[KurS] Kursk: All the wait, but little plays

[Shad]

are you talking the average rating of all the scenarios played?

Average rating of all votes for all scenarios played. Slightly different result than averaging the averages.

[Poor Yorek]

Is is the best PG game ever? I doubt it. Newness and relief of finally owning it certainly have an impact. It'll be really interesting to see how it does long term.

Perryman effect?

Disclaimer: as I don't own KSF (having canceled the order out of frustration with APL) I'm simply speculating. How does KSF compare to the other Perryman supplements?

[campsawyer]

For what it's worth, Kursk is 2 ratings short of making the 30 vote minimum and assuming no great change between now and then it will take the top rated game spot by a mile. Here's the expected Top 5:

Code:

3.89 - Kursk (28 ratings)
3.7 - Cassino '44
3.52 - Elsenborn Ridge
3.42 - Fall of France
3.41 - Road to Berlin

Is is the best PG game ever? I doubt it. Newness and relief of finally owning it certainly have an impact. It'll be really interesting to see how it does long term.

It is more the best game at the moment, due to the low numbers of players, only about 10 or so unique players, as more come along this will give a better stat. It might be better to have a threshold off players of unique players as well as the minimum plays.

[Poor Yorek]

I suppose one might improve the analysis (were one so inclined) by normalizing each game rating by a given player to that player's "global" average. Of course, this would mean that any game/scenario's rating would be fluid as members continue to log plays (and their average changes) and would incorporate any "drift", that is, whether a given member grades more easily or harshly as more plays are logged (which would be an interesting study in and of itself).

[Shad]

I suppose one might improve the analysis (were one so inclined) by normalizing each game rating by a given player to that player's "global" average. Of course, this would mean that any game/scenario's rating would be fluid as members continue to log plays (and their average changes) and would incorporate any "drift", that is, whether a given member grades more easily or harshly as more plays are logged (which would be an interesting study in and of itself).

If you want to try to put together a more meaningful algorithm than just a straight average, I can give you a data dump of scenario, rating, and userIDs to play with in Excel.

EDIT - the offer is for anyone interested, not just PY.

Fluidity of ratings is meaningless to PG-HQ. Submitting a new play & rating drops the corresponding scenario, units, maps, nations, everything basically into the queue which is checked in 30 minutes or less. Anything in the queue gets a full rating recalc.

[Poor Yorek]

If you want to try to put together a more meaningful algorithm than just a straight average, I can give you a data dump of scenario, rating, and userIDs to play with in Excel.

Heh ... the assign-the-suggester-as-Chair-of-the-Task-Force ploy! Nope! I was just offering a possibility more just for the sake of discussion than expecting any practical application.

Fluidity of ratings is meaningless to PG-HQ. ... Anything in the queue gets a full rating recalc.

Understood: what I was suggesting, however, is that many people have a tendency, over both short and long time scales, to judge/grade more harshly or more benignly and, therefore, any such trend would affect ratings calculated using the method I mentioned above. I note this myself when grading examinations and try to build in breaks and checks (e.g. grade one direction of a stack of exams for one problem, then reverse) to avoid it. So I was only speculating from an academic perspective that it might be interesting (if not practicable given the time and effort involved to code in the calculation within the structure of PGHQ) to note or observe whether there is a grading slope individually or collectively and, of course, to ask - as you did - whether that is due to product improvement, or the reverse, or possibly other factors.

PS If anyone is interested in coding up something like this in response to Shad's offer, though, I'd be happy to discuss.

[Shad]

Heh ... the assign-the-suggester-as-Chair-of-the-Task-Force ploy!

I am wonderfully, fantastically good at this! Ask Alan (Annotated Rules), Peter (Formations), Robin (most scenario data), Randy (many of our tour of duty ribbons)... the list goes on!

[campsawyer]

Heh ... the assign-the-suggester-as-Chair-of-the-Task-Force ploy!

I am wonderfully, fantastically good at this! Ask Alan (Annotated Rules), Peter (Formations), Robin (most scenario data), Randy (many of our tour of duty ribbons)... the list goes on!

Time to put the pin in the ego

[Shad]

Heh ... the assign-the-suggester-as-Chair-of-the-Task-Force ploy!

I am wonderfully, fantastically good at this! Ask Alan (Annotated Rules), Peter (Formations), Robin (most scenario data), Randy (many of our tour of duty ribbons)... the list goes on!

Time to put the pin in the ego

Oh yeah? Well starting today membership to PG-HQ costs $19.99 per month, but only for YOU!

[Poor Yorek]

Heh ... the assign-the-suggester-as-Chair-of-the-Task-Force ploy!

I am wonderfully, fantastically good at this! Ask Alan (Annotated Rules), Peter (Formations), Robin (most scenario data), Randy (many of our tour of duty ribbons)... the list goes on!

What, so no "reputation point" for recognizing this stratagem?