UO Second Age

Could they be posted?

Think that is wrong, no way Spanky has done 46 4v4s

son wrote:Think that is wrong, no way Spanky has done 46 4v4s

4v4 record was copied from 3v3..

I can see almost no correlation between win ratio and standings, on any of the tournament boards. It's gotta be the worst algorithm ever devised.

nightshark wrote:I can see almost no correlation between win ratio and standings, on any of the tournament boards. It's gotta be the worst algorithm ever devised.

Another variable must be taken into account, or its broken. There are two people with identical scores (1v1: 0/12 tourney, 12/24 match) with different rankings (95 and 100).

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:
R = average rank in tournament (you would have to record this, I currently don't believe it is recorded)
v = number of tourneys
m = minimum tourneys required to be listed
C = the mean rank in tourney across the board

Think u get 3 points for a battle win and lose 2 when you lose, has nothing to do with winning entire event.

then you can do average points or whatever per tourney (but that means all tourneys must be the same number of rounds and such)

son wrote:Think u get 3 points for a battle win and lose 2 when you lose, has nothing to do with winning entire event.

this + overall score determines rank

my treasure hunter was in top 100 for 2 years from winnign a couple tournys in june 2008

son wrote:Think u get 3 points for a battle win and lose 2 when you lose, has nothing to do with winning entire event.

This can't be right, there's heaps of people on there I would have a better score than. I've definitely passed the minimum number of tournaments/matches, I've probably done about 5/15 respectively, and won about 70% of my matches.

There's no way someone like this should feature on the board, but I don't...

97 Tha Killah Koopa 0/3 (0%) 3/6 (50%) 2/6/2009

Anyone know the name of the script/author used for these tourns?

Overall score determines rank. Score is earned by winning matches, and losing matches will reduce your score.

http://my.uosecondage.com/Status/Player/95866

I am ranked at the very bottom even though my record is better than most people that far down, simply because my wins don't merit enough score to be placed higher.

If that's true, how is it possible someone who has won 3/6 matches has a better score than me. Even if I looked at it in the worst possible scenario, say I won 50% of my matches (definitely won more) with 15 matches played, I should be ranked above this guy.

As rammar pointed out, there are 2 people with the exact same stats..
0/12 tournament wins, 12/24 match wins. One is ranked 95th, the other is ranked 100th equal.

There is no way to satisfy an equation to make these guys ranked 88th equal:
88 The Murderer HardCore [PEE] 0/19 (0%) 11/30 (36%) 7/21/2009
88 White Knight 0/16 (0%) 12/28 (42%) 5/16/2009
88 Roger 1/60 (1%) 52/111 (46%) 5/1/2010

The only possibility is that you hit a rock bottom of 0, and Hardcore/White Knight had a winning streaks. That wouldn't explain how the guy who has won 3/6 beats me, as he obviously lost his last match (0% tourny wins). It's either somehow broken or there's hidden variables.

Do you know the name of the script?

Example:

Roger/ 52 wins & 60 losses.

52x3 = 156

156 - 60x2 = 36

Overall score: 36

An overall score of 36 is barely enough to even place rank on the tourney board. He is more than likely #88 b/c when he last joined a tournament there weren't as many people at the bottom of the list as there are now, which means he had an easier time getting on the board and passing all the #100 players.

I could not tell you the exact reason why it ranks the way it does at the lower levels, but if you check the ranks from 1-20 they are all in the correct order, respectively.