funny leaderboard today

Fml.

I share your pain

I'm noticing that the jump from 13 to 14 takes 100,000 more instead of 50,000 like the previous jumps.

Yup, here's the breakdown:

Level 2 - 200
Level 3 - 600
Level 4 - 2,000
Level 5 - 5,000
Level 6 - 10,000
Level 7 - 20,000
Level 8 - 40,000
Level 9 - 70,000
Level 10 - 100,000
Level 11 - 150,000
Level 12 - 200,000
Level 13 - 250,000
Level 14 - 350,000
Level 15 - 500,000
Level 16 - 700,000
Level 17 - 1,000,000
Level 18-21 (ask TH10 when he gets there)

This is a great idea!

This, but in a different way, I'll explain tomorrow.

Ok, so even though it didn't look like at first, yesterday's DC was actually quite interesting. I think I made a mistake in 3rd rack, as did pretty much everyone else. The fml wasn't about that though, it was related to the wrong choice I made in 4th rack, here is what the situation was:



So I had left myself the choice to go for the setup that can get 5-snake with just 3x5 in racks 5-8, however I chose the safe route and went with non-optimal Dynasty setup. Which has to be a mistake considering how many players would've played 4 to center in 3rd rack to have the optimal Dynasty setup in 4th rack. So with that in mind I should've gone for the setup, where 5s are stronger, I believe I would've won the DC playing like that.

Afterwards I was thinking about the setups, and came to the conclusion, that my play in 3rd rack was not the best possible, below are some of the possibilities I can go for playing it like this, the 4s can be 3s too, since this left the option to go for either in 4th rack.

Needs 654/653: (this is what I should've done)


644/633: (this is what I did)


664/663:


544/533:


444/333:


The last one is mentioned because it is a back-up for the "pseudo-Dynasty" setup I've explained earlier itt, and I was supposed to make a post about it anyway, it should be played like below, these are rotated and have 4s/6s switched, since I had already made them before the DC:







Back to the DC. The problem with the setups shown earlier is, that they all need three specific dice to work. Although there are quite many three dice combinations that are good and pretty much all of the two dice combinations lead to at least somewhat playable setups too, of the one die possibilities 5 is ok, 3/4/6 are not that good. Still, needing two specific dice to have a good setup should be better than needing three. That said, what I believe would've been the best play was this:



Here we abandon 3s, and block some of the setup possibilities, but we only need two dice to complete a good setup.

64:


54:


65:


Even with only one 4 the setup is decent, one 5 or one 6 are also somewhat playable (44/55/66 are slighty better), and with 2x3 we could also switch to them as a back-up plan if there are no 4s/5s/6s in 4th rack. Compared to other ways of playing, the worst 4th racks for this setup are 533/633.

This is why my daily challenge rating is not very good. I think TH10 has put more thought in to that one DC than I have put in for the last month of them.

Shotgun not me, Donk, Kokirixx, Triplechang, Popcorn, Latt, Treep, radisto, Derwi and DIonized.

I barely put any retroactive thought into it. TH goes overboard!

My problem is not thinking when playing, this particular rack took me more than 30 seconds to play, which is rare since for some reason I must always autopilot through the DCs, so I thought it was a real possibility I played it wrong. That's why I wanted to take a closer look at it, but instead of using time to figure it out during playing, I did that afterwards, when it was not as useful (although it probably didn't make a difference in the end this time). Also, I think you and fred are overestimating the time it took to figure out how to play that, it was easily less than 5 minutes, the analysis just seems much longer because there are multiple pictures.

WAT? How exactly did any of these players play it correctly? Am I missing something? How would've any of these players gotten a good setup with the 4th rack having just 54 or 65? Even 64 is less optimal than the way I explained it should've been played. Mrgibson had 5s outside, Dynasty played 3s, but all the other players played it wrong, with maybe the exception of kioshk, who could've played it wrong or right, depending what he did in 3rd rack. And it is possible kioshk made the right play without realising all the options, seeing as he forces the advanced setup quite a lot, and it seems to work pretty well too. He could've won that DC committing to 4s as the 3rd chain and abandoning all the extra 3s, which was likely the better play considering that one 4 in center from racks 1-4, which would've meant 6s would be played to only three zones if 3s were snaked.

Speaking of mistakes, made another in yesterday's DC, first I was going to block 5s to snake 4s with just one more 4, then I noticed I had one 5 so, that I wouldn't reach it playing like that, so I gambled with the 4s, and failed. Would've probably only finished 3rd by missing one 3 anyway, so I think it didn't cost me a win this time, still very stupid to play it like that.

I didn't read all of the long post but I had a standard dynasty setup going, that hardly seems like a mistake.

Oh I see. Tbf I hadn't read your epic post when I made the comment.

This was my initial reaction. His point is that you relied on getting a very unlikely 4th roll and playing a different way you would've been much more likely to get a good setup.

Ok that's possible, I obviously don't recall my 3rd rack situation.

hilarious challenge today.

I'm guessing I'm the first person to win a challenge by placing 6 2s in the same square?

I had quite an annoying situation in rack 7 of today's DC, might post about it tomorrow.

I though I had a good challenge today but kokirixx improved by more than 10% over my score. You nasty buggar.

Maybe THIS one will hold. My challenge drought is depressing.

holy crap zac
crushing the topscores

oh please, a 5000 point margin is nothing. And it's still way early.

i pretty much knew that was gonna happen to my lead in the dc. But i was hoping, all the same

Sorry .

I caught pretty much the perfect racks 8 and 9 for the way I played it.

Zac, just a small thing, but the order of the Leaderboards is in a slightly different order in the drop-down menu (Main, Daily, Normal, Advanced, Timed, Awards, Other) to the order on the Leaderboard page (Main, Timed, Daily, Normal, Advanced, Awards, Other). Imo the order with Timed second is better.

Also, I have a question about the ratings: the ratings are set so that if a player returns after a long period of inactivity (as radisto has), their volatility (RD) is increased. Does their RD penalty stay the same? I'm guessing it does, as radisto's rating hasn't suddenly dropped drastically. Does their RD penalty then only decrease when they reach their old RD?

For example, say person x had RD 10 in Timed mode, with a true rating of 1500, so an actual rating of 1400. They then don't play for ages and their RD is increased to 25. Their ranking stays at 1400 (instead of dropping to 1250), and they then continue playing for several hundred games, staying at the same true rating of 1500. Will their actual rating only start to increase when their RD drops below 10?

Btw, good to see radisto back. He stopped playing around the time I started, so I never really got to play much against him. Now I just wish krohn and hammertime would restart.

Good call about the leaderboard order. I'll fix that soon.

Rating deviation doesn't increase over time (although it would be better if it did). I implemented the glicko algorithm because it was easier to get done quickly than Glicko-2 (which includes the deviation increase).

And yeah, I'm also happy to see radisto back. If we get all of the people you mentioned to play again plus the current regulars, we could have a super strong field for the next tournament.

Oh OK, I just assumed you implemented the deviation increase cos he's gained 4 rating points in Timed in relatively few games. I guess that can be partially attributed to him having played under 800 games (and of course crushing the games). Actually, what's radisto's RD? If it's greater than 9 then he should be better than TH! It's a shame you didn't implement the deviation increase, having all these dead players in the Daily Leaderboard is annoying, especially hammertime, as he's second and was one of the very early players, so we don't know how good he'd be against today's players (post-Dynasty strat). None of his top-ten games use a good strat.

For the next tournament, could the rounds be longer? Say for example best of 11 then 15? It would be a maximum of an extra 15 minutes' gameplay, it would make it much less of a crapshoot and given how long it takes to organise a match, I don't really just want to play for 15-20 mins, I want some value for my time!