7 replies to this topic

[akke]

The sheets are re-ranked by points per game (ppg). I've also added overall rankings.
https://docs.google....MXc&usp=sharing

[Chavette]

Another thread, and still no mention about overall ladder, starting to wish I ran assault/heavy.

[hammerreborn]

What's overall games played?


Edit: n/m. Too early

Edited by hammerreborn, 26 February 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[akke]

sorry about that Chavette, they just didn't release as many numbers about the overall leaders

Chavette, on 26 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Another thread, and still no mention about overall ladder, starting to wish I ran assault/heavy.

[ciller]

Readjusting the latter doesn't take into account that people would have played differently if they were being scored soley on Points Per Game rather then Points Per Hour as the contest was set up.

I would have played rather differently if it was based on Points Per Game. This is why I do not like the readjustment of these stats.

[Mawai]

One of the key items I find interesting is that the light mechs pulled in a higher average points/game than the other mech classes. i.e. 1.49 compared to 1.2 for all the other classes ... averaged over the top 25 players. In addition, the top position in light mechs was 1.91 compared to about 1.6 in the best case for the other classes.

On a score/game basis the light mechs out-perform all the others. However, since most (but not all) were playing Raven-3Ls ... I think this may just be an indication of exactly how overpowered the SSRM+ECM+speed+decent armor combination of the Raven-3L really is ... in the hand's of a decent pilot

Also ... if you total up the number of matches played ... it is just over 6000 for lights vs over 8000 for assaults ... and it increases by mech weight class ... so either the matches in the lighter mech last longer or there is a preference in the player base for playing the heavier weight classes (the latter I think).

Edited by Mawai, 26 February 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[akke]

That's a fair point Ciller. It's still interesting to look at the numbers, but we should take that into account. On the other hand, higher PPG leads to a higher score, which PGI's scoring system did take into account. But I can see how there was a drive to keep up with the massive amount of games other people were using to gain rank/score. There may have been a few surprises for people who felt the score was driven purely by games played only and didn't take into account PPG.

[ciller]

akke, on 26 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

That's a fair point Ciller. It's still interesting to look at the numbers, but we should take that into account. On the other hand, higher PPG leads to a higher score, which PGI's scoring system did take into account. But I can see how there was a drive to keep up with the massive amount of games other people were using to gain rank/score. There may have been a few surprises for people who felt the score was driven purely by games played only and didn't take into account PPG.

Yeah, I had not realized it was quite the way PGI had it set up until AFTER the tourney. By then it was far too late but if I had known (or paid attention to the forums on saturday instead of dropping non-stop) I would have taken the time to rest and be a better pilot then the marathon I ended up running.