2010 World Ranking

[Metropolis Man]

Sims 3 2010 World Ranking

The World Ranking has two basic components: a Wins component and a Participation component. I’ll walk everyone through my own statistics as of April 26 to shed light on how one’s World Ranking is achieved.

Each challenge has a column in the spreadsheet. Individidual cells in the challenge columns are filled with a ratio of how many players a player beat in that challenge in relation to how many could have been beaten. So, my Perfectly Happy cell is =15/28; the Nectar challenge is =22/24, and the Upgrade Race is =25/35.

Down the spreadsheet we then have a “Sum of Wins” column which is just the total of all of one’s ratios in each challenge column. So, my own stat in that column is 2.17 (rounded).

Next comes the Number of Events column which is a simple count function for all challenge columns. I participated in all 3 challenges, so that figure is 3. The Sum of Wins is then divided by the # of Events for an Ave of Wins column. My stat there is .72 (rounded). Now it’s time to add the weight for the Wins component. The Wins weight for everyone is 70% of final score, so we take .72*.70 and get approximately .51. That’s my final Wins component.

The second component is the lesser weighted component (30%)—the Participation element. Everyone receives a 10% participation bonus added to their score for every challenge they finish. So, there’s a 10-event cap at which point someone would receive 100% of the score. If someone participates in more than 10 challenges in the Tournament, then a player’s best finishes will be used to compute stats.

Okay, so I’ve participated in the first 3 events, so my participation bonus is .30 (10% per event). Participation counts for 30% of final score, so we then take .30*.30 and get my final Participation Component of .09.

My World Ranking is my Final Wins Component + my Final Participation Component (.51 + .09) = .60 (rounded).

[EDIT: June 7, the above example is obviously with dated info, but hopefully everyone that's interested in how the WR is computed can still follow along — MM]

My heartfelt thanks to all participants in all events. You guys have really made the 2010 Tournament a lot of fun so far.

Final 2010 World Ranking—November 29, 2010

Player	World Ranking
NancyJ	.918
LenaLJ	.909
omega2alpha	.897
Metropolis Man	.827
ik	.796
TheCub	.790
Schipperke	.785
Delgar	.762
LargoTheStampede	.756
ClayMask	.745
Jonna	.714
TommyT	.651
Alsier	.651
tosho	.642
Zylphe	.641
meamalso2	.641
wildredchild	.633
lianne	.630
alyssa.cole	.626
Kaori	.594
Archer0	.561
HelenP	.558
Pam	.534
Twinmum	.532
MirandaX	.525
Eftyen	.497
dannyr783	.485
AriaGirl77	.480
akurinne	.474
annieb	.445
momofmany	.439
Margerita	.402
Kaibilly	.389
Nyteglori	.363
Saltypaws	.346
cndneh	.344
curlybennett	.329
nobi_fawkes	.325
lilygirl	.321
simfulicious	.318
ClumsyMum	.313
Anushka	.296
xK-la	.295
Lizzy3272	.294
celinegreen1969	.277
Joria	.242
Sushi101	.229
Chelkey	.182
Agnes	.166
kat	.159
CarlaluvsSims	.153
Abyshep	.150
YolandaBlu	.132

[romagia]

sounds exciting.

[Eftyen]

Sounds awesome.  I only have one thing to quibble about: the proposed ranking titles.  IMHO, any player who shows the dedication to actually complete 3 separate challenges does not deserve the label of "Bad" or worse.  Seriously, any challenge player is a cut above most "Normal" Sims 3 players.  Is there any way to rename the ranks so they are all honorary instead of the lowest ranks being derogatory?

Oh, and you left Excellent out of the list.

As for rankings, may I suggest looking at the way sports teams are ranked by their win/loss numbers, and the ranks of the teams beaten/lost to?

[Metropolis Man]

Sounds awesome.  I only have one thing to quibble about: the proposed ranking titles.  IMHO, any player who shows the dedication to actually complete 3 separate challenges does not deserve the label of "Bad" or worse.  Seriously, any challenge player is a cut above most "Normal" Sims 3 players.  Is there any way to rename the ranks so they are all honorary instead of the lowest ranks being derogatory?

You've got a point. I'll give it some thought.

EDIT: What about student > Grandmaster types of titles? Their already in the game as well with the chess and martial arts ranking, so they're familiar with players. Can you think of some more brackets where tourney players could fall — honor student, teacher, master, and maybe one more so there could be at least 5 brackets? I do a similar ranking nomenclature for Diablo: Ninja, Samurai, Shogun, and the very top player is called Emperor. Those are obviously more suited to the game with their fighting association, so our labels I think should be more learning/student types of labels.

As for rankings, may I suggest looking at the way sports teams are ranked by their win/loss numbers, and the ranks of the teams beaten/lost to?

That's already the plan — a simple Win/Loss ratio. The ranking titles would be tagged to someone depending on their W/L ratio.

[Metropolis Man]

After Eftyen's solid suggestion of removing the derogatory ranking titles I've put some more thought into this whole naming issue. I don't think there's any need to come up with new martial arts ranks like student, master, grandmaster, etc. I think my original idea is fine of names that parallel the various qualities in the game. I think all that needs to be done is just nix the sub-Normal ones. There doesn't need to be 11 different ranks anyway. So, I'm thinking that tourney players will be ranked as follows:

Outstanding
Excellent
Great
Very Nice
Nice

Plus, the very top ranked Outstanding tourney player will hold the title of Perfect to show him/her some kind of distinction.

So, let's see how this will break down. Let's say after the Perfectly Happy Challenge and 2 additional tournaments that there's a total pool of 15 different players that have finished all 3 events. A simple win/loss ratio will be calculated for all of the players and then they'd be ranked with 3 players going into each of the 5 tiers. I guess that's the simple plan for now. If anyone has more thoughts, please share.

[Pam]

I like these ranking titles.  Very good.

[Eftyen]

indeed... the new list gets my stamp of approval.  (^_^)

not that it matters...

[Metropolis Man]

indeed... the new list gets my stamp of approval.  (^_^)

not that it matters...

It matters a great deal to me. The last thing I want players to think is that I'm pulling all of this stuff out of my rear end for my own benefit. I want this to be something we all enjoy, and that means I need feedback from lots of players on their likes and dislikes.

[jmz95]

indeed... the new list gets my stamp of approval.  (^_^)

not that it matters...

It matters a great deal to me. The last thing I want players to think is that I'm pulling all of this stuff out of my rear end for my own benefit. I want this to be something we all enjoy, and that means I need feedback from lots of players on their likes and dislikes.

Lol. Power to the people!

[HelenP]

I'm laying claim to a spot solidly in the 'Nice' category  .

[Metropolis Man]

I'm laying claim to a spot solidly in the 'Nice' category  .

Previously known as Horrendous. See Helen, you're moving up already and haven't even finished one tournament!

[HelenP]

LOL

[NancyJ]

Regarding the win/loss ratio - how are we determining a 'win'?
Since this isn't a 1v1 tournament, it seems a little odd to have a binary ranking system. If only the #1 player 'wins' the challenge then everyone else loses. Wins vs Losses works for sports teams because they have 1vs1 matches, 1 wins, 1 loses or they both draw. In a challenge where you have say 10 individual competitors, you'll have 1 winner and 9 losers.
Say for example, someone comes consistently 2nd place in every challenge but never wins, they would have the same ranking as the player who came last every time because they both lost 100% of their challenges. Since we can see the scores as they come in, it would be a better strategy not to enter your score if someone else has already beaten it, since that would preserve your wins/losses ratio. I know you've changed the rules so that we must declare our interest before submitting scores but for that to be a deterrent to that kind of 'strategy' you'd need to have a deadline to declare interest (before the challenge starts) and penalties for pulling out after declaring interest.

[Metropolis Man]

Regarding the win/loss ratio - how are we determining a 'win'?
Since this isn't a 1v1 tournament, it seems a little odd to have a binary ranking system. If only the #1 player 'wins' the challenge then everyone else loses.

Not at all. In your example of 10-player challenge the winner's record would be 9 wins/0 losses. The 2nd place finisher's record would be 8 wins and one loss. The 3rd place finisher would net 7 wins and 2 losses, and on and on. Each individual player gets a win/loss calculation.

[NancyJ]

I see, so its not really a wins/losses then its how many people you beat vs how many people beat you

[Metropolis Man]

I see, so its not really a wins/losses then its how many people you beat vs how many people beat you

Exactly. However you want to look at it, but that's the idea. Incidentally, this system has the potential to favor those players who would participate more, so somehow I'd like to incorporate another metric into the equation for balancing in the number of events by a player. So, for example, you'd have player A who has competed in 10 events and has a W/L record of .80. Let's say Player B has a W/L record of .90, but has only participated in 3 events. Somehow there needs to be a balance there for the final ranking and incorporate the event #. Carl's got the math mind, so he can probably come up with something. Anyone but me. 

[NancyJ]

A little simplistic but you could multiply their final score by the percentage of challenges completed. eg. My my reconning there are going to be 14 or 15 in total I think so if you compete in 15/15 and your ratio is 0.8 then your score is 0.8 if you compete in only 3/15 and your ratio is 0.9 * 3/15 = 0.18 - that might be more weighting than you want to give to 'participation' but its an easy figure to reduce down so it gets the weighting you want give it.
I intended to enter them all but I'm not so sure on that handiness one... I'm reserving judgment until I've seen the full rules

[Metropolis Man]

Thanks for the tips, Nancy. Carl, hopefully you'll catch Nancy's tip and possibly work that into the equation when the time comes.

As to the Handiness Challenge, I'm kind of excited about that one because it's a really new idea in two ways — players will have to live in both worlds, Sunset Valley and Riverview, plus the scoring is based on something I've never had before in an event — upgrading. But, don't be surprised if I change things around slightly than what's presented in the schedule description. Just going around and upgrading stuff might get a little boring for players. There's always the element of having to race against the clock, so that makes it exciting in itself. But, I really want to bring in one other score for variety. For example, scoring all of the possible unique upgrades.

[jmz95]

Yeah, I personally like Nancy's suggestion. I think it encourages a person to compete in more challenges, however I do think that there might be a bit too much weight on participation and not enough on the actual score.

[Carl]

Thanks for the tips, Nancy. Carl, hopefully you'll catch Nancy's tip and possibly work that into the equation when the time comes.

Yep, I like it. We can use some sample scores and come up with where they should lie on the scale and it's a done deal. It can be adjusted if we need to, thankfully it's math I can do/tweak just fine. Good approach, Nancy.

[Metropolis Man]

Thanks for weighing in on this, Carl. I've done some more thinking myself on the composition of the world ranking. And again, I'm an idea guy. Not a math guy. Everything I'm about to lay on you I'm not qualified to actually put into practice. 

I'd like to see a player's world ranking "score" be made up of 3 components:

1. A straight win/loss record. Or as I believe it was Nancy that said it's more like the players you beat vs. the players that beat you. But, the meaning is the same. This is by far the most important portion of a player's world ranking and should be weighted at 50% of the final number.

2. Opponent strength. This is going to be tricky and I really don't even have a suggestion on where to begin to factor this in. But, the idea is after a player earns an official world ranking number, then his/her future performances are impacted by the quality of players beaten. If you would beat a highly rated player, then that performance would affect your rating more than beating an average player. Also, if you would lose to a player below your rank, then it would have more of a negative effect on your rating than losing to a highly ranked player. If somehow this metric can be worked out I feel it should contribute about 30% to the final number.

3. Participation. How many events a player finishes is a good barometer, but should be weighted less than the other 2 components. People with full time jobs and heavy commitments resulting in fewer finished events should not be heavily penalized. Therefore I feel only 20% of the final world ranking number should come from participation.

[Eftyen]

I like the idea of "player quality" factoring into the equation, but I can't think of anything at the moment that wouldn't end up being horrifically complicated with the number of participants that we've been seeing.  It's fairly simple with sports rankings when it's one team vs. one team, but that becomes geometrically more complex with each player added.  I'll let you know if I think of anything manageable.

[Metropolis Man]

I want to remind players of the following requirement that's kind of buried in the first post at the beginning of this thread:

Sims 3 2010 World Ranking

...To qualify for a ranking a player will need to to participate (and obviously finish) in 3 separate challenges of the 2010 Tournament.

I'm guessing not everyone knows about this because I see a lot of players jumping in the nectar challenge, but with less time left for Perfectly Happy, that event might make more sense to finish first. So, if you're new to the forums and want a ranking as soon as possible just keep this requirement in mind and try and complete as many challenges as you can.

[Da Vinci]

After Eftyen's solid suggestion of removing the derogatory ranking titles I've put some more thought into this whole naming issue. I don't think there's any need to come up with new martial arts ranks like student, master, grandmaster, etc. I think my original idea is fine of names that parallel the various qualities in the game. I think all that needs to be done is just nix the sub-Normal ones. There doesn't need to be 11 different ranks anyway. So, I'm thinking that tourney players will be ranked as follows:

Outstanding
Excellent
Great
Very Nice
Nice

Plus, the very top ranked Outstanding tourney player will hold the title of Perfect to show him/her some kind of distinction.

So, let's see how this will break down. Let's say after the Perfectly Happy Challenge and 2 additional tournaments that there's a total pool of 15 different players that have finished all 3 events. A simple win/loss ratio will be calculated for all of the players and then they'd be ranked with 3 players going into each of the 5 tiers. I guess that's the simple plan for now. If anyone has more thoughts, please share.

so even if you are last you are still "nice"

[Metropolis Man]

so even if you are last you are still "nice"

Well, that's the plan for now. It's still in development. But, given that there are 5 categories, "nice" really isn't that great compared to excellent and outstanding. It would be like an F student compared to an A student. But, I still agree with removing the sub-par names.