Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2016 7:47:34 GMT -5
Then the solution is simple. Use the real WGR calculations but scale it. I.E. 1 year real world = 1 month TGC. But keep everything else the same. Well, then you'd need to multiply the number of tournaments we have a month by 12. Whereas I'm sure some people would like playing a tournament a day, I don't think most of us would have the time! Well, then you're screwed. Plain and simple. So pick something. Stick to your guns and live with the fallout, whatever it is. Bottom Line: Unless you're using the real world WGR, somebody is going to be unhappy. And most likely, given the outrage in this thread (which quite honestly surprises the hell out of me) that's going to be a lot of people. Oh well, life sucks sometimes. They'll either keep playing or quit. Maybe you were better off leaving well enough alone but oh well. That ship has sailed. I support whatever decision you make. As a 1905 player, don't really care either way. Good luck. You're going to need it. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Jan 16, 2016 7:52:54 GMT -5
One problem with the real life WGR is that it is very slow moving. While fine for a real life golf career, this is a video game after all and we don't have 15 year TGCTours careers. A little more volatility is good because players come and go, people can improve quickly and we want to reflect this in our rankings. (Changing divisors etc actually causes more problems and promotes inactivity, which is not something we want to go for. I've done the modelling.) I would think the decay is what mainly governs the penalty for inactivity and not the divisor. Since there is decay in the equation there is a penalty for inactivity. The divisor only promotes inactivity if the players results would be worse than the base 20 minus decay. That could go either way even if there of course is a higher probability that a set of 20 is a positive outlier than a set of 40... I understand the issue but since the divisor actually does a good job at getting new players "properly" ranked quickly why not just slap a non linear function on the decay to speed it up and balance the equation? |
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Jan 16, 2016 7:58:46 GMT -5
One problem with the real life WGR is that it is very slow moving. While fine for a real life golf career, this is a video game after all and we don't have 15 year TGCTours careers. A little more volatility is good because players come and go, people can improve quickly and we want to reflect this in our rankings. (Changing divisors etc actually causes more problems and promotes inactivity, which is not something we want to go for. I've done the modelling.) 100% correct.This what I have been saying. We won't be playing this in 15 years so can't use the exact same formulas. We will be playing PS6/XB720 and PC with nivida 2000 graphics cards |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Jan 16, 2016 8:03:06 GMT -5
Doesn't nessecarily mean TGCT can't be around? What says Tim and team can't "upgrade" the game they use as part of their set up here?
|
|
|
|
Post by ijs1543 on Jan 16, 2016 8:09:14 GMT -5
Okay, this is going to sound like a stupid question but here goes. Why not just use the actual WGR system and the "problem" is solved? That way, nobody can complain. Admins can just answer "Hey, we're using the real system. What's your problem?" Now that it's been explained with an example, I can see how a better player who doesn't get to play every week will rank lower than a lesser player who plays every week and I don't think that's right either. Not even Tiger Woods in his prime played every week. Anyway, it's out of my hands. But for what it's worth, and I'm a crap golfer so none of this really affects me anyway, I think you guys should just use the real system and be done with it. But whatever. I'm going back to enjoying playing this game with my crappy 1905 rating that I couldn't give two craps about. Use the real system...Problem solved. That is what was done with the first change. But with the inactives showing, there was an uproar about a player who hasn't played since about August being ranked #3. can only speak for myself bob but the only reason I used sloaner was because it was easier to compare him an smurf who were sitting 3 and 4. I was against all inactives taking up wgr, taking up spots from people who still enjoy and play the game if they come back by all means reinstate there points, but i just didn't see the point in having a wgr with so many non active members, who have no intention of coming back. that's just my opinion tho
and if this is a real life who do i see to get my tournament winnings, tim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2016 8:28:45 GMT -5
I would think it would be interesting to see a WGR points breakdown for a typical tournament on each Tour.
Having that and (for PGA) FedEx points given added into the leaderboards would be nice. Don't know how cluttered that would make it, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Jan 16, 2016 8:39:55 GMT -5
I would think it would be interesting to see a WGR points breakdown for a typical tournament on each Tour. Having that and (for PGA) FedEx points given added into the leaderboards would be nice. Don't know how cluttered that would make it, though. Maybe it can be added like on the Top left like if we wanted to look at hottest players so we could see it if interrested. Have the regular page look like it normally does |
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Jan 16, 2016 9:20:06 GMT -5
I'd like to know the Strength of Field for each tournament aswell (not sure if possible) Massive thanks to Tim for spending all week doing all this (even if i thought the initial change was just fine  ) |
|
|
|
Post by hilyerchris on Jan 16, 2016 9:24:28 GMT -5
At the end of the day....if you play well, at what ever level you are at, you will move up in the rankings, if you play badly, you will move down. The admin guys here do an awesome job so all the those complaining should suck it up and play well and move on up. IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moe Slorkman on Jan 16, 2016 9:30:48 GMT -5
Now I'm 287, this is a joke, who's coming up with this crap? Can someone with a proper OR background please start handling the algorithms for the WGR? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I only took 8 hours away from my work day and worked close with a guy with a pHD to make sure we got it right... What are your credentials... Personally I would like to thank Tim and the rest for this effort they put in it gives a better more accurate and fair WGR. And hopefully it has the knock on effect of minimalising the blatant sandbagging in TGC! Now to String 4 rounds together and get up to the big boys to get the full benefit of the regig. Great job men |
|
|
|
Post by unclefester75 on Jan 16, 2016 11:09:39 GMT -5
Thanks guys for putting some thought and effort into keeping this website running. We appreciate all that you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 16, 2016 11:27:35 GMT -5
Good change imo. Coming from a guy that went down, when you actually take the time to understand what is changed and why you would probably like it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackaces13 on Jan 16, 2016 11:33:22 GMT -5
Good change imo. Coming from a guy that went down, when you actually take the time to understand what is changed and why you would probably like it too. Not true for me. I understand the changes and I disagree with removing the divisor (I thought 20 was good) and increasing the equal footing time to 52 weeks. I like the accelerated points decay, but I don't like using cumulative total as opposed to a weighted average. IMO they had it right after the first change and caved to outside pressure. |
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 16, 2016 11:35:16 GMT -5
Good change imo. Coming from a guy that went down, when you actually take the time to understand what is changed and why you would probably like it too. Not true for me. I understand the changes and I disagree with removing the divisor (I thought 20 was good) and increasing the equal footing time to 52 weeks. I like the accelerated points decay, but I don't like using cumulative total as opposed to a weighted average. I like the divisor being gone. It only averages the points per event which I don't think is necessary when all the top players play every week like they do on here. |
|
|
|
Post by blackaces13 on Jan 16, 2016 11:39:22 GMT -5
If we had all been playing for multiple years it would matter less. But not everyone here joined the league at the same time, and under the current system it takes a full year to be on an even playing field with those who have a year or more in the league.
IMO that is FAR too long for a video game. A divisor allows players to be fairly ranked based on their results much faster. Plus, it mirrors real life, which seems to be a core principle of TGCT.
|
|
)
