Sheep Tag Scoring System?

I got to thinking the other day about how theres no true way to judge someone's performance based off a score.
In Dota/LoL/HoN you have your KDA and creep score to tell how well everyone is doing.
In Wc3/Sc2 battle.net you have the final scoreboard to judge how well a person performed.
However you sheep tag our only ways of judging how someone performed as sheep is how long they lasted and wolf how many kills they got. Which is ok I guess, but anyone can corner mass and live the longest, and as for as getting kills is concerned half the time its luck as to whether or not a sheep runs to your side during an iso and typically the sheep will choose the side with whom they think is the worst wolf.
Sure theres other ways to judge someone in sheep tag such as farms/saves, but usually if you have the most farms your seen as a cornermasser and honestly who really looks at saves^^.
I really have no solution to this, but maybe you guys have some ideas? What is the best way to judge how someone performed in sheep tag? APM? Kills? Farms? Saves? Last alive?

as sheep: distance to wolves and time allied sheep are in your farms
as wolf: distance to a sheep kill and being in the isolation line of those farms distinct to the main mass with 1 sheep in them (or more sheep depending on the amount of farms)

both will probably be complex to numeralise.

Please tell me you are trolling. Both of you.

e8lakes wrote:

as sheep: distance to wolves and time allied sheep are in your farms
as wolf: distance to a sheep kill and being in the isolation line of those farms distinct to the main mass with 1 sheep in them (or more sheep depending on the amount of farms)

both will probably be complex to numeralise.

Hmm i like this now to develop code to keep track of this. Where is the CHAKRABOT!

Obviously you need to include all possible factors. For sheep that would be APM, saves, fpm, average farm distance from center (FDC), average distance to other sheep (DS), average distance to shepherds (DSh), average gold per minute (GPM), deaths, average time. I think these factors would, roughly, give you the skill of the player.

For example, for Shoop it might be:
APM: 62
Saves: .13
FPM: 36
FDC: 4460
DS: 3060
DSh: 2860
GPM: 46
Deaths: .86
Time: 496

Now all we need is an equation to put it into. Running the numbers, I'd use.
0.003APM + 9.43Saves + 0.011FPM + 0.000086FDC + 0.00007DS + 0.00003DSh + 0.015GPM + 0.0025Time - 0.031Deaths
In this case, Shoop would score a 4.15486.

Drew, on the other hand, would likely get something like.
APM: 132
Saves: .14
FPM: 52
FDC: 3870
DS: 4120
DSh: 1620
GPM: 37
Deaths: .74
Time: 497

Drew would score 4.52612.

But the returned results would be a logarithmic (on pi) scale, meaning Drew is about 52.5% better than Shoop.

And Chakra decides to join Greatlakes and BEER contesting for the retard of the week award.

rofl chakra made a quality post ^^ good shit.


But yee seems like you would support lakers/beer measure of skill shoOPey?

Omg chakra so LEGEND! Implement into revo and display scores at end of every round!

Now we must develop a system for wolves I suppose it would be the same distance from sheep, distance from middle, farms cut per minute, golded trade, etc.

Does Shoop have an OUNCE of content? All he does is flame, and poorly. Obviously ST is quantifiable. I bet if you pulled up the statistics for all the STers, it would probably produce one of the most accurate "best STers" list in history, especially since there is no bias!

You should back down now, Shoop, I even got SIDEY on my side!

we have discussed stuff like this several times before(implementing a ''score system''), and if i remember right, drew crushed this debate.

1) obviously you can't completely measure skill with any system of this sort. it would probably give a good idea of skill tho.

2) crap like this always promotes bad gameplay, such as when farmcount was introduced and you had all these fucktards cornermassing because everyone perceived a sheep with a lot of farms as very skillful, and now they had the exact farm-count visible every game.


the only data which could be good for measuring skill(given that everyone did their best every game) would be a long-term win/loss ratio for every player, and the average amount of time their team lasted. everything else that you can measure (distance to wolves etc) is relative, and some of the most important skill factors can't be captured through data/statistics. this applies ESPECIALLY and completely in individual games, but also on a long-term basis where you take the average score of many games.

Overall you're wrong, but right about time being a major factor.

"Winning" is, in essence, just time, so no need for it to be factored in twice. Instead, just do it once.

Look at my system! Time is a MAJOR factor, "0.0025Time." That is in SECONDS. So if you average ten minutes, you get +1.5 to your score. If the ONLY factor to change would be time and the difference was between ten and eleven minutes, with the former having a score of about 4.75, then the latter would be calculated to be about 4.9, or 19% better! Only a minute longer results in 19% more skill!

Besides this, I also believe saves are a MAJOR skill factor and thus also help a shit-ton. Deaths tend to be around the same figure, but some people just die over and over so should have a negative (and that's basically a positive for those that rarely die!).

Other factors however, obviously play a role. But make sure you realize that the factors of these values are very low compared to that of time, which you pointed out as being the most universal indicator of skill.

Lol, gotta love Chakra for being that canny

But amir sounds right about another thing: the values to a player are somewhat relative to strategies and individual understanding of the game which might, in some situations, lead to actions that are better for the team, but not your own stats.

However, Chakras system really seems unbiased and cool

Every dota player, who has an iq over 90, would understand that stats dont represent skill of the player. If u think stats would be the reason why this player or that player is better u should grow some brain.


I'm not against ur ideas, but personally i will never consider stats being as a major factor to determine other peoples skills.

Night wrote:

Every dota player, who has an iq over 90, would understand that stats dont represent skill of the player. If u think stats would be the reason why this player or that player is better u should grow some brain.


I'm not against ur ideas, but personally i will never consider stats being as a major factor to determine other peoples skills.

good post by night, i agree there

night and trollpro

Night wrote:

Every dota player, who has an iq over 90, would understand that stats dont represent skill of the player. If u think stats would be the reason why this player or that player is better u should grow some brain.

Found the kid who goes 1-9-2 every Dota game and wonders why his team lost because he played so good not according to his score, but to his mind!

I argued for this in the past don't know why this is coming up again...

Ofcourse a scoreboard/stats doesn't prove all the game understanding/intelligence st takes but it will be fun to see who does what. It would also be nice to see what someone needs to work on when they play. Almost every game i play has stats not sure why st doesn't. Saying that stats don't matter is like saying it doesn't matter for every team sport/game out there. Saying that ppl for example will start turding in order to increase their st count is bull... The best players will continue to do whats best for the game and you can say the same for dota or any other game that has stats.

Why this is a bad idea? Maybe because its retarded?

The only thing this will lead to is players adjusting their gamestyle in order to get a score while the benefits of it lacks with its existance.

No smart player gives a SHIT about stats in any game. Understand its about winning and even a really REALLY good system (unlike Chakras which is a complete disaster) to evaluate players would be really far off.

Tell me, what is the benefits of a statssystem and what should we base it on (I assume Chakras suggestion was a joke)?

And also, in what situation will you trust the system over your own judgement?

Shoop wrote:

Why this is a bad idea? Maybe because its retarded?

The only thing this will lead to is players adjusting their gamestyle in order to get a score

Are you an idiot? That is what this topic is about. Trying to find a score system that will best keep track of the skill aspect in sheep tag. Did you not read the original post? I said most farms is not the right one, most saves not the right one. So what is the right way to measure sheep tag? Unless it is impossible which is what I believe, but chakra is starting to prove me wrong. The idea is to find a perfect scoring system that shouldn't change good players play styles and they should still score high.

Did you not read my post? There is no right way to meassure skill. The only thing any scoresystem will lead to is WORSE playing. The fact that Chakras system impressed you pretty much exposes how clueless you are in sheep tag theory.

So you seriously think its always good to be as close to the wolves as possible?
You think its always good to be as close to the middle as possible?
You think its always good to invest in cashfarms?
You think its always good to be close other sheep?

Holy shit...

There are very few fixed variables in sheep tag (like in most other games). If you want to meassure skill the ONLY relevant factor is the avarege time of your team.

Shoop wrote:

There is no right way to measure skill.

Very good shoop. That is what were debating. Is there a proper way to judge skill in sheep tag? Shoop just says no... instead of actually contributing and trying to figure out a way

I think it might be interesting to have a scoreboard anyway, even if it does not represent overall skill, but that seems to still be discussed

beer, just says no? If you read my post I explain exacly why the answer is no.

Lakes, why? It will lead to worse playing, less variation and a slower development of st theory. What is the benefits of producing irrelevant statistics?

Shoop wrote:

So you seriously think its always good to be as close to the wolves as possible?
You think its always good to be as close to the middle as possible?
You think its always good to invest in cashfarms?
You think its always good to be close other sheep?

Not always, but its ALWAYS good to be doing one of those things. So if you make a scoring system based off of these thing where if you start doing one of to much you will actually get a lower score, then we can figure out a perfect system.

I wasn't saying statistics are the way to go, I just said it's interesting to have unbiased values one could compare to another