EESystem

Given that the current system of calculating points scored has a number of flaws, it would be nice to showcase an alternative methodology of calculating points scored for the DFWC, in which these shortcomings would be accounted for.

Such a system has been devised by Defrag's very own: Enter & eXten (translated by cxe).

This methodology consists of two parts. It has a new way of calculating how players are given points and is combined with the NASCAR scoring methodology, where the (one) worst incidental time made by a player is nullified.

Such a system has been devised by Defrag's very own: Enter & eXten (translated by cxe).

This methodology consists of two parts. It has a new way of calculating how players are given points and is combined with the NASCAR scoring methodology, where the (one) worst incidental time made by a player is nullified.

The points distributed to a player is effected by:

– Time; relative to the top #1 time.

– Rank; that the player was given for the round.

Time is taken in milliseconds for the top #1 player for reference. This is used as a divisor for the time in milliseconds of the player we are looking to score. This results in us getting a numeric value that is always less than 1.

The player’s position in the standings relative to the top player will distribute points on a decreasing percentage basis.

The top player will always get 1,000 points.

The formula looks as follows:

– Time; relative to the top #1 time.

– Rank; that the player was given for the round.

Time is taken in milliseconds for the top #1 player for reference. This is used as a divisor for the time in milliseconds of the player we are looking to score. This results in us getting a numeric value that is always less than 1.

The player’s position in the standings relative to the top player will distribute points on a decreasing percentage basis.

The top player will always get 1,000 points.

The formula looks as follows:

Pts(p) = c1 × c2 × Pts(r)

where:

Pts(p) – the final points scored by the opposing player (who is not rank #1);

c1 – coefficient accounting for the time of the challenging player relative to the time we are using as reference (that of the top #1 demo);

c2 – coefficient accounting for the rank the player possesses in the ranking table of the current round

Pts(r) – how many points given for reference relative to other players (the top #1 demo), in our example we have given it a value of 1,000 points, given that we considered it the most practical.

c1 = (Top one time)/(Time of competitor)

For example, the top one player got a time of 32:608 on a map, and the competitor who got 20th place got a time of 37:928

The result is c1 = 32608/37928 = 0.859

For example, the top one player got a time of 32:608 on a map, and the competitor who got 20th place got a time of 37:928

The result is c1 = 32608/37928 = 0.859

c2 is split into three parts:

From rank 1 through rank 50, where the #1 rank = 100% points awarded, every preceding place will have 1% taken away from the points that are rewarded relative to the top #1 rank time.

From rank 51 through rank 100 – points will be reduced by 0.5% for every preceding place

From rank 101 and so on, points will be reduced by 0.25%.

It would look like this

1st place – 100%

2nd place – 99%

5th place – 95%

10th place – 90%

50th place – 50%

51st place– 49.5%

52nd place – 49%

60th place – 45%

100th place – 25%

101st place – 24.75%

102nd place – 24.5%

And so on.

From rank 1 through rank 50, where the #1 rank = 100% points awarded, every preceding place will have 1% taken away from the points that are rewarded relative to the top #1 rank time.

From rank 51 through rank 100 – points will be reduced by 0.5% for every preceding place

From rank 101 and so on, points will be reduced by 0.25%.

It would look like this

1st place – 100%

2nd place – 99%

5th place – 95%

10th place – 90%

50th place – 50%

51st place– 49.5%

52nd place – 49%

60th place – 45%

100th place – 25%

101st place – 24.75%

102nd place – 24.5%

And so on.

Therefore c2 = (Percenage of points for the rank of the competitor)/(Percentage of points for the top one time [as in 100%])

Let’s calculate c2 for the following example. A player placed 20th and so, clearly c2 = (80%)/(100%) = 0.8

There by the number of points that the player got for the whole round would be:

Pts(p)= 0.859 * 0.8 * 1000 = 687 points

Pts(p)= 0.859 * 0.8 * 1000 = 687 points

In the case the World Cup takes place on 5 or more maps, to make people’s lives easier, we use the NASCAR system and get rid of one of the worst times scored. This gives people the right to make a mistake whether in finding the wrong route on one map or simply not having the time to play a map. BUT! This system does not allow you to skip maps and stay in the same position on the rankings table. Given that a player who skips a round receives 0 points. If you have no time/desire/the stars are not aligned to play a round, you can at least send a first run through test demo and taking into account this nascar system, you should not fall lower in the ranks.

In the case that the World Cup takes place with less than 5 maps, the use of this system and pros mentioned in p.2 below is impractical.

In the case that the World Cup takes place with less than 5 maps, the use of this system and pros mentioned in p.2 below is impractical.

– It reduces large gaps in points scored, when times are only a frame difference. This system of points makes these gaps comparably equal.

– It takes into account the time of the player (a top 3 time with a difference of only a fraction of a second, is not the same as a top 3 time with a time difference of a second!!).

– It does not allow you to choke on rounds. Points can be diminished very quickly. The top players have to participate in all rounds, to stay in the top. And then you can play only 4 out of 7 rounds and then get top 7 - NO MORE.

– The top one place is encouraged to be won, within this system, given that the top one time is used as a reference point for scoring.

– The fight for ranks exists in all parts of the rankings, and not just at the top.

– It is difficult for players to forecast rounds beforehand as to what the results could be for their own purposes and uses.

– It takes into account the time of the player (a top 3 time with a difference of only a fraction of a second, is not the same as a top 3 time with a time difference of a second!!).

– It does not allow you to choke on rounds. Points can be diminished very quickly. The top players have to participate in all rounds, to stay in the top. And then you can play only 4 out of 7 rounds and then get top 7 - NO MORE.

– The top one place is encouraged to be won, within this system, given that the top one time is used as a reference point for scoring.

– The fight for ranks exists in all parts of the rankings, and not just at the top.

– It is difficult for players to forecast rounds beforehand as to what the results could be for their own purposes and uses.

Here is a link to the recalculated results table for DFWC 2017:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pZJoOLgySq3L5-vicXnxzA7YGaxpX0eXQmqsf2jOMPw

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pZJoOLgySq3L5-vicXnxzA7YGaxpX0eXQmqsf2jOMPw

We recalculated all rounds in DFWC 2017 using this methodology. Look it over, study it, and tell us your thoughts. Since we are not greatest at marketing all the wonders of this current system on paper, and more so, in charming people with our speech abilities, you will have to form your own opinion about the pros and cons of such a system without any biases. Spend time familiarizing yourself with this system, at least a little bit of time, and write why you are for or against it. Thank you.

The table is divided into rounds. In each round from left to right the following is shown: the rank of the player that round, time in milliseconds on the map, points awarded calculated by this system proposed. A column labeled preoverall – this shows the sum of all points in every round. The column labeled worst – the minimum points awarded from all the rounds. The column labeled overall – deducts the worst time (applying the nascar method) and we get our final outcome for the total points scored.

For comparison, there are also documents with the previous points system:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WhwfZVwvzaFdr8KkRYFdMlG0IXPvLjrbDLmSzEFq__A

With a simple system (where each next place is 1 point less than the previous one)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l5vWtI3BTKUh5HliW8Ga2fUWWKXJF4xcmzj-nhwOVmU

And with the Nascar system, where the distribution of points is almost linear, and with exclusion of the worst result

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vdLypfipktfQ0y7fNgLmN9Nzngqd39GQZU_eYFlbcVg

Once again, to quickly summarize the calculation of points:

We take the top one time. Divide it by your time (we get a numeric value ≤ 1). Multiply by the percentage of the place (also a numeric value ≤ 1). Multiply by 1,000. Round to the nearest whole number. We get your number of points for the round. After all rounds are concluded we take away your worst result scored in a round. On these results we construct a final rankings table.

We take the top one time. Divide it by your time (we get a numeric value ≤ 1). Multiply by the percentage of the place (also a numeric value ≤ 1). Multiply by 1,000. Round to the nearest whole number. We get your number of points for the round. After all rounds are concluded we take away your worst result scored in a round. On these results we construct a final rankings table.

Your e-mail *

Your answer

Do you like this system? *

Yes, I like this system, use it for the next DFWC

No, I like the previous system used in DFWC 2017

No, I like some other system

Other:

Comments?

Your answer