DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Side Challenges and Tournaments >> Anyone interested in the return of the WPL?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 115, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/13/2010 05:49:25 PM · #76
Originally posted by TrollMan:
How about using average score for 2009?


That would work better, it is still an average but it is a more recent average. In my case it would leave out the numerous brown ribbons I've got which weigh my average vote received down.
 01/13/2010 05:55:34 PM · #77
2009 calendar-year average is a good idea. Base every season on the results of the season before, score-wise. Simple and clean. But the question is, how easily can that be CALCULATED? Does this involve having to abstract scores for each individual? And what about those who didn't even ENTER in 2009, or only did so twice, or three times?

This is why it seems to me generally simpler to base everything on lifetime DPC averages. It's not like this is a really "meaningful" competition (whatever that might be), it's just a bunch of friends getting together. And i think for the most part the lifetime averages pretty much reflect where people are at, except to whatever extent certain individuals have improved dramatically over time, and in those cases i say "Great! Let them be gems to be sought out and signed up!"

R.
 01/13/2010 06:02:30 PM · #78
I was only able to participate for part of the season last time, I'd be up for it again.
 01/13/2010 06:05:49 PM · #79
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
2009 calendar-year average is a good idea. Base every season on the results of the season before, score-wise. Simple and clean. But the question is, how easily can that be CALCULATED? Does this involve having to abstract scores for each individual? And what about those who didn't even ENTER in 2009, or only did so twice, or three times?...


Scott has the tools to very easily obtain the data he needs to calculate a calendar year average for a user or sizable group of users... don't ask me how I know ;-)
If someone has no entries (or very few) within the past year, that could be a fly in the ointment. Alternatives would be "last X entries regardless of time" or "last year or last X entries if < X entries in past year."
 01/13/2010 06:13:00 PM · #80
I prefer the free market system for this. If a bunch of ribbon hogs want to form a team, let them.
 01/13/2010 06:14:11 PM · #81
My avg since march 2004 until now: 5.68

My avg only 2009: 5.97

There is a bit of a difference at least for me so I think it would be fair to not use all time scores. But how about we took the average of the last 20 challenges regardless of over how many years. If the participant has less than 20 we take the average all time.
 01/13/2010 06:20:40 PM · #82
Scott count me in as well, if anyone is forming teams and would like to pick me up email me.
 01/13/2010 07:01:28 PM · #83
Originally posted by posthumous:
I prefer the free market system for this. If a bunch of ribbon hogs want to form a team, let them.


Actually, it would be a little irritating if Judi, IreneM and Andrewt banded together, but I could handle it. I was liking the partial draft idea for the people who don't know anyone--a chance for people to branch out of their groups and get to know someone new. But what the heck, I didn't know Lutchenko when I banded with him for a side tournament. When it boils down to it, I have no problem with any of the solutions.
 01/13/2010 07:06:50 PM · #84
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by alfresco:
My opine on the draft, if you can't dodge em join em.

Since this is a score-based league then rank combatants players by average score. Set the players into pools of equalish score. Assuming 8 players per team make four pools from which to choose.

During the draft, either manually or automagically, captains choose from the same pool until that pool is exhausted then move to the next pool.

This method will relatively evenly distribute score-ability across teams.


Way back in the beginning, I had suggested a semi-draft, in the sense that the contestants be divided into A, B, and C groups based on scoring average, and that each team be allowed no more than 2 A's and required to have at least 2 C's amongst its 7 players.

It seems to me that an actual, live "draft" is an unwieldy concept, but the above would be easy enough to implement.

R.


I like this, too, but I'd still like to see the captains with at least some choice in their team base. Pick 3, then auto-draft the rest with the As, Bs, and Cs idea in mind. Or, we could just do it the way Scott initially designed it. Either way, I am stoked its coming back.
 01/13/2010 07:38:39 PM · #85
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Way back in the beginning, I had suggested a semi-draft, in the sense that the contestants be divided into A, B, and C groups based on scoring average, and that each team be allowed no more than 2 A's and required to have at least 2 C's amongst its 7 players.

It seems to me that an actual, live "draft" is an unwieldy concept, but the above would be easy enough to implement.

R.


I like this, too, but I'd still like to see the captains with at least some choice in their team base. ...


Well, that's what I'm suggesting: the captains pick as before, but they have to spread their picks out amongst the skill levels...

R.
 01/13/2010 09:34:37 PM · #86
FYI- we've offered to work with SDW to get DPL officially rolling again. Final format TBD.
 01/13/2010 10:07:45 PM · #87
Originally posted by scalvert:
FYI- we've offered to work with SDW to get DPL officially rolling again. Final format TBD.


As long as this isn't the same as when Detroit bought the rights to the engine that got 100-miles a gallon...in order to keep it off the market! :P
 01/13/2010 10:38:27 PM · #88
Originally posted by scalvert:
FYI- we've offered to work with SDW to get DPL officially rolling again. Final format TBD.

langdon contacted me today via email with an offer for DPC and myself to work together in bringing back the DPL which is the official site version of the WPL.

I have replied to langdon's email asking for more information with hopes to get the WPL or DPL up and running a soon as possible. langdon and the SC has worked with me in the past to keep the WPL running while langdon built the DPL and they have alway, imo, wanted whats best for the site and it's users.

I'm waiting to see what langdon has in mind and hope we can get the WPL or DPL back soon.

Thanks to all the users here that showed and continues to show an interest in the WPL/DPL and I promise each and everyone of you that I will do what I believe is the best for every user and this site.

Thank you langdon for contacting me and look forward to your response.

Scott

Message edited by author 2010-01-13 22:40:12.
 01/13/2010 11:39:09 PM · #89
I'm in, if anyone wants me in a Toronto or Canada based team!

: )

Pretty please...
 01/14/2010 12:19:10 AM · #90
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I prefer the free market system for this. If a bunch of ribbon hogs want to form a team, let them.


Actually, it would be a little irritating if Judi, IreneM and Andrewt banded together, but I could handle it. I was liking the partial draft idea for the people who don't know anyone--a chance for people to branch out of their groups and get to know someone new. But what the heck, I didn't know Lutchenko when I banded with him for a side tournament. When it boils down to it, I have no problem with any of the solutions.


Well if my memory serves me right...I am pretty sure we came last in the most recent rounds...so I don't see how we could be a threat...I understand if it was Irene, Andrew and myself...but I am just refreshing peoples memories...that we did not come out of the league how others expected.
 01/14/2010 12:25:05 AM · #91
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I prefer the free market system for this. If a bunch of ribbon hogs want to form a team, let them.


Actually, it would be a little irritating if Judi, IreneM and Andrewt banded together, but I could handle it. I was liking the partial draft idea for the people who don't know anyone--a chance for people to branch out of their groups and get to know someone new. But what the heck, I didn't know Lutchenko when I banded with him for a side tournament. When it boils down to it, I have no problem with any of the solutions.


Well if my memory serves me right...I am pretty sure we came last in the most recent rounds...so I don't see how we could be a threat...I understand if it was Irene, Andrew and myself...but I am just refreshing peoples memories...that we did not come out of the league how others expected.


Which team was that? I can't keep track of the number of losing teams you've been a part of. :P
 01/14/2010 12:36:36 AM · #92
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I prefer the free market system for this. If a bunch of ribbon hogs want to form a team, let them.


Actually, it would be a little irritating if Judi, IreneM and Andrewt banded together, but I could handle it. I was liking the partial draft idea for the people who don't know anyone--a chance for people to branch out of their groups and get to know someone new. But what the heck, I didn't know Lutchenko when I banded with him for a side tournament. When it boils down to it, I have no problem with any of the solutions.


Well if my memory serves me right...I am pretty sure we came last in the most recent rounds...so I don't see how we could be a threat...I understand if it was Irene, Andrew and myself...but I am just refreshing peoples memories...that we did not come out of the league how others expected.


Which team was that? I can't keep track of the number of losing teams you've been a part of. :P


Bite me baby!!! Hahahaha!!
 01/14/2010 12:38:21 AM · #93
Originally posted by scalvert:
FYI- we've offered to work with SDW to get DPL officially rolling again. Final format TBD.

wonderful!
 01/14/2010 07:31:38 AM · #94
I'll sign up of course. Count my vote for a draft -- would be a fun to watch it play out, helps spread the talent, and gets you talking to new people around the site. If you don't end up going with a draft, I'd suggest some sort of salary cap on self-formed teams to level the playing field. Assuming 6 people per team and an average score of 5.5ish among the participants, give each captain 35 points to work with -- i.e., the sum of the starting averages of all team members can't exceed 35.0000 points.
 01/14/2010 09:27:10 AM · #95
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
2009 calendar-year average is a good idea. Base every season on the results of the season before, score-wise. Simple and clean. But the question is, how easily can that be CALCULATED? Does this involve having to abstract scores for each individual? And what about those who didn't even ENTER in 2009, or only did so twice, or three times?...


Scott has the tools to very easily obtain the data he needs to calculate a calendar year average for a user or sizable group of users... don't ask me how I know ;-)
If someone has no entries (or very few) within the past year, that could be a fly in the ointment. Alternatives would be "last X entries regardless of time" or "last year or last X entries if < X entries in past year."


Let me upload a smaller file with only active profiles.

Message edited by author 2010-01-14 09:43:38.
 01/14/2010 09:32:38 AM · #96
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
If you don't end up going with a draft, I'd suggest some sort of salary cap on self-formed teams to level the playing field. Assuming 6 people per team and an average score of 5.5ish among the participants, give each captain 35 points to work with -- i.e., the sum of the starting averages of all team members can't exceed 35.0000 points.


That's an interesting approach, in that it is a bit more streamlined than throwing people into a pool and then defining A, B, C categories. Still, 6x6=36, and how many members do we have with averages of 6+? Anyway, it's 7-shooter teams I think... Maybe 38 pts, 39 pts max for 7? I donno, it's gonna be a fine line.

R.
 01/14/2010 09:42:49 AM · #97
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's an interesting approach, in that it is a bit more streamlined than throwing people into a pool and then defining A, B, C categories. Still, 6x6=36, and how many members do we have with averages of 6+? Anyway, it's 7-shooter teams I think... Maybe 38 pts, 39 pts max for 7? I donno, it's gonna be a fine line.

R.

Yeah, you're right, the actual cap would need to be tweaked and lowered from what I suggested. Also have to take into account that only top 5 (or was it 4?) scores count every week, so captains could get around the cap by finding a low scoring user just to fill a spot at the end of the bench. Might need to go as low as 36 for a 7-member team. Guess it depends on the overall average of the people that sign up.
 01/14/2010 09:50:00 AM · #98
Here is a list of Active Users (that have entered a challenge) as of Jan 1st, 2010.

2010 Profile States by User Name.

NOTE: Much smaller in size.
01/14/2010 10:26:58 AM · #99
I would be interested in joining a team, if anyone will have me. I need to start taking photos again.
 01/14/2010 04:20:01 PM · #100
If theres gonna be another thread for the sign up...I hope I dont miss out...Would someone please let me know..THANKS!!!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 05:52:23 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 05:52:23 PM EDT.