Is it simply the amount of people in a camp?

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA Playground Game Talk » Is it simply the amount of people in a camp?
Tripwire
1/18/07 9:11:13PM
Seems it will simply be the biggest camp will win. Perhaps we can add a W/L % into the mix? Otherwise it will simply be a numbers game with the largest amount of people winning it.
DoTheMMAth
1/18/07 9:32:42PM
Right now there's not any ranking system in place to determine which camp is the best. (No numbers next to the camps on the directory page). A fight camp is just a place to compete and talk on a more intimate level with friends, co-workers, pals from other forums, etc. The camps are sorted by size in descending order on the directory page at the moment, because, well, we didn't know what else to sort it by for the moment!

However... if we were to rank camps somehow, what would the criteria be? Making it win/loss is a decent idea, except for the fact that it is much easier for a camp with perhaps 5 people in it to have an overall better win % than one with 55 people in it. Giving a numbered rank based on size is obviously a bad idea too as it will cause people to resort to things like making secondary profiles (against the rules) and bigger doesn't necesarily mean better.

We need some math genius to think of a formula for ranking the camps, factoring in things like camp size, overall win %, average player bankroll, etc.
n0xin
1/19/07 12:49:15AM
You could put it into "weight classes" for camps, so the camps with say 3-8 members are lightweights, 9-17 welterweights, 18-28 middleweights, 29-40 heavyweights.

If theres a need to have more then 40 , can make a super heavyweight, or rename the heavyweight team class as light heavy and do 41-60 as the heavys. I dunno it may be too complicated, just an idea....

punisherind
1/19/07 10:49:48AM
I like the idea by n0xin!

I think ranking camps will add an extra dimension to the game, and will only make it more enjoyable. But like our fireballin mod pointed out, it will be difficult to come up with an formula for ranking camps. I think n0xin has come up with a good proposal in creating "weight classes" for the camps, but it still doesnt solve the problem of what the ranks are based on: total wins or winning percentage?

Perhaps we can do this:

Step 1: Create the "weight classes" for the camps.
Step 2: Rank the camps within each weight class, however, make it so that we can sort by total wins AND winning percentage.

In essence, there would be two rankings within each weight class. There will be room for debate as to which is truly the top camp (similar to NCAA football), except in a situation where one camp leads in both total wins and winning percentage. Comments?
n0xin
1/19/07 12:57:15PM
I like it sounds good to me
calcifer
1/19/07 1:13:25PM
Dear Moderators,

I have my degree in computer science and would be happy to help with improving this site with ideas and math expertise.

I'll work on a suggested ranking algorithm for teams, and i will post that some time in the next few days.
cowcatcher
1/19/07 1:16:35PM
it's good to have a resident mathemagician to figure this stuff out for us lugs, thanks calc
JimiMak
2/4/07 10:10:46PM
I'm sure the mathematician can come up w/ more specifics than me, but I was thinking (we now have weight classes) average points in the team might be a good way to rank. That way w/l % is taken into consideration but ppl w/ more ko's (specific predictions) help their teams the same way they help themselves.

Just an idea.
madmarck
2/4/07 10:13:34PM
Looks like you can Rate the Camps rihgt now by the Average Bankroll.
JimiMak
2/4/07 10:27:16PM

Posted by madmarck

Looks like you can Rate the Camps rihgt now by the Average Bankroll.




Yeah, you can. But we rank individual by both money and points, why not teams too?
nellyhiphophead
2/4/07 10:48:52PM
i think it should be
Super Heavyweights: 51+ members
Heavyweights: 40-50 members
Light Heavyweights: 31-40members
Middleweights: 21-30 members
Welterweights: 11-20 members
Lightweights: 1-10 members
then rank them with there wealth ave and points ave. that would be the best and most far ways of doing it . i know the team sizes you all might think are to wide range and big but once ppl in there own camp don't get anymore ppl after abit will try to join another camp. and plus i have a feeling after this has been around for abit and ppl get to know of it. it's going to star and blow up.
JunCTion
2/5/07 12:10:42AM
hey, my wife is actually a math genius. seriously. but she hates fighting and thinks i'm a dork for playing this game.
Svartorm
2/5/07 12:53:41AM

Posted by nellyhiphophead

then rank them with there wealth ave and points ave. that would be the best and most far ways of doing it .



The thing is, wealth can be manipulated without even playing via the purchase of extra fantasy dollars. As for points, that automatically favors larger teams.

The only thing I could think of to make for a P4P team ranking would be to require the team leader to guess at every single fight, and require the team to guess at at least 75% of the fights or so. That way you don't get people cherry picking to keep their percentage up.
D-Boy
2/5/07 6:11:09AM

Posted by DoTheMMAth

Right now there's not any ranking system in place to determine which camp is the best. (No numbers next to the camps on the directory page). A fight camp is just a place to compete and talk on a more intimate level with friends, co-workers, pals from other forums, etc. The camps are sorted by size in descending order on the directory page at the moment, because, well, we didn't know what else to sort it by for the moment!

However... if we were to rank camps somehow, what would the criteria be? Making it win/loss is a decent idea, except for the fact that it is much easier for a camp with perhaps 5 people in it to have an overall better win % than one with 55 people in it. Giving a numbered rank based on size is obviously a bad idea too as it will cause people to resort to things like making secondary profiles (against the rules) and bigger doesn't necesarily mean better.

We need some math genius to think of a formula for ranking the camps, factoring in things like camp size, overall win %, average player bankroll, etc.



Well even though it's not competitive we've been told there will be "cuts" later lol. I too thought the camps would just be another place to hang out together but things quickly turn to elitism.
hippysmacker
2/5/07 11:54:14PM
I like the idea of just keeping them the way they are. No ranking's neccessary. I only invited people who I thought were of likemind, or I know personally
DoTheMMAth
2/5/07 11:58:32PM

Posted by hippysmacker

I like the idea of just keeping them the way they are. No ranking's neccessary. I only invited people who I thought were of likemind, or I know personally



If you want to know what camp has the best overall win %, you can sort by that. If you want to know what camp as the highest average bankroll, you can sort by that. If you want to know what camp is the biggest, you can sort by that. Etc, etc.

There wasn't really 1 definative answer to "what camp" is the best. We grouped them by similar sizes and let folks sort how they want on various criteria to make their own decisions. Like the big Hippy Smacker says, some folks don't even care and just want to play as a private competitive group with their friends for real life bragging rights.

How you look at things is entirely up to you on this one. If there's some other criteria that a user comes up with to sort the camps by we're game to add it in as another option to help folks pick out the "who's who" of the fight camps
nellyhiphophead
2/6/07 12:11:31AM
thats wha my camp is just my friends so we can see who is doing the best out of us and find eachother easy. and i guess too see how good we are v.s the other camps too but like you said you can look that up.
JunCTion
2/6/07 12:23:31AM
i'm still confused as to why so many people are worried about camp sizes. i know there are more camps of multiple members than there are camps with 1 - 3 members. i also know that like me there are a lot of us that don't have friends that are interested in mma. hell, i don't have that many friends. but whether you're in a camp of 100 or a camp of 1 you are still playing the game individually. you are still trying to win the prize money for yourself (NOT FOR YOUR CAMP). so what is the issue. am i really going to have to join a camp just so i can stay on this playground?
nellyhiphophead
2/6/07 12:44:15AM

Posted by JunCTion

i'm still confused as to why so many people are worried about camp sizes. i know there are more camps of multiple members than there are camps with 1 - 3 members. i also know that like me there are a lot of us that don't have friends that are interested in mma. hell, i don't have that many friends. but whether you're in a camp of 100 or a camp of 1 you are still playing the game individually. you are still trying to win the prize money for yourself (NOT FOR YOUR CAMP). so what is the issue. am i really going to have to join a camp just so i can stay on this playground?


i don't think you should be in a camp at all if your a one man camp you should just be in the season leaders and wealthiest players list. they should cut out the one man camps and notlet you make a camp till you find another person to make it with. i don't think the camps are as big of a thing as alot of ppl think.
Lines
2/6/07 9:22:19AM
Win % is good, but if a player enters an event, they must be scored for every match; even if not picked. . If they don't pick a match it is considered picking it wrong. Otherwise, you can just pick sure match winners like Cro Cop over Sanchez and have a great win %.
Related Topics