Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All

Author Topic: Qvist Rankings and Empires  (Read 15784 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2374
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4021
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2016, 09:32:52 pm »
+5

So based on the results it seems that split cards should definitely be ranked separately. For debt cards it's not so clear but a small majority wants to rank them with the $6+ cards (Engineer with the $4 cards of course). I won't be making this soon though, probably in 3-4 months when everybody had the opportunity to play enough, but definitely still this year before we can all play it online. I also have to make some adjustments to my submission site but I'm currently not in the mood for programming.
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2405
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2016, 10:32:42 pm »
0

One thing to note is that the three 8 Debt cards all feel like $6+ cards even if you can initially pay less for them. And, Engineer feels like a $4 card. Fortune no matter should still go in the $6+ category.
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +839
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2016, 07:56:15 am »
0

So based on the results it seems that split cards should definitely be ranked separately. For debt cards it's not so clear but a small majority wants to rank them with the $6+ cards (Engineer with the $4 cards of course). I won't be making this soon though, probably in 3-4 months when everybody had the opportunity to play enough, but definitely still this year before we can all play it online. I also have to make some adjustments to my submission site but I'm currently not in the mood for programming.

I jut realized I misunderstood in formulation in the poll; I thought "ranked for both cards" meant both cards be ranked as a single pile (and voted for that). Nowhere in the poll does it say they be ranked separately. I did not assume that was what the poll was about. After all, the alternative option was just ranking the top card (which seems nonsensical to me so of course I wouldn't choose that). Did anyone else get it wrong?

Also, I stated that the ranking by cost was outdated and it was time to introduce a new ranking system. And I'm definitely not the only one thinking this.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2374
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4021
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2016, 08:39:08 am »
+3

Also, I stated that the ranking by cost was outdated and it was time to introduce a new ranking system. And I'm definitely not the only one thinking this.

The problem is that there are no real alternatives. You have again the option to vote all the cards in a whole list. The problem is that this is very time consuming and very hard to do. What is better: Lost Arts or Chapel? But if you want to do it, you have the opportunity and I will present the results. Categorizing the cards other than cost is just not possible or at least there will be a lot of disagreements. Let's say we rank the villages. Is Ironmonger a village, is Throne Room one, and Tribute and how about Crossroads? And some cards either don't fit into categories like Outpost and Possession or belong into lots of categories, like Jack of All Trades or the Travellers. If you have a good suggestion, I'm open for it, but I haven't yet come across one.
Logged

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
  • Respect: +596
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2016, 10:34:08 am »
+2

Quote
The problem is that there are no real alternatives.

Well, there is one: A rating system instead of a ranking system. Ratings are more useful, and could be used in conjunction with a multi-category database system for sorting and viewing cards. Sure, maybe both systems have their place, but currently, there is no Dominion rating system, and it's long past time we had one.

When you're thinking about going to the movies, or buying a new game, you probably read reviews. They probably include a rating, not a ranking. The Metacritic percentages, or rotten tomatoes, or classic number-of-star reviews, all give you a big-picture idea of what people think of the item you're considering. Things like "list of top 200 movies of all time" rankings are considerably less useful. They're a novelty popularity contest, not a reasonable metric of quality.

If you were a relatively new Dominion player reading about the cards and trying to get some idea of how useful they were, what's a more sensible way to see that at a glance?

Saboteur is better than Harvest, but worse than Mandarin

Witch is better than Hunting Party, but worse than Wharf

-- or --

Harvest 2.1/10, Saboteur 2.5/10, Mandarin - 3.2/10

Hunting Party 8.4/10, Witch 8.5/10, Wharf 9/10


Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6922
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9511
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2016, 10:51:13 am »
0

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5451
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3393
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2016, 11:37:18 am »
0

Voting by cost seems the fairest, but I have thought of a solution that may solve some problems, and this is what I will likely do (I've put a lot of thought into this)

Have a rating of 1-100 for each card, just in terms of how players think of the card. Obviously, on average $2 cost cards will be weaker than $3, and so forth. After everyone votes from 1-100 on each individual card (rather than voting which card is better than another), then the next step can be done: Compile all of the votes on all card costs (group $2s, $3s, etc), and then find out the average of each card cost group. Cards that are above the average are better, and cards below the average are not as good.

The only possible problem is that people can rate each card 100 or 0, just out of spite or glee or to mess with the data. Perhaps what could be done for that is to do both options, your list and potentially mine (for example), and then figure out the average from there.

I'm considering taking the mode of rankings into consideration as well, but I don't have a degree on statistics, so I might just stick with averages.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 11:40:58 am by Seprix »
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2016, 11:49:55 am »
0

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?

My only problem is that with things like Rocks, Rocks are so bad that you'd never buy them if not as part of a Catapult engine. So is it really accurate to rank them that bad? They would be WORSE THAN SCOUT.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2405
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2016, 11:50:26 am »
+1

1-100 is a huge range though. Do I really know where Rabble falls on this range? A 1-10 scale should be sufficient.

I still like ranking by cost. I guess because I still have my list and recently updated it to reflect my wisdom gained from playing Adventures more. Also, for me, my list is more accurate this way. But, would a list that had Mountebank, Cultist, and Rebuild all ranked at 10 be wrong though?

Two ranking systems might not be bad though. One system that ranks on a scale and then Qvist rankings system. We could try both out and see which one seems the best.

PPE
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3118
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2016, 11:50:54 am »
+4

Just want to post to say I won't participate in a number ranking system for cards. It's too much effort.

We already have 400 things to rank, and Qvist's direct compare method makes it easy to digest for humans but still very time consuming. There's no way in hell I'm going to have the patience to come up with a numerical ranking of the strength of a bunch of cards, and I think the results will be less accurate in the long run just because of the sheer volume and subjectivity of the whole thing. People will have different opinions of what 70/100 means, but everyone has the same definition of "card X is better than card Y".
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2405
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2016, 11:51:15 am »
+1

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?

My only problem is that with things like Rocks, Rocks are so bad that you'd never buy them if not as part of a Catapult engine. So is it really accurate to rank them that bad? They would be WORSE THAN SCOUT.

Sure. If you think Rocks is worse than Scout, then rank it worse than Scout.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2016, 11:52:06 am »
+4

1-100 is a huge range though. Do I really know where Rabble falls on this range? A 1-10 scale should be sufficient.


I agree, 1-100 is too granular. It should be 1-10, but allow people to use a single decimal place in addition to the integer.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2016, 11:52:44 am »
+1

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?

My only problem is that with things like Rocks, Rocks are so bad that you'd never buy them if not as part of a Catapult engine. So is it really accurate to rank them that bad? They would be WORSE THAN SCOUT.

Sure. If you think Rocks is worse than Scout, then rank it worse than Scout.

Any ranking system that makes Scout not the worst card in its category is a flawed ranking system. :P
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3118
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2016, 11:53:13 am »
+3

1-100 is a huge range though. Do I really know where Rabble falls on this range? A 1-10 scale should be sufficient.


I agree, 1-100 is too granular. It should be 1-10, but allow people to use a single decimal place in addition to the integer.

That's literally exactly the same thing as 0-100
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2405
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #64 on: June 20, 2016, 11:55:18 am »
0

Just want to post to say I won't participate in a number ranking system for cards. It's too much effort.

We already have 400 things to rank, and Qvist's direct compare method makes it easy to digest for humans but still very time consuming. There's no way in hell I'm going to have the patience to come up with a numerical ranking of the strength of a bunch of cards, and I think the results will be less accurate in the long run just because of the sheer volume and subjectivity of the whole thing. People will have different opinions of what 70/100 means, but everyone has the same definition of "card X is better than card Y".

This is how I feel on the matter. I do think the Qvist ranking method is the most accurate.
Logged

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1524
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1454
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2016, 11:59:18 am »
+1

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?

You rank them as if the top card that was a single pile containing 5cards (so a bit weaker than the card on its own, if it is a card that you want several copies of) plus the little strength the bottom card has that might become available. The end result will probably be that the combined pile will be rated a little lower than the strong top card, or quite a bit lower if you really want more tha three copies of the card (for example Lab/Scout would be quite worse than lab, Rebuild/Scout would probably be almost as good as rebuild alone).

I agree that this is not necessarily better because in this scenario, ranking them seperately does no harm, but if you turn the example on its head it becomes obvious to me why they should be ranked together:

If the bottom card is better, how do you rank that one? You have to consider the availability of the card which is the strongest feature of the card in this case, so the rank for the bottom card would be nearly equal to the joint rank for that reason. Due to this, you have two ranks for the split pile: One bad rank for the bad card, and one rank for the whole split pile (since its ranking is equivalent to the bottom card).

Of course, you can disagree with the last paragraph and say the availability of the card shouldn't matter, but what good does your ranking do if you say the bottom card is the best in the game, you'll just never buy it since you have to buy five garbage cards?

In other words, regardless whether the bottom card or the top card is the stronger one, the ranking of the strong card is equivalent to the ranking of the whole pile, you'll just get an extra ranking for the weak card which doesn't sound very appealing.

If we won't rank them together, I would argue that the bottom cards should get their own list. One could argue that having to buy 5 other cards is simply another form of cost like Potion and Debt are but I wouldn't really like that either as much.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2405
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2016, 12:04:07 pm »
+2

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?

You rank them as if the top card that was a single pile containing 5cards (so a bit weaker than the card on its own, if it is a card that you want several copies of) plus the little strength the bottom card has that might become available. The end result will probably be that the combined pile will be rated a little lower than the strong top card, or quite a bit lower if you really want more tha three copies of the card (for example Lab/Scout would be quite worse than lab, Rebuild/Scout would probably be almost as good as rebuild alone).

I agree that this is not necessarily better because in this scenario, ranking them seperately does no harm, but if you turn the example on its head it becomes obvious to me why they should be ranked together:

If the bottom card is better, how do you rank that one? You have to consider the availability of the card which is the strongest feature of the card in this case, so the rank for the bottom card would be nearly equal to the joint rank for that reason. Due to this, you have two ranks for the split pile: One bad rank for the bad card, and one rank for the whole split pile (since its ranking is equivalent to the bottom card).

Of course, you can disagree with the last paragraph and say the availability of the card shouldn't matter, but what good does your ranking do if you say the bottom card is the best in the game, you'll just never buy it since you have to buy five garbage cards?

In other words, regardless whether the bottom card or the top card is the stronger one, the ranking of the strong card is equivalent to the ranking of the whole pile, you'll just get an extra ranking for the weak card which doesn't sound very appealing.

If we won't rank them together, I would argue that the bottom cards should get their own list. One could argue that having to buy 5 other cards is simply another form of cost like Potion and Debt are but I wouldn't really like that either as much.

You can use this same argument as to why each pile should be ranked separate.  Of course, if I rank Encampment, I do so knowing Plunder is on the bottom. If I rank Gladiator, I do so knowing Fortune is on the bottom. When ranking Fortune, I do so knowing Gladiator is on the top. Sure, I am taking into account what's on top and what's on bottom, but each time, I am still ranking a separate card. When I buy Gladiator in a game, I know I'm just getting Gladiator, but I have the potential to get Fortune.
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5451
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3393
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #67 on: June 20, 2016, 12:27:20 pm »
+1

Beyond Awesome is right. All cards should be ranked separately. You take the information of cards below and above into account.
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
  • Respect: +839
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2016, 12:32:28 pm »
0

I would welcome either a tier similar to what JSH and Accattippi suggested;

I use a system like this in my personal ranking spreadsheet (yeah I have problems). Mine are:
5 - Centralizing cards that typically dictate the strategy on a kingdom (Cultist, Rebuild)
4 - Cards you almost never pass up but don't typically dictate the strategy (Hunting Party)
3 - Cards that are generally good options in most kingdoms (Village, Smithy)
2 - Cards that have key uses and don't get bought all the time (Baron)
1 - Cards that actively hurt your deck unless you have a plan (Thief, Rats)

or to assign a number from 1 to 10 to each card. Either way, you can easily make a comprehensive list of all the cards that could also be sub-divided by cost-groups. This should be simpler and more elegant than ordering every single card relative to each other card.
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2374
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4021
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #69 on: June 20, 2016, 12:34:59 pm »
+3

@JThorne: Okay let's talk about this for a second because I have a little bit of experience with it.

Straight rating systems have their problems. Why? Because everybody has a different scale. On a scale of 1-10 someone might never rate a card a 10 because he thinks it's not a must buy on every board and therefore not worth a 10. For the same reasoning he decides to never give a 1 because there are situations where you might want to buy it. Another person has no problems giving out 10s and 1s. You might think it doesn't matter but it does. Someone goes through the list and starts let's say with Cartographer (just an example) and reasons "It's a really useful card on many boards, way above average, let's give it a 7." Later he compares the rating of 7 to stronger cards and he gives out a lot of 8s and 9s. Because he started so high he has a lot of high ratings and Cartographer ranks in his list below average even though he thinks it's an above average card. So he rated maybe a card actually worth around 4.5 a 7 which is a huge difference. Most people tend to rate higher anyway. IMDB has on some page written what the average movie rating is. The last time I checked I think it was at 6.7, so you see a movie with a 6.5 and might think it's a decent movie, but in fact it's slightly below average. I think BGG has the same problem although I can't prove that. And no way the voter is going to correct all of his ratings after he found out that he tends to rate higher. But ranking is way better. The numbers I give out with each ranking is like a rating, but only in percent instead of a number. We can say that the community thinks of a card with 50% as an average card, a card with 70% is a good card and so on. There is no difference in 70% and 7/10.

I can see that ranking is more cumbersome than rating. But there is a solution. Every rating can be converted into a ranking. Let's say you rated 101 cards and you gave 15 cards a 10 and 32 cards a 9 and so on. The 15 cards get then 101-(1+15)/2 = 93%, the 32 cards get 101-(16+47)/2=69.5% which is fine as you rated almost half the cards a 9 or 10, so the ranked value has to be way lower. As you can see rating on a value of 1 to 10 isn't great when you evaluating 101 cards, but it's up to you if you rate 1 to 10 or 1 to 100. I already plan to give another option to rate the cards. Not everyone wants to do the ranking, so that's fine, but if someone rates it, we at least get more votes and more accurate data. Also it gives the option to rate the cards from like 1 to 10 and then use the vote method to finer rank the cards within the same rating. That means less comparisms should be made to get a full ranked list.

But that still gets not rid of the grouping problem. Even if you rate all the cards from 1 to 10, and you rate a Cartographer and then a Bonfire you have trouble finding a right rating while you ask yourself which of those is better automatically. So I stand by that. Grouping the cards by cost is still the best method as they are more comparable. If you rate your cards 1-10 and don't care about grouping, fine, you can do that (now I basically promise to program the new rating feature until next time, I hope I can manage that!).

Edit: Well I wrote that while eating dinner, so some time has passed and 14 new replies, but glancing over them, some of the stuff I wrote was already covered. I hope that by adding that feature we get a better result because more people vote.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 12:41:54 pm by Qvist »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #70 on: June 20, 2016, 12:45:19 pm »
+2

1-100 is a huge range though. Do I really know where Rabble falls on this range? A 1-10 scale should be sufficient.


I agree, 1-100 is too granular. It should be 1-10, but allow people to use a single decimal place in addition to the integer.

That's literally exactly the same thing as 0-100

Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7794
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2016, 12:47:14 pm »
+2

1-100 is a huge range though. Do I really know where Rabble falls on this range? A 1-10 scale should be sufficient.


I agree, 1-100 is too granular. It should be 1-10, but allow people to use a single decimal place in addition to the integer.

That's literally exactly the same thing as 0-100

Actually there is an argument to be made that they aren't the same. I think with the 1-10 system, people will tend to rank in whole numbers, and only use the decimal when they want to make a slight distinction, or when they want to place a card in between 2 other cards that have consecutive integers. But with the 1-100 system, people will spend longer trying to decide exactly which of the 100 options to use for each card.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4291
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2016, 12:49:58 pm »
+2

I'm planning to release a video article series on this soon. Hopefully it isn't terrible.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5451
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3393
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #73 on: June 20, 2016, 12:55:47 pm »
0

I have thought of the problem of ranking systems from 1-100 and a lack of accountability when it comes to consistency and the ranking system. Therefore, I propose two different systems, and I will use 1-10 over 1-100 so it is easier to understand and write.

First proposal: Rate things in terms of strength, 1 being never buy, and 10 being a must buy. This is incredibly vague, but it gets rid of the problem.

Second proposal: Rate things in terms of many variables, such as relevance in Big Money (a few points), relevance in Engines (much more points), how good it is for it's cost (some more points), etc. The problem with this system is that while way more accurate, it is also a whole lot more work for each user, and fatigue may set in, leading to inaccurate results and less submissions.
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5451
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3393
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2016, 12:58:06 pm »
0

The problem with 1-100 is that people think like it's school grades, and that 50 is bad, when it is really literally average. There would have to be some "retraining" in the thinking of people in order for the rating system to work. Qvist's system may be the best, but I still want certain cards to be ranked high, even if they end up with ties, such as Cultist and Rebuild, etc.

The best system of all is just to take the top 50 players or so, and ask them what they think with the scale of 1-100 (or 1-10), but then there's the entire point of people submitting things gone, and it doesn't feel 'fair' even though that would likely be the best ranking.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 01:02:38 pm by Seprix »
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All
 

Page created in 0.132 seconds with 21 queries.