CincinnatiGloryMello Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I dont know that this should be an official rule proposal, maybe more of a suggestion to open some discussion here..... but..... I think that the formula for the Generated scores needs to be changed. The rationale: No one should know what their exact score is going to be for a show with nothing buy generated scores. If people know the formula, all they would have to do is sit down crunch some numbers, and they would win just about every single off season. I, for one, dont have the time or desire to do that... but some do. Makes me wonder what the point of even having generated scores or an off-season at all, if we all know who is going to win, because its the same formula year in and year out. Again.... just a thought. I will be drawing up my Regional ideas sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I dont know that this should be an official rule proposal, maybe more of a suggestion to open some discussion here..... but..... I think that the formula for the Generated scores needs to be changed. The rationale: No one should know what their exact score is going to be for a show with nothing buy generated scores. If people know the formula, all they would have to do is sit down crunch some numbers, and they would win just about every single off season. I, for one, dont have the time or desire to do that... but some do. Makes me wonder what the point of even having generated scores or an off-season at all, if we all know who is going to win, because its the same formula year in and year out. Again.... just a thought. I will be drawing up my Regional ideas sometime. I agree .... and in-fact changed the method for computing 'generated' scores for DCPI-7. Rather than using a statistical method of projecting what the 'generated' scores should be, I introduced a random factor for the generated scores. These random factors were within a defined range (for instance, at one point in the season generated scores were between 97-103% of the previous score), which we could vary throughout the season - to more-closely replicate the wide variances in judging (in the early season) to more stable scores (later in the season). Using this method, there was NO way that a person could calculate the winner of any contest that included generated captions. The factor range for a given date was uniformly applied to all generated captions - so no single combination of selections received preferrential treatment. To ensure the scores were truly 'random', I re-generated the random values multiple times .... 100 times at Finals. Based on the scores we saw during Finals week - the process worked well .... producing 'tight' realistic, yet un-predictable, scores. My objective for an 'accurate simulation with unpredictable results' was acheived, I believe. We'll continue to look at ways to improve the 'quality' and 'realism' of the generated scores ... while doing our very best to ensure that the exact score is truly unpredictable. -john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudHype Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I like this method of generating captions this past season. If anything, you can win without being the mathematically correct. Confused? Using the last score for each caption, Kosmos would of won by .05. Instead it was .02. Fractions of a percent difference in our guard caption Mystre could of won. Unlucky for me, 05 Mandarins color guard generated higher then most captions during finals week. I wouldn't change this generation system. It will make for some interesting seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcurrier Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 So here is my rough idea. No more bonus points for finals week, helps code. and a time window to submit your changes finals week. Nothing early or late. I agree as we have discussed this...eliminate finals week bonus and it will only help the administrator--I know it hurt me in DCPI 6 that I was AT the real thing with no computer access--so I had no changes in and got 13th...so be it, but the final weeks changes allow for a lot of spies, a lot of confusion and I am assuming a lot more difficulty on the administrator... I also agree changes should have a start and finish deadline--nothing early, nothing late and if it is--its not done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 I agree as we have discussed this...eliminate finals week bonus and it will only help the administrator--I know it hurt me in DCPI 6 that I was AT the real thing with no computer access--so I had no changes in and got 13th...so be it, but the final weeks changes allow for a lot of spies, a lot of confusion and I am assuming a lot more difficulty on the administrator...I also agree changes should have a start and finish deadline--nothing early, nothing late and if it is--its not done I support this idea 100%, it makes one have to set themselves up for finals week with their 4th and 5th caption changes. What you get is what you get. I would like to see finals be generated again, like it was the first 2-3 seasons. Prelims and Semifinals were interesting, but finals was even more, because the winner was a mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcurrier Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Official Rule Change: One Corps per director per division, and repeal the "caption-sharing" ruleDescription: Competing directors may only register one corps per division, and may not register more than three corps. Additionally, the rule restricting "caption-sharing" between corps would be repealed. Rationale: * Opens finals up to more directors. * Reduces flooding at shows * Eliminates the "caption-sharing" restriction Submitted by: Matt Briddell- Kosmos I have been against this change from the beginning and right up until semi's I still was against this 1 per division. I also felt (wrongly) that changes in the no caption sharing would eliminate or greatly reduce multiple corps from one director making it to finals. I am one of the several directors that proved this wrong and so therefore for the good of promoting DCPI going forward, I now support this measure completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) I have been against this change from the beginning and right up until semi's I still was against this 1 per division. I also felt (wrongly) that changes in the no caption sharing would eliminate or greatly reduce multiple corps from one director making it to finals. I am one of the several directors that proved this wrong and so therefore for the good of promoting DCPI going forward, I now support this measure completely. There weren't as many directors in that Division this year. In past seasons, there have been as many as 40 Division I directors, and I myself have occupied 3 finalist spots in Division I (recently) with a high influx of Division I corps. Had more directors been involved, Sunrise Surf, Cross, and Oracle may not have been finalist. The point is, you still had to figure out a way to get them there, as all the other options were occupied with high values. More directors would have meant, more of the picks that the top 6 directors had, pushing down the bottom. If a corps is truly different from the other, then they shouldnt need to share captions (Bill Price is right about that). But that is amazing that people were still able to get two corps into finals, even with the past proposal change. I think eliminating it all together, and just having the one rule...allows for 12 different directors to occupy a spot in finals, just as it is and should be. You already prove you can play by getting one corps into finals, you don't need to do it with more than that. :P I've decided that I am going to keep my founding groups active, because the other ones were created when we really had a low turnout and more for fun. Also, having 3 corps should make everyones job easier when it comes to remember updates, notices, and changes. It's easier for the administrator to deal with as well. You could always auction of one of your corps to a new rookie! :-) Edited March 13, 2007 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scadesboi Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I concur and fully support that measure. I wonder, would it be worth it to have the 'generated' scores come out realistically? Like, I know judges don't put down a .21 or a .56 in the numbers...would it be worth it to change it to be realistic there? Or even possible (John?). Doesn't really matter to me here, just want to see what y'all think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 I think having the wierd numbers such as 14.56 or 12.33 is what makes the competition as fierce as it is. Sure tabulating .05, and .10, make things easier, but I like how pinched it can be with the wierd numbers sometimes. And sometimes having those wierd numbers works in your favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scadesboi Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Fair enough, works for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.