[Kris Verdeyen]

Ok, does anyone remember the "Dr Joe Index" from last year's game? It determined what a team's specific contribution was to an alliance by how much it raised or lowered the average score of the alliance's team members. It was pretty cool, in my opinion. But then, I'm a baseball fan, and enjoy games with lots of numbers to keep track of (slugging percentage, anyone?).

So, without further ado, I think I've taken the first step towards a similar goal for this year's game. The essence of it is pretty simple - just take the number of QP's your alliance scored, and divide the number of match points it took you to get those points. Call it "scoring efficiency". If you lose the match, you have a scoring efficiency of 1. If you win the match by one point, you have an SE of almost 3. However, if you win by more than 3 times your opponent's score, your SE will drop below 1. I like it because it penalizes those who run up the score, but I dislike it because, well, because it penalizes those who run up the score too much. I mean, the loser of the match gets a 1, and the winner can get 0.5?

I guess it's a good measure of how well a team knows how to play the game, (by not overscoring), and it still needs to be compensated for the luck of the draw (ally and opponents), but it might have value.

What do you think?



(The attachment is a spreadsheet of most of the possible scores. I used the above formula, but I also took the logarithm and normalized the result, to see if it would help shape the data. The numbers in the sheet are WE's SE.)