Rabid

[rabid_schnauzer]

This is an explanation of how I approach rating weapons.

As a believer in consistency in weapon ratings, and a long time fan of sirhatter

[graphitesmoothie]

Thanks for the explanation.

[CadaverGrey]

rabid_schnauzer Wrote:If any of the other new (or old) raters want to use parts of this or modify it for their own ratings, please feel free.

Thank you very much for this well explained article, but I am very attached to how I rate my weapons

[cutejohn291]

Wow , it's indeed systematic

[jdb1984]

I think some of the old ratings (Pre-2005) should be deleted. Not because they're bad ratings, but because weapons get upgraded/Downgraded, change in price, or now have a counter or cheaper alternative. That will give us an average rating that reflects the current battledome situation.

[Shattered Rift]

jdb1984 Wrote:I think some of the old ratings (Pre-2005) should be deleted. Not because they're bad ratings, but because weapons get upgraded/Downgraded, change in price, or now have a counter or cheaper alternative. That will give us an average rating that reflects the current battledome situation.

Those ratings are left as a testament to what a weapon may once have been. Raters can personally update their rating if they choose to.


Rabid, after seeing that you beat me to rating a myriad of weapons how you took the power number into consideration, I'm not sure I agree on basing a 1 on Scarab Ring (which isn't matched until Golden Compass, and technically isn't matched there due to fractionals) and basing a 4 on Ghostkersword on up. Though that's primarily because I've been rating each weapon based on how it fits in its range.

On a more helpful note, the value of a freeze can be calculated by the following equation:


Turn(s) Prior To Freeze: (Freezer + Accompaniment) * Stance (or + Species Ability) = F (Damage on each turn before the freeze)

Normal Turn: (Primary + Accompaniment) * Stance (or + Species Ability) = N (Normal turn's damage)

Freeze Turn: (Primary + Secondary) * Stance = D (D for freeze turn's Damage)

T = Turns Prepping Freeze (1 for guaranteed freezers, X for chance freezers based on their percentage)

D - (N*(T) - F*(T)) = Damage advantage via freeze



I hope that equation is translatable. I doubt you want to risk having to change numerous Freezing ratings, but I thought it was something you might be interested in.

[rabid_schnauzer]

jdb1984 Wrote Wrote:I think some of the old ratings (Pre-2005) should be deleted. Not because they're bad ratings, but because weapons get upgraded/Downgraded, change in price, or now have a counter or cheaper alternative. That will give us an average rating that reflects the current battledome situation.

This has been under some discussion in the private forums.

Part of the reason myself and the other new raters were brought on was to help update such things. If only the rest of them would quit being so lazy we'd have them all done by now We've made significant progress on doing so within our first month and I think the improvement shows.

The old ratings are not going to be deleted, but there may eventually be a system which marks ratings over 2 years as older ratings, possibly displaying them in a different color. That's still under debate though.

Shattered Rift Wrote:Rabid, after seeing that you beat me to rating a myriad of weapons how you took the power number into consideration, I'm not sure I agree on basing a 1 on Scarab Ring (which isn't matched until Golden Compass, and technically isn't matched there due to fractionals) and basing a 4 on Ghostkersword on up. Though that's primarily because I've been rating each weapon based on how it fits in its range.

Are you disagreeing with the use of such a range, or where I drew the dividing lines within the range ?

I'm fairly well prepared to defend my judgement on where I put the lines, given the current weapons pool.

Of course using a "power scale" which is based out of absolute value when my own price and tactical scales are based on relative value does produce some unusual results.

I can only really defend that as a matter of personal choice with the intent to provide a wider variety to the ratings on IDB. Or perhaps with an appeal to the positive neomails I've gotten for it so far. 2 people have neomailed me to say they liked the work I'm doing as a rater, and nobody has yet sent me any neomail saying how badly I misrated their favorite weapon.

In your ratings, you certainly do seem more inclined to rate weapons almost entirely on a relative scale to other weapons. I don't think that's wrong, I just think that enough raters have already done that for it not to be something I personally want to do in my own ratings. Part of the point of having multiple raters is to get multiple opinions*.

Quote:On a more helpful note, the value of a freeze can be calculated by the following equation:

No, actually it can't, but thanks for playing.

The flaw in your method is that you are only calculating damage against Punchbag Bob, in cases where his average stance is 1.0.

The value of a freeze is that it negates one of your opponent's turns, and therefore must be given in terms of that opponent's weapons, both offensive and the defensive weapons which may negate parts of your attack on non-frozen turns. That's actually impossibly to predict accurately by any model and why I chose an arbitrary value.

If I am interpreting your formula correctly, then our numbers are not all that far off from each others in the "best common case" for percentage freezers, where 2 opponents are battling with 10 icon constants, honey potion, 4-6 icon species abilities and considering swapping out a 10 iconer for a Black or Rainbow Frost Cannon.

Quote:I hope that equation is translatable. I doubt you want to risk having to change numerous Freezing ratings, but I thought it was something you might be interested in.

Oh, I'm definitely interested, but I'd rather we didn't debate formulae back and forth here, as that could drown out other valid critiques of my methodology.

I'll be watching to see how you rate the various percentage freezers using your methodology.

[Shattered Rift]

rabid_schnauzer Wrote:

Shattered Rift Wrote:Rabid, after seeing that you beat me to rating a myriad of weapons how you took the power number into consideration, I'm not sure I agree on basing a 1 on Scarab Ring (which isn't matched until Golden Compass, and technically isn't matched there due to fractionals) and basing a 4 on Ghostkersword on up. Though that's primarily because I've been rating each weapon based on how it fits in its range.

Are you disagreeing with the use of such a range, or where I drew the dividing lines within the range ?

Both. As I said, I rate weapons comparatively. I'm also bothered by the range because of how much it narrows everything. It takes the 13-icon range to get a even a 2 on your Power scale, and almost no weapon can receive a 4. I think several weapons in their range deserve a perfect score, and you're automatically discounting that possibility. (On the other hand, I'm probably being too liberal with some of my scores.) Scarab Ring, based on raw icons, isn't matched until Golden Compass (and its technically undershot by GoC). Having the upper-end power rating being at Ghostkersword and above limits it to something like six weapons (additionally more that fit another requisite).

rabid_schnauzer Wrote:The flaw in your method is that you are only calculating damage against Punchbag Bob, in cases where his average stance is 1.0.

::.Faceplants.:: I knew something looked wrong with that. I'll PM you the rest of my thoughts freezing.

[dbml]

Gotta love watching two high-quality raters go at it with their theories!

I like Rabid's systematic theory for rating weapons as it removes the ability for a weapon to get a good (or a bad) rating due to a personal bias for or against it. Although, I have to agree with Shattered's relative scale approach, as Scarab Ring is pound for pound the best weapon in the game and is well-deserving of a 4 in Rabid's power rating

It still boggles my mind why price should be a factor at all in the rating of weapons (with the exception of 1-of-a-kinds/non-existant weapons and those that have an identical, yet cheaper alterative... a la Castle Defenders Shield and Thyoras Tear). I feel that weapons should be rated on the effectiveness for those than can afford them. Price seems to be way too heavy of a factor for many of the raters.

[rylix]

I think all weapons that have a downgrade and upgrade need a price rating- if the cost of getting this weapon over its downgrade for whatever reason is worth the added advantage, the price rating is high and if the cost of getting the upgrade is small then it deserves a low price rating. The effectiveness of a weapon is covered in its effectiveness catagory-

[dbml]

Quote:I think all weapons that have a downgrade and upgrade need a price rating- if the cost of getting this weapon over its downgrade for whatever reason is worth the added advantage, the price rating is high and if the cost of getting the upgrade is small then it deserves a low price rating. The effectiveness of a weapon is covered in its effectiveness catagory-

The weapon should get an entirely new rating if that's the case. Once again I don't see why price should be the deciding factor for rating it.

Also, to clarify my previous post... Rabid's rating theory satisfies my "effectiveness for those than can afford them" for the most part. That was mostly directed to those that rate weapons without a set way of rating. People are far too inconsistant with how heavily they value the stats of the weapon compared to the price.

[Dlb0516]

rabid, why do you say (hi laurs!) in some of your ratings? (like in Ramtors Spellbook's rating)

[+darwin]

I like seeing a systematic approach to weapon ratings, and better yet I like seeing them explained. The only flaw in your methodology IMO is that it's a little cruel to lower-end weapons like the aforementioned scarab ring and others like Skeletal Fire Gun. Granted the majority (if not all) IDB raters are primarily high-end 2p battlers, not everyone is.... Therefore people working their way up can get a skewed impression about the usefulness of a particular weapon using solely that system of rating, and it seems that the 1p/2p factor isn't taken into account at all.
I find the best part of your rating system is the alternatives - upgrades - defences/countermeasures.... I'd like to see more raters use something similar.

I know rating is arbitrary to the rater and can be subjective to current conditions. So basically, keep doing what you're doing....

[Dlb0516]

darwin Wrote:I like seeing a systematic approach to weapon ratings, and better yet I like seeing them explained. The only flaw in your methodology IMO is that it's a little cruel to lower-end weapons like the aforementioned scarab ring and others like Skeletal Fire Gun. Granted the majority (if not all) IDB raters are primarily high-end 2p battlers, not everyone is.... Therefore people working their way up can get a skewed impression about the usefulness of a particular weapon using solely that system of rating, and it seems that the 1p/2p factor isn't taken into account at all.
I find the best part of your rating system is the alternatives - upgrades - defences/countermeasures.... I'd like to see more raters use something similar.

I know rating is arbitrary to the rater and can be subjective to current conditions. So basically, keep doing what you're doing....

I somewhat agree with that, I'd like if the power ratings we're based off price somehow