So if it wasn’t backdated, do you believe this would be a fair and better way of accurately rating players?
2 Likes
Fair, yes. Better, not necessarily. It would be fair because the rules were known before I chose to play, and we wouldn’t be changing the past.
So someone who is consistently placing high in tournaments should not be seen as the better player? Im not understanding how this isn’t better?
1 Like
You lost me there.
With the new changes, (in theory) players who consistently place higher in tournaments will be rewarded with more points. Also, tournaments you did not do well in(so consistency in tournament play) will now affect your ranking.
This is a positive change for rating accurately in my eyes. Why is this a bad thing for strictly accurate ratings?
As I said before I think the phrasing of “excess of reasonable amount of play” and “the average will be where the line is drawn with respect to what we consider a reasonable level of access and opportunity for players to compete.” is where most of the confusion is coming from.
Your “simple” way of explaining it still contained a lot of math, which I might need to sleep on.
I do think I am starting to understand how the EFF% is working now, but I’m still struggling with EXCESS% vs. WPPRtunity (which I now understand a bit more to a certain degree).
Overall I still think these changes might be good for a more “accurate ranking” and will most likely not change how I play in any way.
I just want to try and understand this tricky formula well enough to explain to my community.
2 Likes
I think people don’t understand eff% and how it can look bad, and an event might hurt your eff%, but ultimately that event still helps your rank
So if you play local tournaments all year and kill and get 75wpprs out of 100wpprs between all those small value tournaments that’s a 75% eff
Then you go to Indisc and get 60wpprs out of 300wpprs that’s 20% eff
So now you’re profile will be 135 earned out of 400 which would drop a persons eff from 75% to 33%, but they still earned 60 freaking wpprs on their card at one event. And yes that 60 wpprs will get penalized for V6.0, you still hauled in a ton of points on your card instead of a bunch of small local tournament worth 5 or 8wpprs on your card
3 Likes
Would it help if I change these terms to:
FAKE% and FAKEtunity
1 Like
What you are describing is not a bad thing and I would be happy to play in it moving forward. No objection. What I object to is the nerfing of past results, taking wpprs away from when we were playing in the current rules.
No, that wasn’t very useful.
I am genuinely trying to understand how the excess of play come into play.
Pun not intended.
Hmm, maybe it’s starting to click a bit?
The WPPRtunity is the theoretical minimum amount of WPPRs that should have been available at all your active events to fill your WPPR card based on how your average eff% is looking?
And the the EXCESS% is the difference between that and your total WPPR count?
But where does the average from all Top 1000 come in effect?
I might be too tired or maybe I’ll just never fully understand it.
Theoretical number (not minimum) of WPPRs that should have been available at your top 20 active events (not all) to have filled your card based on your Eff%.
The Excess is the amount that this value is higher than the average amount for the top 1000. This has nothing to do with any comparisons to your actual play, your total count of WPPR’s earned, WPPR’s attempted, etc. It’s only a comparison against everyone else with respect to the ‘fake stat’ that is WPPRtunity.
Your WPPRtunity value is 42.78% higher than the average top 1000 player’s WPPRtunity value.
That’s all that means. It’s another ‘fake number’ made up of the comparisons of another ‘fake number’.
Okay, it’s starting to make sense.
But then again I think there might need to be a rephrasing of the original suggestion to avoid confusion, as it sound like there’s talk about amount of tournaments played.
1 Like
I’m open to suggestions at how to rephrase it. In the code the stat is literally called the “josh_stat” because it is a made up number.
Ultimately it’s a made up stat that tries to estimate the amount of WPPR’s you needed to have played in to earn the top 20 card that you have based on the efficiency at which you earn WPPR’s.
Those that are able to generate the same number of WPPR’s on their card at a higher rate of efficiency would be seen as the “better player”. Those players that would need more opportunities to compete for WPPR’s to rack up that same top 20 total would be seen as the “worse player” by comparison.
Also, considering current eff % of the person in question there’s a lot more leeway with regards to finishes, so potentially even lower won’t ding the efficiency.
That’s a good problem to have, honestly! I’d kill to have consistent events like that; in Pittsburgh it’s like pigeons fighting for bread crumbs (DJ, Alek, Cryss, Jared, etc etc fighting for 6-10 WPPRs in a win and nothing for 2nd or worse).
1 Like
I think this one sums up everything quite well.
The words like “reasonable amount of play acceptable” and “reasonable level of access and opportunity for players to compete” for me is the main reason to confusion, as I now seem to have understood that these things aren’t directly impacting the formula.
But I am not sure that I am grasping the full extent of the formula enough to come up with another rephrasing.
Maybe I’ll think of something and get back.
But in the meantime I am appreciative of your somewhat simplified explanations in the end to help me (and hopefully others) to understand how this would work.
Cincy/NKY is the same. SCS is cutthroat this way!
1 Like
Any chance of making this topic a Wiki and updating the top post as a summary of current thinking on the draft of 6.0? It would be nice to try to succinctly summarize, update, and share links based on the conversations across the various platforms as a one-stop-shop for the changes.
This one is very interesting (and good in my opinion)! Can you share the proposed formula? Would love to play with the math on this one.
I also feel like this change is actually going to be impactful on the rankings, but hard to do without the math.
If I understand this right, this is going to boost people’s efficiencies for playing in large events, which may actually change the average efficiency percentages, which in turn will change the proposed rankings.
It would be awesome if there was an ‘alternate universe’ dev database which showed how the new rules were going to shake out. @pinwizj @Shep - do you need help on the database/programming side? I know I’ve pitched in in the past with some fringe data things but do you need more help to make some of these things a reality? I think there’s enough of us data/IT geeks in here willing to give a hand if there’s things to pitch in on.
1 Like
Per the WPPR Distribution portion of our INFO page:
One is a linear distribution value based on the number of players in the tournament.
(PlayerCnt + 1 – Finishing Position) * 10/100 * (1st place value / playerCnt)
The second value is a dynamic distribution value using the top half of the players in the field players of a tournament. For any tournament with more than 128 players, only 64 players will be included in the dynamic distribution of WPPR points.
(power(( 1 – power((( Finishing Position -1) / min(RatedPlayerCnt/2,64)),.7)),3)) * 90 /100 * (1st place value)
These two values are what a player earns for a given tournament.
WPPR v6.0 removes that bold portion from the rules.
Yes to all of this, with the caveat that only players that finish in the top half of the field at these large events will see a boost (to both their WPPR total and Eff%).
There is an alternate universe that we look at. We don’t need any help on this. We simply prefer to not show all of our behind the scenes work to the masses. There’s a ton of iteration as we work through theoretical ideas, applying them, seeing the impact, tweaking, etc. We feel confident that we’re the “experts” on this stuff, and while we’re happy to discuss what we’re thinking along with some simulated examples of that impact, we’ll stick to presenting the ‘finalized product’ to the masses when it’s ready.
3 Likes
The time and effort that Josh, Shep, etc put into all this is always going to be amazing to me. Then there is the fact that any other sports organising committee would just announce the new rules and expect people to deal with it, whereas here we have the ability to examine and question those rules, with exceptional patience.
Hats off again. What an incredible community we have 
13 Likes
I have been watching this thread from a distance and I must say that I am an enormous fan of these changes, because these changes represent the next best step in trying to determine who the best players are. Kudos to Josh & Shep to their patience and efforts to always push this forward.
Because at the end of the day, one of the only things we have control over is how we finish in a tournament.
7 Likes