Twenty fifth. hmm guess I better keep working.

Good maths

@ Beren Erchamion (& Apollo): That's mostly correct indeed. I do need the number of votes itself as those define the accuracy and precision of the rating (reason 1). But for the success (reason 2), it would be better to have the actual number of plays. Ideally, that part of the formula would be a product of terms including the number of votes and number of plays rather than just the votes.

As far as I know, there is no data on the number of plays of a map and guesstimates are very difficult to obtain, I think. So I feel that for average to highly rated maps, the number of votes is as good a proxy as any at this moment. (For lower rated maps, I think it would be a bad estimate as people would play once, vote and never play again.)

Additionally, multiplayer games get saved and stored and thus can be counted (technically), but single-player games not. (They do not have an ID!) So it may actually be impossible to retrospectively count the total number of plays of a map. It should be relatively easily (server side, crawler) to count the number of multiplayer games of a map.

Well, Skunk is only 0.031 points ahead of me despite the fact he's made more maps than anyone and I've only ever made 5.

Wow, it's incredibly cool to see myself at place 21 of such a ranking, let alone one made using solid maths. Thank you!

I'd like to know where I rank. I think I only have 4 maps done, but all are well made IMO.

So... from what I'm understanding, it's practically a Simpson's paradox to all "unpopular" maps? That's slightly discouraging for me and my mapmaking skills. :(

And will this list ever get expanded upon in the future (since I don't know what a crawler is, I'm taking it as a good sign)?

Interesting :D but your whole value system is a bit flawed.

Edited 11/14/2014 20:55:07

Thats right. next time, take care that incaman is the number one!^^

I find this fascinating. Out of the top 50, I probably didn't even know 1/2 of those people made a map at all. It means either the rating system is flawed or they have great maps I need to check out.

Ranek ?!? cmon man

How can i not be on this list?!
I mean -> http://warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=34802

Edited 11/14/2014 23:57:40

Inca ?!? cmon man Im just kidding. =) although you will always be my personal number one ...

@Bananashake
I thought that was rejected!

We have a great mathematican here in our Warlight community! No wonder he's the founder of a statistic clan.

I'm not talking about his mathematics, I'm sure they are impeccable :). But when you attempt to value someones work you have 2 ways to do it. Either take in consideration his greatest achievement or you take into consideration all of his achievements.

Let me first state, so there are no bad conclusions, that RA doesn't have any maps rated lower then 3.5 and yes he makes better maps then me :D as do many others :D. Also ratings can be manipulated and subjected to personal bias (Qi's maps should be rated way higher and it's beyond me to understand why they are not), so they are not important.

So, if X made 10 maps and they are rated

8 - 2.3
1 - 4.3
1 - 4.6

you cannot just selectively choose the rating and say i will rate him only by the last 2 maps so 4.3 + 4.6 = 8.9 / 2 = 4.45

you either take into consideration all of his maps (2.3*8) + 4.3 + 4.6 = 27.3 / 10 = 2.73

or you just take into consideration his best rated map, hence 4.6

Forgive the rudimentary mathematics Math Wolf :D

@ Clement Atlee: "Skunk is only 0.031 points ahead of me" ... "I've only ever made 5."

You were one of the few mapmakers ranked below 50, who got 4 maps rated over 3.5, so I thought you deserved an honourable mention. Note that skunk still has 7 maps rated above 3.5, which is still quite a feat.



@ Phulesdorp: "So... from what I'm understanding, it's practically a Simpson's paradox to all "unpopular" maps?"

I don't really see the Simpson's paradox itself playing here? Although there is indeed a correction for number of times rated.
Technically, you could interpret it as one for example if two users each have two maps, one often rated, the other not often rated.
It may be that user 1's average rating is higher than user 2's average rating and user 1's best map is better than user 2's best map as well as user 1's 2nd best map better than user 2's second best map. Yet if user 2's best map is rated a lot, while user 1's second best map is the one rated a lot, user 2 may get a better rating in this case. (underlying explanation: user 1's best map may be overrated, or is not accurately rated).



@ Phulesdorp: "And will this list ever get expanded upon in the future"

If I have the time, I will repeat it in the future. If more information can be obtained in an efficient way, this may be added. The 'efficient' part is the problem here.



@ ChrisCMU: "I'd like to know where I rank. I think I only have 4 maps done, but all are well made IMO."

Your score and rank were added. I was surprised it wasn't higher, but the reason is because the two qualified maps both are sparsely rated. I think in your case, they are actually underrated (certainly the Great Lakes Basin which I will rate a 5 myself once my first game on it has finished), so getting more people to play and rate will most likely drastically increase your score and rank.



@ ChrisCMU: "I find this fascinating. Out of the top 50, I probably didn't even know 1/2 of those people made a map at all. It means either the rating system is flawed or they have great maps I need to check out."

I was equally fascinated. I didn't even know more than 70% of all mapmakers and I discovered some really nice maps that I want to start playing in the future. Some maps and mapmakers are probably overrated, but I cannot correct for alt-voting. Some diplomacy maps are highly rated probably thanks to diplomacy players and therefore not know by strategic players (and the other way around?) Also, older maps and mapmakers get a slight advantage because they are more rated. I may try to add a correction for this in a next version, but it requires even more data to be gathered and thus even more time to invest.



@ Bananashake: "How can i not be on this list?!"

You were ranked 163rd! The map you linked sadly did not qualify however. I personally have absolutely no idea why such an amazing, beautiful and strategically challenging map ideal for a 40 players FFA could not get a high rating, but maybe qwed117's reply gives a first lead towards a possible explanation. :-)



@ Incaman: "But when you attempt to value someones work you have 2 ways to do it. Either take in consideration his greatest achievement or you take into consideration all of his achievements."

I must strongly disagree with you.
* Taking only the best result doesn't take into account that this person may have many similar good projects. In this case, it wouldn't matter than RA made more than one map, nobody cares about those, only his best one?
* Using all maps penalises map makers who have more, but some not very high quality maps. It doesn't matter you have the 5 best rated maps of Warlight, you once made that duel map that everybody hated and now your average rating gets penalised for it and that guy who made one map, the sixth rated map, consequently is ranked first!
* My system tends to add value for extra quality while not penalising any lower rated maps that someone made. There may be other systems for that, but the two options you propose both make no sense.

Edited 11/15/2014 12:53:18

"My system tends to add value for extra quality while not penalizing any lower rated maps that someone made. There may be other systems for that, but the two options you propose both make no sense."

Nope! You system tend to reward fluke success while not taking into consideration overall performance. In your system a guy who has made 4 maps rated 4.3 is worse than a guy who has made 10 maps rated below 2.0 and one 4.4. This doesn't mean that it is bad, it just means you compare one persons best performance against other persons best performance, while ignoring low performance.

And again: I don't want to say that anyone on that map doesn't belong there or that his maps are not good. I have the utmost respect for every mapmaker and also I'm very grateful for their hard work ( this of course excludes all those lottery maps and their makers )

"Using all maps penalises map makers who have more, but some not very high quality maps.

And not using them penalizes mapmaker who have been consistently making good maps.

It doesn't matter you have the 5 best rated maps of Warlight, you once made that duel map that everybody hated and now your average rating gets penalised for it and that guy who made one map, the sixth rated map, consequently is ranked first!"

Then if you care about rating, you shouldn't have made it. Maybe you should then consider taking into consideration only mapmakers who have at least 4 or more maps, i have no idea you are the mathematician :D. But it just doesn't work this way.

p.s. It just occurred to me while writing this, that this discussion we are having has no point. I don't care about your lists ( or anyone's for that matter ) and in the end it's your rating system do with it what you will :D.

I withdraw all my previous comments and well done it must have been hard work to calculate all that considering Warlights terrible map display.

Edited 11/15/2014 13:05:10

certainly the Great Lakes Basin which I will rate a 5 myself once my first game on it has finished

im playing a multi on it now, and it is indeed awesome

Does anyone know what map Nathan made?