It depends on how many signed up and actually submitted a card.
As of right now, most of them are as uneven as they are because the host this month decided to nix out people instead of putting them on probation.
Per the rules:
Players who do not post a card or a Top 3 will be put on "probation." Top 3 violations for a round can be removed by posting or PMing the host with your Top 3 before the end of the next round. Any player that would receive a second violation is disqualified from further competition that month.
At the end of the first three rounds, the Top 8 players will be selected by points (usually the top 2 from each team). In the case of ties, there may be more than 8 players advancing. The host will determine matchups for single elimination. At the end of each elimination round, remaining players not in that matchup will choose a winner to advance. The host will break any ties.
To be honest, I have no idea why I'm complaining about it. I only abide by the rules and got taken out for no reason and already stated I will no longer continue in it because of this, but I guess I'm stating it for shadow to take in.
There seems to be a lot of recent confusion. It is my fault.
In no way did I intend to drop people because they didn't score well. The people not listed under the teams in the Round 2 thread were meant only to be those who did not submit a Top 3. However, I seem to have somehow missed a few people, most notably CodGod, Viperion, AeroMage, and PsiJet. You have all been added back onto the list.
If I missed anyone else, please pm me about it with a link to your post in the critique thread, and you will be added back on. If you still have not posted a critique, I also invite you to pm it to me, and you can still join in the round. PsiJet, if you are still willing, feel free to give this round's challenge a try.
I am sorry for the confusion I have caused; I certainly didn't mean for this to be a direct-elimination kind of deal. Thanks for pointing it out, all of you. I'll be more careful next time.
I have to wonder if shadow knows how to ultimately do this.
I'm going to rummage through and see what the scores really are and I'll post them here.
Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to do my job. I've been nothing but respectful to you this month, and I'd feel better if that respect were returned.
Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to do my job. I've been nothing but respectful to you this month, and I'd feel better if that respect were returned.
Mmhmm...
This could turn into a flame war real quick, so I'll leave it at just that.
Why bother with the "X/Y" calculations? All it does is give you a %age score out of 100, but the ratios between individuals remains the same. All it seems to do as far as I can tell is confuse the scorers and lead to an (admittedly small) rounding error.
Why bother with the "X/Y" calculations? All it does is give you a %age score out of 100, but the ratios between individuals remains the same. All it seems to do as far as I can tell is confuse the scorers and lead to an (admittedly small) rounding error.
What's the point of it?
It's meant to make each round end up being worth the same amount, regardless of the number of people judging you. (If the scores weren't normalized in some fashion, teams with a high attrition rate due to lack of time would cause Round 3 to have minimal or no impact for the team they judge.)
To be honest, though, all it succeeds in doing is making the bonus points worth quite a bit less.
Ok, I'm not sure where the discrepancy is, but I've come up with some different numbers for the scores for these first two rounds. I would suggest that some players check at least their own scores to see if we can determine where the numbers are wrong.
The formula I am using is Score = (3*Number of 1st places + 2*Number of 2nd places + 1*Number of 3rd places + 1 for giving a Top 3 on time + 1 for critiques on time)/(3*Number of Top 3s submitted by the critiquing team)
Here are my Round 1 Results (* indicates bonus points gained for critiquing):
Ok, I'm not sure where the discrepancy is, but I've come up with some different numbers for the scores for these first two rounds. I would suggest that some players check at least their own scores to see if we can determine where the numbers are wrong.
The formula I am using is Score = (3*Number of 1st places + 2*Number of 2nd places + 1*Number of 3rd places + 1 for giving a Top 3 on time + 1 for critiques on time)/(3*Number of Top 3s submitted by the critiquing team)
Here are my Round 1 Results (* indicates bonus points gained for critiquing):
Let me know if there are any mistakes in my math there. Maybe the scores are different because shadowfuryix is using a different equation?
I think your numbers are the correct ones. However, there are 3 bonus points added onto the final score if the entrant took Ludevic's job in round 2 and made a pun. Let me check my spreadsheets again, and I'll change the scores.
Edit:
Quote from MDenham »
The denominators need to count the two bonus points as well, GM.
The denominators need to count the two bonus points as well, GM.
Why? As long as it's consistent, I don't see what the difference is, but I may not know anything about math. Besides, that would take away the meaning of "bonus" points.
I think your numbers are the correct ones. However, there are 3 bonus points added onto the final score if the entrant took Ludevic's job in round 2 and made a pun. Let me check my spreadsheets again, and I'll change the scores.
Yes, since I did this late there certainly may be late entries and whatnot that I missed, although I left out points for the two Top 3s that were late (Ninja Caterpie's PM and Solesticio's post in Round 2). I also didn't track any bonus points that you are giving out.
About your formula, it is simpler, but it leaves out the "points for reviews" entirely. I guess you are trying punishing for no critiques instead of rewarding for critiques, although the "probation" system has always included some of that. In general, I think people should be motivated to critique, maybe even more so than leaving just a Top 3. Peer critiques are the driving factor of this contest.
CCL Eliminations is a 3 round score grab (get as many points as you can), and the top X from each group move forward.
Some of us got 1 round eliminations, therefore it was pretty much MCL (my own for combining MCC (judged) and CCL (team)).
Oh well.
If this is the case, then why do some groups have more people left than others? I am totally confused by this.
Am I allowed to submit a card or not...*sniff*.
As of right now, most of them are as uneven as they are because the host this month decided to nix out people instead of putting them on probation.
Per the rules:
To be honest, I have no idea why I'm complaining about it. I only abide by the rules and got taken out for no reason and already stated I will no longer continue in it because of this, but I guess I'm stating it for shadow to take in.
In no way did I intend to drop people because they didn't score well. The people not listed under the teams in the Round 2 thread were meant only to be those who did not submit a Top 3. However, I seem to have somehow missed a few people, most notably CodGod, Viperion, AeroMage, and PsiJet. You have all been added back onto the list.
If I missed anyone else, please pm me about it with a link to your post in the critique thread, and you will be added back on. If you still have not posted a critique, I also invite you to pm it to me, and you can still join in the round. PsiJet, if you are still willing, feel free to give this round's challenge a try.
I am sorry for the confusion I have caused; I certainly didn't mean for this to be a direct-elimination kind of deal. Thanks for pointing it out, all of you. I'll be more careful next time.
Also, we're not sure who we're supposed to be critqiuing for round 2. Please clear that up.
EDIT: I removed what I have for scores and whatnot.
Got you.
Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to do my job. I've been nothing but respectful to you this month, and I'd feel better if that respect were returned.
Mmhmm...
This could turn into a flame war real quick, so I'll leave it at just that.
Why bother with the "X/Y" calculations? All it does is give you a %age score out of 100, but the ratios between individuals remains the same. All it seems to do as far as I can tell is confuse the scorers and lead to an (admittedly small) rounding error.
What's the point of it?
Viperion
To be honest, though, all it succeeds in doing is making the bonus points worth quite a bit less.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
The formula I am using is Score = (3*Number of 1st places + 2*Number of 2nd places + 1*Number of 3rd places + 1 for giving a Top 3 on time + 1 for critiques on time)/(3*Number of Top 3s submitted by the critiquing team)
Here are my Round 1 Results (* indicates bonus points gained for critiquing):
Rocket_Powered_Turbo_Slug
mzc87
SushiOtter 2* = 2/24 = 8
ParaSiempre 3 2 3 1 1 2* 2 2 = 16/24 = 67
Maokun 1 2 3 2* = 8/24 = 33
ced395 2 1 3 2* 3 3 3 = 17/24 = 71
Solesticio
Wein_C 2* 1 = 3/24 = 13
Prospero314
yewlas 1 3 2 2* 2 2 1 1 = 14/24 = 58
Team Ink
CrazyMatt 2* 1 1 = 4/21 = 19
Marr965
NotoriousLynx
Hyral 2* = 2/21 = 10
PsiJet 2* = 2/21 = 10
Koopa 1 2 2 3 2* 2 = 12/21 = 57
Phyrexian Editor 2* 1 3 3 = 9/21 = 43
Smores_Prime 2 3 3 1 1 2 2* = 14/21 = 67
Krey 1 2 2* = 5/21 = 24
AeroMage 3 2* 2 3 = 10/21 = 48
Team Parchment
Egak 3 2* = 5/24 = 21
Pocketwatch 2 1 2* 1 2 = 7/24 = 29
MirrorEntity 1* = 1/24 = 4
Lordschuft 2 2 2* 2 = 8/24 = 33
Takaline 1 2* 1 = 4/24 = 17
brasil_dude101 3 3 1* 3 3 1 3 = 17/24 = 71
Jimmy Groove 2 2 2* 1 2 = 9/24 = 38
Timothy, Mimeslayer 1* = 1/24 = 4
Prophylaxis 2* 1 = 3/24 = 13
CodGod 1 3 2* 3 = 9/24 = 38
Team Good and Evil
xecel
Brofaux 1 1 1 1* = 4/30 = 13
Ninja Caterpie 1* = 1/30 = 3
MagicBrains 2* 2 = 4/30 = 13
Mundus 1 = 1/30 = 3
Rimeshade 1 1* = 2/30 = 7
Viperion 2* 2 1 1 3 1 = 10/30 = 33
Burstinatrix 2 2* 2 2 3 3 = 14/30 = 47
Gerrard's Mom 3 3 2 2 2* 2 2 = 16/30 = 53
Oculus 2* 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 = 21/30 = 70
And here's what I have for Round 2:
ced395 2* 3 1 = 6/21 = 29
ParaSiempre 1 1 2 1 1* = 6/21 = 29
yewlas 2* 3 2 3 2 = 12/21 = 57
Maokun 3 1 2 3 2* = 11/21 = 52
Wein_C 2 2 3 2* 1 1 = 11/21 = 52
Solesticio 3 = 3/21 = 14
SushiOtter
Team Ink
Smores_Prime 2 3 2 1 3 2* 2 = 15/21 = 71
Koopa 1* 1 1 1 3 2 1 = 10/21 = 48
AeroMage 1 = 1/21 = 5
Phyrexian Editor 2* 3 2 3 3 = 13/21 = 62
Krey 2 2* = 4/21 = 19
CrazyMatt 2* = 2/21 = 10
Hyral 2 1 2* 3 = 8/21 = 38
PsiJet 2* = 2/21 = 10
Team Parchment
brasil_dude 101 3 1* = 4/21 = 19
CodGod 1 2* 2 3 2 3 = 13/21 = 62
Jimmy Groove 3 2 3 = 8/21 = 38
Lordschuft 2* = 2/21 = 10
Pocketwatch 3 2* = 5/21 = 24
Egak 2* 1 = 3/21 = 14
Takaline 1 3 2 2 2* 2 = 12/21 = 57
Prophylaxis 2 1 2* = 5/21 = 24
Timothy, Mimeslayer 1 1 1 = 3/21 = 14
Team Good and Evil
Oculus 2* 2 1 3 = 8/15 = 53
Burstinatrix 2* 1 1 = 4/15 = 27
Gerrard's Mom 1 3 2 1 2* 2 = 11/15 = 73
Viperion 1* = 1/15 = 7
Brofaux 3 = 3/15 = 20
MagicBrains 2* = 2/15 = 13
Rimeshade 3 3 2 1* = 9/15 = 60
Ninja Caterpie 2 2* = 4/15 = 27
For totals of:
ced395 29 + 71 = 100
ParaSiempre 29 + 67 = 96
yewlas 57 + 58 = 115
Maokun 52 + 33 = 85
Wein_C 52 + 13 = 65
Solesticio 14 + 0 = 14
SushiOtter 8 + 0 = 8
Team Ink
Smores_Prime 67 + 71 = 138
Koopa 57 + 48 = 105
AeroMage 48 + 5 = 53
Phyrexian Editor 43 + 62 = 105
Krey 24 + 19 = 43
CrazyMatt 19 + 10 = 29
Hyral 10 + 38 = 48
PsiJet 10 + 10 = 20
Team Parchment
brasil_dude 101 71 + 19 = 90
CodGod 38 + 62 = 100
Jimmy Groove 38 + 38 = 76
Lordschuft 33 + 10 = 43
Pocketwatch 29 + 24 = 53
Egak 21 + 14 = 35
Takaline 17 + 57 = 74
Prophylaxis 13 + 24 = 37
Timothy, Mimeslayer 4 + 14 = 18
Team Good and Evil
Oculus 70 + 53 = 123
Burstinatrix 47 + 27 = 74
Gerrard's Mom 53 + 73 = 126
Viperion 33 + 7 = 40
Brofaux 13 + 20 = 33
MagicBrains 13 + 13 = 26
Rimeshade 7 + 60 = 67
Ninja Caterpie 3 + 27 = 30
Let me know if there are any mistakes in my math there. Maybe the scores are different because shadowfuryix is using a different equation?
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
I think your numbers are the correct ones. However, there are 3 bonus points added onto the final score if the entrant took Ludevic's job in round 2 and made a pun. Let me check my spreadsheets again, and I'll change the scores.
Edit:
And this too.
(3 * #of 1st place)(2 * #of 2nd place)(1 * #of 3rd place)/(3 * #of reviewers)
So a bit simpler. That's how some people ended up with a 0 score. I think in the long run this won't really matter, but I'd like GM's opinion on it.
Is that your full formula?
Why? As long as it's consistent, I don't see what the difference is, but I may not know anything about math. Besides, that would take away the meaning of "bonus" points.
Yes, since I did this late there certainly may be late entries and whatnot that I missed, although I left out points for the two Top 3s that were late (Ninja Caterpie's PM and Solesticio's post in Round 2). I also didn't track any bonus points that you are giving out.
About your formula, it is simpler, but it leaves out the "points for reviews" entirely. I guess you are trying punishing for no critiques instead of rewarding for critiques, although the "probation" system has always included some of that. In general, I think people should be motivated to critique, maybe even more so than leaving just a Top 3. Peer critiques are the driving factor of this contest.
spam
I would say yes, you are at this point. Do you still want to do it?