- Jan 3, 2019
- 1,480
- 1,593
- 93
@ffs all that sounds reasonable to me. I was sort of originally proposing to leave the HoR as-is anyways. Discussing any different efficiency data here as side info seems just fine to me, whether it's correct values for individual champs or efficiency without s/e time or whatever. There are two real issues here I would like to get to the bottom of, and mentioning s/e times etc seems to have distracted from it:
The Issues
So for clarity, the two points above are what I think are important. And what is below is some more thoughts on them.
System Discrepancy Example (for approximations only)
To actually demonstrate the discrepancy between the systems, the new scoring system gives you a better score by ABOUT a factor of 1.02 - 1.04. So if we assume 20% champions, and 3 champs per pack on average, the factor is: 0.8 + 0.2 * (3/2.53) = 1.037. In that equation, 2.53 is the approximate true minion value for mf efficiency (ratio of the drop chance for tyreals of unique to minion). So if that holds true, I would only need a "traditional" score of ~1.87 to beat Corrupted.
Note, that I strongly believe no such factor should be used to formally convert scores. One obvious way in which that is a poor idea is to consider that most HoR entries that turned out to be good ones probably had less than 20% of the packs being champs. There are many other such examples and after some discussion with restte and albatross i dont think such a factor should be used for anything other than approximating conversions for information only.
One possible solution
Now @ResTTe will roll his eyes at me saying this since we got in a poorly-communicated debate about this issue on discord a bit ago, but maybe one solution we could use is to use new counter data and divide total champs by 3 instead of 2.53. This will make the new counter system quite comparable to the old system imo, and should not offer any advantage. The only problems I see with this are:
Last thing I'll say on the "new thread" idea
I personally don't see the disadvantage of having two SPF threads for a similar idea, like you mentioned. It's not like a user can't be in both threads. Could just keep HoR as-is and populate a new thread with new data while it's fun to do so, and I don't see why that would be bad for this thread. But anyways we don't have to keep debating that, and I'm not about to start such a thread when there seems to be a lot of vitriol about it. I just still fail to see the downsides (have any specific downsides been mentioned so far?). So wanted to kinda make a last statement defending my reasons for suggesting the idea. Not trying to "trash" anything. I care a LOT about preserving the history of this thread, and I guess we just have very different ideas of the effect of making a new thread for fun.
The Issues
- individual champ counts, used with their true mf-efficiency value (each champ is work 1/2.53 of a unique bossmonster) is a flat out better and more accurate way to track mf efficiency, but by only a small margin
- if we want that to be used as the MAIN scoring system, it will unfairly devalue old entries, which in my opinion is a much bigger shame than new tables, whether here or elsewhere
So for clarity, the two points above are what I think are important. And what is below is some more thoughts on them.
System Discrepancy Example (for approximations only)
To actually demonstrate the discrepancy between the systems, the new scoring system gives you a better score by ABOUT a factor of 1.02 - 1.04. So if we assume 20% champions, and 3 champs per pack on average, the factor is: 0.8 + 0.2 * (3/2.53) = 1.037. In that equation, 2.53 is the approximate true minion value for mf efficiency (ratio of the drop chance for tyreals of unique to minion). So if that holds true, I would only need a "traditional" score of ~1.87 to beat Corrupted.
Note, that I strongly believe no such factor should be used to formally convert scores. One obvious way in which that is a poor idea is to consider that most HoR entries that turned out to be good ones probably had less than 20% of the packs being champs. There are many other such examples and after some discussion with restte and albatross i dont think such a factor should be used for anything other than approximating conversions for information only.
One possible solution
Now @ResTTe will roll his eyes at me saying this since we got in a poorly-communicated debate about this issue on discord a bit ago, but maybe one solution we could use is to use new counter data and divide total champs by 3 instead of 2.53. This will make the new counter system quite comparable to the old system imo, and should not offer any advantage. The only problems I see with this are:
- From some manual counting done by restte, I personally think there are less than 3 champs per pack on average (he was getting 2.86 or something). But that would just make new counter method conservative in this case, and one could take video and count the traditional way if advantageous to them.
- It will be quite confusing to discuss new-counter data when we are interpreting two ways. The one that makes it congruent with old data (divide by 3), and the one that uses true mf-efficiency value of minions (divide by 2.53). Also might sow confusion if it makes people think dividing by 3 is "right", when it truly gives a less accurate metric.
Last thing I'll say on the "new thread" idea
I personally don't see the disadvantage of having two SPF threads for a similar idea, like you mentioned. It's not like a user can't be in both threads. Could just keep HoR as-is and populate a new thread with new data while it's fun to do so, and I don't see why that would be bad for this thread. But anyways we don't have to keep debating that, and I'm not about to start such a thread when there seems to be a lot of vitriol about it. I just still fail to see the downsides (have any specific downsides been mentioned so far?). So wanted to kinda make a last statement defending my reasons for suggesting the idea. Not trying to "trash" anything. I care a LOT about preserving the history of this thread, and I guess we just have very different ideas of the effect of making a new thread for fun.