RR Calculation Wrong?

Members can make suggestions for improving the site and improving the forum as well as submit bug reports to be reviewed by our support team here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Omphalos
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:04 pm

RR Calculation Wrong?

#1 Post by Omphalos » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:30 pm

According to the stats given on my page I have 39 NMRs in 3698 moves (as I write this). This should be a RR of 99%, but it is given as 92%.

Claesar
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 238

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#2 Post by Claesar » Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:59 pm

Did you use the calculation presentedby Jmo in the other topic?

You seem to be suggesting RR is calculated by (number of moves- ((number of NMRs)/(number of moves))%, but that is not the formula we use.
1

Squigs44
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:50 pm
Location: America
Karma: 201

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#3 Post by Squigs44 » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:35 pm

The calculation is correct. You have to factor in your CDs as well. Your noNMR % is 98.9, but your noCD % is 95.3. You have to average those and cube them to get your RR which is 91.7.
3

fadgyasb
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:09 pm

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#4 Post by fadgyasb » Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:48 pm

I have a very similar issue and been searching for the correct formula that you suggest above from Jmo. Would you maybe have a chance to share the formula?
Since I started playing again, I had a few NMRs, but generally improved my RR, however its been hardly moving since?

Just to illustrate:
My NMR currently is 59/1121, where noNMR% becomes 95%
By finished games of 38, my CD is 3, which makes me noCD% becomes 92.1%.
This should give 87,5% of my RR (which is still far from ideal), however my profile stays at 83%. Where am I taking this wrong?

Thanks

A_Tin_Can
Developer
Developer
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:18 pm
Karma: 160

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#5 Post by A_Tin_Can » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:10 am

Your RR is correct:

(((95+92.1)/2)^3)/10000 = 81.87.
2

thdfrance
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:56 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 80
Contact:

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#6 Post by thdfrance » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:02 pm

I believe I'm more reliable than any equation can predict

ziran
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:21 am
Karma: 43
Contact:

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#7 Post by ziran » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:22 pm

it's not a prediction, it's a history.
1

fadgyasb
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:09 pm

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#8 Post by fadgyasb » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:52 am

Okay, thanks, so both the factors are on the cube... okay, thats strict. Fair enaugh. Thanks a lot

cspieker
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:07 am
Karma: 17

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#9 Post by cspieker » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:05 pm

That is a seriously stupid formula.

jmo1121109
Developer
Developer
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 pm
Karma: 590
Contact:

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#10 Post by jmo1121109 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:22 pm

cspieker wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:05 pm
That is a seriously stupid formula.
Feel free to offer a better one, otherwise that comment isn't really useful.
3

PRINCE WILLIAM
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:17 am
Karma: 27

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#11 Post by PRINCE WILLIAM » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:25 pm

Why don't we use the simple analogy of NMR to overall movements? Is it to make CDs more punishable?

cspieker
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:07 am
Karma: 17

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#12 Post by cspieker » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:47 pm

My main issue with that stupid formula is that is presents itself as a percent but it is not.

The average of the non-NMR% and the non-CD% would actually be a percentage in some sense.

I guess you guys must have discussed why that simple intuitive formula didn't suffice and so you had to cube it for some reason.

jmo1121109
Developer
Developer
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 pm
Karma: 590
Contact:

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#13 Post by jmo1121109 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:00 am

cspieker wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:47 pm
My main issue with that stupid formula is that is presents itself as a percent but it is not.

The average of the non-NMR% and the non-CD% would actually be a percentage in some sense.

I guess you guys must have discussed why that simple intuitive formula didn't suffice and so you had to cube it for some reason.
This is an open source website. If you'd like to contribute a better formula or report an issue with an any part of the site then feel free https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomacy/issues

Or, explain here in detail what you would do instead and why. But fair warning if the ideas are wrapped within snarky replies I won't waste my time.

As for why the formula is the way it is, no idea, not a math guy. I just coded the SQL for the formula I was given, so have at it.

Mercy
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:03 pm
Karma: 79

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#14 Post by Mercy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:56 am

The probable reason for the cube in the formula is so that it is easier to discriminate between high but different Reliability Ratings. If there was no cube, all players who currently have a Reliability Rating of 99 or 100, would then all receive a Reliability Rating of 100.

I agree with cspieker that the fact that the Reliability Rating using a % sign is very misleading, as it is not a percentage at all. The fact that we, with some frequency, get topics on the forum from players who think the RR calculation might be wrong, is proof of this.

As usual, a solution already exists and it can be found on vDiplomacy. On vDiplomacy, if you look at someones Reliability Rating on their profile, no percentage is shown. For example, on webDip it says "Reliability rating: 94%" when on vDip it says "Reliability: R94". On top of that, if you hover with your mouse on top of the Reliability Rating, the formula that is used in calculating it is shown. This makes it a lot more clear. Needless to say, on vDip we never get questions on the forum about Reliability Rating.

cspieker
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:07 am
Karma: 17

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#15 Post by cspieker » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:30 pm

Yeah, I figured the cube was to spread out the distribution at the high end. But I don't understand why that would be necessary. The utility of this RR is so that one can judge whether someone is reliable. If someone is 99% or 100% both those seem basically the same to me.

Not sure why one needs to break ties or spread people out. This is a metric that is useful for basically seeing if someone is at or above a threshold that one considers acceptable.

A_Tin_Can
Developer
Developer
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:18 pm
Karma: 160

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#16 Post by A_Tin_Can » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:46 am

@cspieker - is the reliability calculation the same on vDip?

Mercy
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:03 pm
Karma: 79

Re: RR Calculation Wrong?

#17 Post by Mercy » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:23 pm

A_Tin_Can wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:46 am
@cspieker - is the reliability calculation the same on vDip?
I presume this question was meant for me? Yes, the calculation is the same on vDip.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest