## All-Time Ranking calc

### All-Time Ranking calc

First of all very awesome upgrades, but one thing really hurt my sense of math.

We need a better formula for the all-time ranking!

Dario has the same rank as TerRoR and a worse than chuvash?

Only because he reached Group stage in 2004 when everyone was a noob? You can't calculate it that simply.

Dario definitely is the best CWT player we had, followed by Jigsaw.

Editions where a player gets a cup need to achieve higher points, and editions where he lost early can't cost so many points like in case of Dario or me.. Without 2004 he'd have a ranking of 13.

And you also can't tell me that winning CWT 20 times in a row is as good as winning CWT once and then disappearing forever!

Sorry for complaining without coming up with a better formula, but I am too tired today to think of one. I will write again.

We need a better formula for the all-time ranking!

Dario has the same rank as TerRoR and a worse than chuvash?

Only because he reached Group stage in 2004 when everyone was a noob? You can't calculate it that simply.

Dario definitely is the best CWT player we had, followed by Jigsaw.

Editions where a player gets a cup need to achieve higher points, and editions where he lost early can't cost so many points like in case of Dario or me.. Without 2004 he'd have a ranking of 13.

And you also can't tell me that winning CWT 20 times in a row is as good as winning CWT once and then disappearing forever!

Sorry for complaining without coming up with a better formula, but I am too tired today to think of one. I will write again.

[FaD] im pro jumper

[lNNNxDario] i see

[lNNNxDario] i see

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

I agree with you in any point. The ranking shows your average CWT performance in a mathematical sense. How far you made it in a tournament, that’s how many points you get.

EDIT: Thanks for your feedback

EDIT: Thanks for your feedback

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

What about this?

I suggest the following fixed rating:

Most 1st places: 40 points (would be Dario)

and then in descending order, 39, 38 etc.

In case of same amount of 1st places (chuvash and Jigsaw for example), the other places are considered in 1/2 steps each.

For example: chuvash and Jigsaw both have 2 times first place, one time 2nd so they'd get 39.5 points.

Since Jigsaw has bronze as well, he gets 39.75.

Then we'd have: Dario 40, Jigsaw 39.75, chuvash 39.5.

In my opinion the performance in other editions are irrelevant regarding players who got a cup. All players who got a cup must have a higher ranking than someone who didn't.

You can't say that someone who plays CWT 3 times and gets to Semifinal 3 times (with your formula rank = 8) is better than someone who plays it 7 times, but wins in the last 3 editions gold, but for example was bad in the beginning, reaching just group stage his first 4 years. (4*2*1+3*7*2)/7 = 7.14.

So I suggest a fixed rank for everyone who has a cup.

If your highest cup is Silver, ranking starts at 30 instead of 40, and highest bronze is 20.

One example: FaD had one gold and one silver, but since there are other players with more gold (Dario, Jigsaw and chuvash), FaD lands on 38 together with Xaositect, Johnmir, Random00 and Fantomas.

Since FaD, Johnmir and Xaositect have the same amount of cups, they should have the same rank.

Mablak got one cup more, but both of them bronze, so it's worse than a single silver (or maybe not, this is just a prototype so far).

So FaD, Johnmir and Xaositect get 38.5 and Mablak 38.25.

The ranking would be

Dario 40 (the bronze of Dario doesn't matter, he is highest in ranking with 40 as well)

Jigsaw 39.75

chuvash 39.5

Johnmir FaD Xaositect 38.5

Mablak 38.25

Random00 Fantomas 38

Then come the silver people, starting at 30

and so on...

I chose 10 point steps, so the maximum amount for one player is 10 cups from one sort xD, given that there are 9 other players with 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and 1 cup of this sort. That should be enough for some years.

And your formula can be used for people without a cup maybe. Since the highest amount of points you can get without a cup is 8, I decided to start at 40 for gold, so in several years, if a lot of people have bronze cups, and need to descend from 20, they won't collide with the other formula, where 8 is the maximum amount.

I suggest the following fixed rating:

Most 1st places: 40 points (would be Dario)

and then in descending order, 39, 38 etc.

In case of same amount of 1st places (chuvash and Jigsaw for example), the other places are considered in 1/2 steps each.

For example: chuvash and Jigsaw both have 2 times first place, one time 2nd so they'd get 39.5 points.

Since Jigsaw has bronze as well, he gets 39.75.

Then we'd have: Dario 40, Jigsaw 39.75, chuvash 39.5.

In my opinion the performance in other editions are irrelevant regarding players who got a cup. All players who got a cup must have a higher ranking than someone who didn't.

You can't say that someone who plays CWT 3 times and gets to Semifinal 3 times (with your formula rank = 8) is better than someone who plays it 7 times, but wins in the last 3 editions gold, but for example was bad in the beginning, reaching just group stage his first 4 years. (4*2*1+3*7*2)/7 = 7.14.

So I suggest a fixed rank for everyone who has a cup.

If your highest cup is Silver, ranking starts at 30 instead of 40, and highest bronze is 20.

One example: FaD had one gold and one silver, but since there are other players with more gold (Dario, Jigsaw and chuvash), FaD lands on 38 together with Xaositect, Johnmir, Random00 and Fantomas.

Since FaD, Johnmir and Xaositect have the same amount of cups, they should have the same rank.

Mablak got one cup more, but both of them bronze, so it's worse than a single silver (or maybe not, this is just a prototype so far).

So FaD, Johnmir and Xaositect get 38.5 and Mablak 38.25.

The ranking would be

Dario 40 (the bronze of Dario doesn't matter, he is highest in ranking with 40 as well)

Jigsaw 39.75

chuvash 39.5

Johnmir FaD Xaositect 38.5

Mablak 38.25

Random00 Fantomas 38

Then come the silver people, starting at 30

and so on...

I chose 10 point steps, so the maximum amount for one player is 10 cups from one sort xD, given that there are 9 other players with 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and 1 cup of this sort. That should be enough for some years.

And your formula can be used for people without a cup maybe. Since the highest amount of points you can get without a cup is 8, I decided to start at 40 for gold, so in several years, if a lot of people have bronze cups, and need to descend from 20, they won't collide with the other formula, where 8 is the maximum amount.

[FaD] im pro jumper

[lNNNxDario] i see

[lNNNxDario] i see

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

How about making an X variable standing for years played. And allowing people to enter the amount "last X years". It could consider all years by default, but you could also display ranking based on last 3 years results for example, if you want. Not like I have any exact formula, just sharing an idea.

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

Okay, Kayz. Anyone against it?

Yes kukumber, that could be added on top of it.

Yes kukumber, that could be added on top of it.

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

lol you just agree with what just came spontaneously to my mind in pure insanity? ok

No but serious, this is not perfect yet. What about this case: Someone has one gold and one silver, and another player has one gold and 5 bronzes, who is better? is it like 2 bronze = 1 silver and so on?, but then 4 bronze would be = 1 gold and that's bullshit too

No but serious, this is not perfect yet. What about this case: Someone has one gold and one silver, and another player has one gold and 5 bronzes, who is better? is it like 2 bronze = 1 silver and so on?, but then 4 bronze would be = 1 gold and that's bullshit too

[FaD] im pro jumper

[lNNNxDario] i see

[lNNNxDario] i see

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

Is it possible to somehow use nnn standings formula to CWT ratings?

I guess it would be hard but with some tweaks maybe possible.

I recall how hard Dario and Kb worked on it.

And it proved to be an awesome job.

I guess it would be hard but with some tweaks maybe possible.

I recall how hard Dario and Kb worked on it.

And it proved to be an awesome job.

Yeah, really. When you change your cows to pigeons you loose the big fucking sledgehammer called COWS. Without it you will hardly make it to SD.

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

It's more complicated than that, the amount of cups must be considered, which is one factor you don't have in ONL.

[FaD] im pro jumper

[lNNNxDario] i see

[lNNNxDario] i see

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

Tempting idea, khamski.

Generally I want to remind about CWT still being a tournament, not a league. I think single games shouldn't be taken into account.

Generally I want to remind about CWT still being a tournament, not a league. I think single games shouldn't be taken into account.

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

I think they should but of course won cups must be defined by a way bigger value.

Creating an accurate CWT rank formula indeed can be a very interesting project.

I mean with all this data in hand

Btw. What formula did Crespo use?

Creating an accurate CWT rank formula indeed can be a very interesting project.

I mean with all this data in hand

Btw. What formula did Crespo use?

Yeah, really. When you change your cows to pigeons you loose the big fucking sledgehammer called COWS. Without it you will hardly make it to SD.

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

http://2009.cwtsite.com/ranking.htmkhamski wrote:Btw. What formula did Crespo use?

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

Well here you have it:

This ranking is based on the performance of each wormer in CWT. Quitters won't be registered. The minimum amount of games to be ranked is 5. These rankings are based in CWTs since 2004's edition. The equation used by me to calculate this ranking is the following:

In case of win you get: Rank = PV + |(ln(OP/PV)x170+100)/9|

In case of loss you get: Rank = PV - |(ln(PV/OP)x170+100)/11|

Where:

PV » Your previous ranking

OP » Your oponnent's previous ranking

The further you get in the playoffs you will get bonus points for the ranking. Reaching eight-quarter-finals gets you extra 5 points, while quarter-finals gets you 8 points, semi-finals 11 points and reaching the final 15 extra points.

The CWT ranking formula was initially made up by Manolo and tested by Crespo.

This ranking is based on the performance of each wormer in CWT. Quitters won't be registered. The minimum amount of games to be ranked is 5. These rankings are based in CWTs since 2004's edition. The equation used by me to calculate this ranking is the following:

In case of win you get: Rank = PV + |(ln(OP/PV)x170+100)/9|

In case of loss you get: Rank = PV - |(ln(PV/OP)x170+100)/11|

Where:

PV » Your previous ranking

OP » Your oponnent's previous ranking

The further you get in the playoffs you will get bonus points for the ranking. Reaching eight-quarter-finals gets you extra 5 points, while quarter-finals gets you 8 points, semi-finals 11 points and reaching the final 15 extra points.

The CWT ranking formula was initially made up by Manolo and tested by Crespo.

Yeah, really. When you change your cows to pigeons you loose the big fucking sledgehammer called COWS. Without it you will hardly make it to SD.

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

Are there still ambitions to change something?

### Re: All-Time Ranking calc

Why not just simple formula like :

gold 3

silver 2

bronze 1

For others who do not have a medal does not matter. And should not be important if the tournament was strong or not, gold is gold and everyone have chance in future to reach another gold to improve his status

gold 3

silver 2

bronze 1

For others who do not have a medal does not matter. And should not be important if the tournament was strong or not, gold is gold and everyone have chance in future to reach another gold to improve his status

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2jpamLZW3g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest