keep the other system that worked very good :) |
Then you set everything up and run the season. Bear touched upon this a couple of posts ago. |
This is not the point. You are changing something that already existed, so you should be sure that most of the people agree with you, that's all. I don't wanna set up it, only partecipate. :) |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:48:51 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
This is not the point. You are changing something that already existed, so you should be sure that most of the people agree with you, that's all. I don't wanna set up it, only partecipate. :) |
I'll call it CPL, Chris' Photography League. It never existed before. Problem solved.
edit - Sorry, that was somewhat snarky, but you get the point.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 11:49:13. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 11:53:20 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by Venser:
But the week after if A comes back, they'll most likely win because their average went down. The converse for your example with D. There is a lag of one week before it corrects itself. |
Yes indeed. So to summarize, if an 'important person' for the team (i.e. A or D in the example) can't play a week, the team is likely to lose a match (and likely to win another one), resulting potential conflicts about that member. Teams composed with people that are all able to play every week flawlessly have a nice advantage.
Originally posted by Venser:
The second last week of the season could have people trying to game the system. |
Yes. And similarly, the big final (only A plays, the others sit down and watch). |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:03:03 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Venser:
But the week after if A comes back, they'll most likely win because their average went down. The converse for your example with D. There is a lag of one week before it corrects itself. |
Yes indeed. So to summarize, if an 'important person' for the team (i.e. A or D in the example) can't play a week, the team is likely to lose a match (and likely to win another one), resulting potential conflicts about that member. Teams composed with people that are all able to play every week flawlessly have a nice advantage. |
Yes, this is correct.
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Venser:
The second last week of the season could have people trying to game the system. |
Yes. And similarly, the big final (only A plays, the others sit down and watch). |
Now there's a flaw. During the playoffs X members need to participate else a penalties is applied. A score of zero is put in their place if not enough members play. Just want to make sure people reading see this would only apply to the playoffs.
I know, you're just going to say the weakest members will all sit out as long as they hit X. I can't solve everything, but I highly doubt people are going to do this to win the inaugural CPL.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 12:03:35. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:07:57 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Venser:
I know, you're just going to say the weakest members will all sit out as long as they hit X. I can't solve everything, but I highly doubt people are going to do this to win the inaugural CPL. |
Agreed, people aren't that mean (and the ones that are don't want to be publicly considered as cheaters anyway), it's mostly for the pleasure of bullet-proofing the system. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:10:14 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
This is not the point. You are changing something that already existed, so you should be sure that most of the people agree with you, that's all. I don't wanna set up it, only partecipate. :) |
I'll call it CPL, Chris' Photography League. It never existed before. Problem solved.
edit - Sorry, that was somewhat snarky, but you get the point. |
+1 ... Besides, I personally wouldn't say that the original "worked well"...
I think this idea is FAR superior to the previous incarnations of this beast.
I'd propose we drop the word League entirely. Why not just name it something more friendly like "Team Competition 2012" or something of that sort?
In any case, name it whatever you'd like - the idea has pretty serious merit, and it's obvious that Venser actually has a surprisingly good grasp of what will really drive a fun and fair team competition.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:15:05 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Cory:
In any case, name it whatever you'd like - the idea has pretty serious merit, and it's obvious that Venser actually has a surprisingly good grasp of what will really drive a fun and fair team competition. |
Hoping that it's fun. A lot of things sound better as thought experiments but fail in reality.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 12:15:15. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:15:42 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I personally wouldn't say that the original |
What didn't work in the old one?
Venser's idea has surely merits but it's too complex and has flaws... different flaws compared with the old version, but still has flaws. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:21:58 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I'd propose we drop the word League entirely. Why not just name it something more friendly like "Team Competition 2012" or something of that sort?
In any case, name it whatever you'd like |
VENSERDOME 2012 |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:38:46 PM · #149 |
Venser, the biggest issue I see with the system has to do with the fact that the handicap system aids teams that improve. I really like that fact in theory, but due to it, it doesn't seem too difficult to game the system. Hear me out.
First week, everyone in a team gets 2s with obviously crappy images (maybe they leave the lens cap on) :P . Each week after, improve very slowly (it can be controlled, next week under expose it, or make it blurry), until the end where you're putting out constant 6s (which may be where that team normally hangs out) and have an advantage over the average competitor each week due to the artificially high handicap that they would accrue. Or maybe don't even steadily grow, just get 2s for the first 4 weeks, and use that nice advantage to dominate over the remaining weeks.
A quick proposal, is to potentially 'rig' the schedule each week for the most competitive pairing (albeit do not allow pairing of two teams together more than once). First week is random, but from there on, pair the winning team with the 2nd place team, 3rd with 4th, 5th with 6th, etc. If the first place team has already played the second place team, pair them with the 3rd. Then go on to pair the 2nd place team, who would be paired with 4th (or if they have already played 4th, pair with 5th, etc). The only issue I see is that games at the beginning of the schedule would probably be the most competitive, with larger percentile gaps forming in the ensuing weeks due to the "cannot play someone twice" rule.
To fix that, maybe the regular season needs to have two phases (am I complicating it too much now?). Phase 1 is as I outlined above, phase 2 uses the results from the phase 1 to establish the handicaps for each team pairing similar to the method proposed by you thus far. Post season schedule is dictated by total number of wins from both phase 1 and 2. Makes sense in my head. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:45:09 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Cory:
I'd propose we drop the word League entirely. Why not just name it something more friendly like "Team Competition 2012" or something of that sort?
In any case, name it whatever you'd like |
VENSERDOME 2012 |
hehehe.... +1
|
|
