MM's Hypothesis

[yellowbounder]

Mafia 66 has 2.290 (3.d.p).

I think that's because of all the players, right? More players -> more posts,

and posts are increased exponentially (or something), rather than views

[Max]

I feel really bad about this necro bump, but I was wondering, do mods feel it is in their interest to keep the game around 1 or do they prefer ratings higher than that?

[Xdaamno]

An AC of below 1 indicates a below average activity level
An AC of above 1 indicates an above average activity level
An AC of exactly 1 indicates an ideal activity level, also known as activity equilibrium

[Xtoxm]

Given the responses to this thread, I don't think this is a sufficiently accurate measurement (apart the views thing).

And, I disagree with Mith. I think it is possible to apply mathematical formulae to Mafia, just probably good enough ones haven't been used/developed...

However, Family Guy Mafia has Ac of 3.094, which seems pretty accurate. This is including the inflated numbers views for post-game etc, so it would be a little higher. It definately was a very fast paced game, I recall at one point we got like 10 pages up in day, or something like that.

I'll try find a game I felt was slow-paced...

Strawberry I remember was horribly slow paced...Among other things. It has an AC of 0.32. So it does seem accurate for the games I recall as being fastest/slowest respectively.

But I think there have been some examples of this forumla being sub-par.

Edit: Also, if you have the ideal at one (I think it's actually probably higher) then slow-paced games aren't going to appear as slow as the fast paced games...A value of 3 sounds a lot more off than a value of 0.32, when I don't feel that's a good representation.

[mith]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, exactly. I have probably applied more mathematics to the game than just about anyone; I was arguing here about arbitrary and ill-conceived formulae, especially when someone is suggesting they be used in the game in some way. The number of views depends on so many things (including out-of-game things, such as non-players reading the thread) that, while it is of course *roughly* related to the number of posts and players, using it as a hard rule for deadlines is foolish. (One could easily see it being abused by the scum; if they want a deadline, hide and refresh the thread a lot without posting.)

[mith]

(I would much rather have mods that were on top of their games and able to identify subjectively when a game is lagging, rather than use a formula, no matter how accurate it is.)

[Xtoxm]

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant.

[Elmo]

I don't really have a lot to say beyond the fact that people reading the game can increase the view count and that I don't understand why you'd want to use this over, you know, reading the game that you're modding.

This just seems a variant of posts per player per unit time. If you were going to do something like this, I would advocate examining only the most recent posts, for example "how many days were the last 50 posts made in"? with some kind of proportionality thrown in. But really, posts per day is a decent metric, but isn't it kind of obvious? I really don't understand where the formula in the OP comes from, or why it's supposed to be good..

edit: Wow, apparently I hadn't refreshed the thread for something like five hours before writing that. Very-slowly-sarnath'd