Might be worth taking a print-out!
Rules! I have played this game for years with just a passing knowledge of the rules. It might change all my preconceptions if I started reading them now…
Thanks @HairyPete! Had a great time. I think your scoring could use a little tweaking because I was essentially robbed but otherwise brilliant.
Robbed? Thanks, I think.
Well, really I should have got one those shiny badges of awesomeness. I think the central problem is that you only had awards for people who were good at aspects of Blood Bowl. I can do the awards next year if you like but ideally I wouldn’t publish the criteria until after I’ve played…
If you’d not lost the last game you would have had a shiny award; probably two
That’s the spirit! A bit of revisionist history and cherry picking of results is all that I ask.
Hehehe … I did almost identically to last year! … I guess this means staying off the booze for a few weeks has had no statistically significant impact…
Plus, I think I was the best Zug team … The two Griff teams did better.
Thanks @HairyPete, it was a great day.
I like @Cameron’s new forum badge (http://rygasroughnecks.com/badges/101/roughest-roughneck)
Thanks again to Pete for running another great event.
Now that we have had 3 ExeBowl events and a useful amount of data, I have done a simple rankings list for club members at ExeBowl only in a similar vein to the one I did for the Rygas league: Rygas ExeBowl Rankings.pdf (352.4 KB)
Like the league I took the final finishing positions and reversed it to get a score with last place getting 1pt and working up from there, so the more people took part the more points were on offer (which is why Cameron got more points for 6th place this year than he did for winning the previous year, for example).
Inspired by Jonathan, here’s what happens if you weight each ExE-Bowl the same and scale to 100. #GeekingOut
ExE-Bowl_Performance_Weighted.pdf (52.1 KB)
That puts me one place lower than Jonathan’s so I’m afraid I can’t support it. I also don’t understand it and I fear the unknown.
In that case, this maybe more to your liking, Tom?
ExE-Bowl_Performance_Best.pdf (50.4 KB)
I am Tom and I approve this message.
I quite like the scaling it to 100 version as it weights an overall win equally and whilst finishing top of 40 should (in theory) be harder than finishing top of 30, you tend to have similar levels of opponents past the first round anyway. Also that version puts me one place higher.
The only thing I am not so keen on is averaging it across the 3 tournaments, as I don’t like the idea of penalising someone who wasn’t able to take part. I’d prefer to stick with overall total (even if it means the actual positions don’t change).
Hehe - Averaging across the three has exactly the same penalising effect as totalling the three …
To avoid penalising people, you’d have to do something like “average over the tournaments taken part in”:
ExE-Bowl_Performance_Ave_Attended.pdf (51.3 KB)
… It seems whichever way you cut it, Cameron is the best
Well Cameron being top is to be expected.
I do realise totals vs averages makes no difference to the positions, it was more to do with which ‘looks’ better.
As for the latest version you posted, I can’t support it because it does the reverse and penalises you just for taking part, and nothing to do with how far down the rankings it puts me.
… Interestingly it does go to show that it is really difficult to come up with objective measures for things like this. Maybe I should write a research proposal!!! …