The first November weekly champion of the IW Trivia Tournament!

Here are the IW Top Ten Rankings from the last week:<pre><font face="courier">
Bungleau 1
Aelia 2
Captain Obvious 3
machinehead 4
Wellard 5
Olorin 6
S Tam 7
Leonis 8
Aragorn 9
toot033 10
</font>
</pre>Your IW Top Ten Ranking is an average of your total score and average score rankings.

A fresh contest for November, and easier question pools, too!

If you're interested in joining the fun, come on over and sign up [img]smile.gif[/img] It's free... and you get bragging rights :D

[ 11-10-2006, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Bungleau ]

We noticed! :D [img]tongue.gif[/img]

lol, Bungleau, how about you list the top, oh, say, 15 or so, and leave off the folks who had fun with it once or twice but couldn't get in the routine? That way we don't look like complete idjits! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Fair enough, Lucern. How about I list the top ten or so, and then list the others who played? That way, those who tried don't have to 'fess up [img]smile.gif[/img]

haha, Let it never be said that the gamesmaster isn't fair-minded.

Edit...whom...I just read is none other than Sir G. I'm sure he's fair-minded too ;)

[ 11-09-2006, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

I took over the game for Sir G a while back... but it's still associated with his ID, and he can take it back whenever he wants [img]smile.gif[/img]

Let me ask all of you... where should I draw the line, using last weeks scores as an example? At Wellard? ZFR? Aragorn? Dragonshadow?

I'm not sure how far down to make the cut. Any thoughts for you folks?

How about anyone that has played at least 5 days in the week you are scoring. Or the top 10 in that week.

How about you post everone just like you're doing? This will encourage those who play only once to play again so they don't look like idjits.

Good point. :D

Yeah, but it might make them decide to stop playing altogether, which would be a bad thing.

Hmmm... I've got another thought. Take a look up top in a few...

nah... I don't think sorting it by average is a good idea, Bungleau. This way the opposite thing will happen: people who came in played only once and came on top will look completely brilljiant. The point of the tournament is to score best continuously in many quizzes, not just come on top once.

So how about this: keep posting it the way you did before, only next to each score add number of games played (and average maybe).
This way those who played only once will not look at idjits, and at the same time it will encourage people who want to appear at the top to play continuously.

Okay... you just inspired me to get creative.

We'll have a new score... a combination of your total score ranking and your average score ranking. That way, hard work (like answering trivia [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is rewarded, and no one has to feel like an idjit.

Stay tuned...

I'll join the idjits at the bottom.. I might sign up once exams are over with, but I'm not good at getting into routine.

All right... tweaked yet again. How do you like it now?

Can you give exact formula of how you calculate rank?

To be honest I still don't like it. I very much prefer the way it was done before. Since the tournament only calculates points to determine the winner, that's what you should do too. Put avg next to it, just like the tournament does.
You can calculate and add other factors or things like number of games played, but the only determinant of rank should be total score. Because that's how it is done in the tournament.

The way it is now, if you do very well in the first 2 days and you can easily miss out the next 5 and still be in the top.

er... sorry for being picky. And thanks for hosting this.

[ 11-10-2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: ZFR ]

The formula for rank is simple.

Sort everyone by score. High score gets 1 point, second place two, and so on.

Then sort everyone by average score. High average gets one point, second place two... you get the picture.

Add the points, then sort everyone by total points. IOW, the average of their total and average score rankings. Low score is first, second lowest is second, and so on.

I've been thinking that this probably needs some tweaking, and total score needs to be a weighted average somehow. That would eliminate those who try to shoot for one high score, and then stop.