Brass Ablaze

Those in favor/support of amplified vocals always seem to say something along the lines of "such and such crowd seemed to like it" or "it was well accepted by such and such audience". 1. It's not that we always don't think we would enjoy it. We all are here because we love music and most of us also enjoy singing. The point is, we didn't go to a drum corp show to hear singing, we came to hear instraments. It's just like someone else pointed out earlier. If we go to chinese, we want chinese not pizza. That doesnt mean we won't like the pizza but it just doesnt belong in the chinese food restaraunt and if we wanted pizza, we'd have gone to an itialian restaraunt instead. 2. How are you measuring whether a croud enjoyed that one piece of the show or not? I don't know about you but I am polite. I will cheer after EVERY show whether it was good, great, or amazing. Just because I am clapping at the end of a show doesn't mean I am automatically a supporter of every feature that they put into the show, whether I enjoyed it or not. 4. Did you notice I skipped point number 3?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO <**> Don't forget that some of us choose not to participate in the off season for this specific reason. I for one only do the life season because it is 100% based on live scores. If I wanted to base if off of last years scores I would just do the off season. BAD IDEA! KEEP THE LIVE SEASON LIVE!

Off season = fake Live season = fun :P ROAR!

I couldn't make it to the theater! :( Where's the live cam?

WOOT! ^OO^ Congrats to everyone!

I'll make popcorn b**bs

Brass Ablaze B will be there! Count me in!

pwned! hehe B)

Well visual "PERFORMANCE" I can see changing. I mean think about it. If somone stumbles at a spot or a line was really off one move or something and it caught the attention of the judge, it can heavily effect that score. GE scores I can see not changing as much but a performance score I can see having a little variance if they were mistakes or something.

They saw that I was in the top spot so they called it a conspiracy, held guns to the judges heads, and forced them to change the scores........Or at least thats the rumor I heard. <_<

well it's not really "increasing". If you just went by this it would be fine because lets take, for instance, the day that it was a 14.70. If the following day's score was generated based just on this, it'd be something like 13.75 it looks like. So that would actually be accurate according to your line but not an "increase" like you said.

hmm... Maybe not a cap per say but I can see a cap on the number of div 1 corps per director maybe. I agree on this one. I think it we make it more complicated than it needs to be, we should just follow the same schedule IMHO. See my last response :) AMEN! Generating the first scores is lame. We should wait until we get some real scores to work with. I think that it should be generated as a logical trend for what will most likely be the score, not something with a "twist" in it. See my other thread about formula posibilities. How do you gauge if they are following along? if they are making caption changes? If they are posting? What if they simply are not the kind of person to post about everything or maybe they don't want to make caption changes but are in fact checking on their scores every day? It's hard to determine this. I like this. It makes it more challenging and would make it a little but more realistic. As it stands now, the troopers could jump to first place in one day with changes and that to me is kind of silly. Look at me, my corp went from like 20 something to first overnight. I like this idea. I've got mixed feelings here. I see your point, and the idea is nice but ultimately we want to encourage people to play and I think this would make the same winners every year and um yeah I just don't think this will fly well. I agree that we should try and change it up but I think the variance should be a randomly generated number between -0.3 and 0.3. And we should not know what the varriant number was for each particular show. Otherwise if we go by set amounts people can still go "Oh, I was in the +.5 show yesterday" and then adjust their score to still compare them. We need to not know what the variant amount was for each show so that we can't make the adjustments and compare. Additionally the varriant should not be just on the final score, it should be averaged into each individual caption.

Why don't you just take the average of the last three differences in that caption and add it to the last one? So for instance here is the spreadsheet: ...........A......B.......C.......D.........E 1.......................................GENERATED 2........7-Jul..8-Jul...9-Jul...10-Jul...11-Jul 3........15.11..15.20...15.22...15.60....15.76 4........................................... So in this example, the July 11th caption score is the generated one. The formula for cell E3 is =((D3-C3)+(C3-B3)+(B3-A3))/3+D3 Example #2: (same forumula) ...........A......B.......C.......D.........E 1.......................................GENERATED 2........7-Jul..8-Jul...9-Jul...10-Jul...11-Jul 3........16.05..16.12...15.98...16.09....16.10 4........................................... Example #3: (same forumula) ...........A......B.......C.......D.........E 1.......................................GENERATED 2........7-Jul..8-Jul...9-Jul...10-Jul...11-Jul 3........17.00..17.31...17.33...17.43....17.57 4........................................... Now here lies the problem... Lets use example 3. Lets say that on the 10th, its a judge that gives them an off the wall score that doesn't fit with the pattern. Lets say 16.50. In that case, the new generated score trends down to 16.33. That didn't sound good to me so I tweaked it a little... SO....I updated the formula to average the last 4 scores into it as well, so that one bum score wont throw it way off the wall. =((((D3-C3)+(C3-B3)+(B3-A3))/3+D3)+D3+C3+B3+A3)/5 Now instead of 16.33, the generated score would be 16.89, which is a little more realistic probably. That would make the generated score for example #1 be 15.38 and for example number 2 be 16.07. Those scores seem a little less dramatic to me, which is better. The point is, you dont want a corp's caption to suddenly change drastically based on the generated score. The generated score should as accurately as possible try to predict the most likely score for that caption based on the last few scores they have gotten in that caption. That's my take on it anyway. B)

Well, I read this like 5 times and I'd say I understand about a third of what you are saying. :) So basically it takes their last score and predicts a trend. So why are you using last years finals scores again? Isn't that going to inflate the generated scores more often than not?

you're right though. The average bumped me from like 24th to I think it was 19th or something. hehe. Give it a couple days and I'll be up twards the top though. :)