Bike or DieHall of FameSubmitLevelsForum

Chat (0)

Bike or Die 2 Released Here comes the new Bike or Die...
7 Year Itch Who would have thought? There ...
7 Years On Bike! BoD is 7 years old and I'm sti...
...more

15 Years On Bike! time goes by so fast wow
Confessions of A BOD-aholic fo... What is it with this game? ...
Need my BoD fix I haven't had a Palm device in...
...more


Sort by... for levelpack selec... I personally find it kind of f...
Medal Bonus Points Voting I see all the votes getting lo...
Player Profile i think a little more should b...
site and game suggestions Game suggestions... for the m...
Improving the global ranking c... i see two ways to improve the ...
Multiplayer It would be great if there is ...
Online Flash BOD for Wii? now that the Wii internet chan...
New Bike or Design/Bike or Die... Suggest your new ideas for fut...
...more

iOS 8.0 problems I just upgraded to iOS 8.0. Wh...
new ipad. how do i get my stuf... hi there. i've got an ipad and...
...more




Sz

Improving the global ranking calculation

i see two ways to improve the global ranking calculation:

1.vary the maximum number of points for the levels depending on the number of players on this level. this would remove the need for limiting the maximum level rank to #99. but it would make some levels more important than others, which is what i would like to avoid.

2.gradually decrease the influence of the level rank. eg. each level rank position for #1-#50 counts as 1 pt, but #50-#100 gives only 0,5 pt per rank, #100-#150 is 0,25 per rank and so on. effectively, even with a huge number of players on certain levels we can ensure that each level influence can be limited to 100 pts and there is still a difference between #600 and #601 (in this case it would be 0,0002441406). i like this idea, but it is not very intuitive like the current "1 pt for each rank".

what do you think?


PrayeR
second idea. it' fair.

first idea - well, that means that level that was completed by many people is more important. and that's not true, because i think more fair if u will get more points if u complete "tough" level.
Thiago
thank you for the explanation!

The first idea could be:
Vary the maximum number of points for the levels depending on the number of players on each LEVEL PACK. It would make the tough levels more important than the easy ones...

what do you think?
Elephant
What about calculating like this:
R = your rank at level (1 being best)
N = number of people who completed that level

POINTS FOR EACH LEVEL COMPLETED
100 * (N - R) / N).

(I just chose 100, but choose whatever makes sense.)

With a scheme like that, you could even eliminate the need to give separate points for # of levels completed. (Upper or harder levels will have less people and therefore be worth more.)

True, it would make some levels worth more than others, but if they're more difficult to achieve (arrive at or complete), then they should be worth more. And if somewhere in the middle a level is super-easy, it will not count for much.
Elephant
OOPS, that's:
100 * (N - R) / N

Sz
to summarize:

1.current formula:
  • positive: easy to understand
  • negative: players worse than #99 gain 1 pt regardless on the rank


    2.decrease the pt/rank factor to always fit 100 points per level regardless of the number of players
  • positive: easy to understand
  • positive: tough levels give more points just by completing the level
  • negative/positive?: differences between ranks will be very small for crowded levels
  • negative/positive?: this would change the current ranking (because of different pt/rank factors)
  • negative: you can hurt your competitor by creating a number of fake players (thus decreasing pt/rank for this level)


    3.vary points for levels, hold 1 rank = 1 point
  • positive: easy to understand
  • positive: the current ranking (among champions) would not change (1 pt/rank)
  • negative: tough levels gain less points, should be opposite


    4.constant level points (99), 1 pt/rank for top players, decrease pt/rank factor for distant ranks to fit within 99 pts/level
  • positive: top players ranking would remain unchanged
  • positive: tough levels allow to win more points just by completing them
  • negative: complicated formula

  • Spencer
    But Bike Or Die isn't about completing levels, (well at least not for the better players)but how fast you can complete level. So I think less emphasis should be put on completing the level.
    Dags
    Could we have a seperate "time challenge" ranking like we did in the PDA247 competition that you did (and I won *cough*)?

    I think that would be cool and a good alternate way of looking at all results. Basically all your times are added up, regardless of position and the player with the smallest number is #1. It's quite a fun chart. Just do one mega challenge with all the official levels and official add ons counted.
    Rouch
    I think that time is the best way to rank people and give them point, and this will also give more accurate ranking.
    Sz
    good idea, thanks!
    the time ranking is worth trying, i'm going to implement this as the additional measure and we will see how it works.
    the drawback(?) is that there will be the hard separation between people completing different number of levels. moreover, even if we compare times between players playing the same number of levels, the bigger levels will yield worse times so it is beneficial to complete fast levels first. of course it doesn't matter for real champions, who always complete all levels
    You Qi
    Dags, good idea! like randomly choose some of the uncommon map(let's say 10) and then let us have 1week to play. Who win the competition will get a permanent goal medal!
    Rouch
    Concerning time ranking, maybe you can set a default penalty time for a not completed level, for exemple 3 minutes. This will avoid people not completing a level having a better rank than someone who complete levels.
    BugHunter

    I kind of like Thiago's idea of making the top points depend on the max number of riders who have completed any level in the pack (or maybe all levels). Right now 582 people have completed Riding School 2, so make the max points for any level be 582 and count down from there (that would be 583 - ranking, so first rank gets 582). If you complete Cloudwalk with the worst time (which would make you #107 right now), you'd get 476 points (583 - 107), because there are 476 people out there who haven't completed it and you did!
    Sena
    I think it should work in reverse, so the object is to get the least number of points. Of course it would not display like this, but could be calculated. eg. 1st place is 1, 2nd place is 2 etc. This removed the dependency on the number of players on that track. 1st place overall is the person that has the least, but it can still be displayed at 15pts behind (just so that it is easier for everyone to understand )
    nbcl
    I also like Thiago's idea.

    Whatever happens I feel it needs to cater to all players, not just the best - it's not much fun wasting 20 seconds off your best time only to find that you're still out of the top 100 for that level and thus not making any points. You could have lept a few hundred places with a reduction like that but it really is all for nothing.
    Kristopher
    91118
    How about adding all of your ranking positions for each level together to get a single number? If you're ranked number 10 for each of the 80 Time Trial levels (who's counting?), then your score would be 800 points. The player with the lowest score would be number 1. That way, the best possible score would be 80 points. This method would put emphasis on getting a fairly competitive time for each level, because being #1 on a level is only one point better than being #2 on that level, but if you haven't finished the Riding School levels you get over 1000 extra points.
    It also puts equal effect upon each level, which is great. If a level is so easy that everyone can get a good time on it, then the competition for that level increases until a good ranking for that level is as hard too get as one for a hard level. *gasp*
    If you can't finish all of the levels, then you are not a good player, or you have stopped playing, and that is what this ranking method shows. It also eliminates the need for giving points for each level completed; finishing the level in 12:58:64 is hardly worth affecting a player's global ranking, and it keeps players trying to get good times, not just finishing the levels.
    The End
    PS I am slightly confused on the current global ranking calculation. If you are number 90 in a level with 200 competitors, how many extra points do you get?
    Ibanez
    Is still the current scoring?
    > > Scoring:
    > > - 1 pt for each rank within the level
    > > - 100 pts for each completed level

    Is it the case that the 1pt/rank is only for the first 99 places?
    So if I complete a level and am 124th place do I just get 1 point, or 101 points? Or should this read 100 points for a completed "level pack"?
    thanks....
    Ibanez
    It appears my level pack rank would be no different if on a particular level I was 101st or 2000th. All the action is in the top 100. Now there are over 2000 players maybe this should be increased. Yes it's in my interests as I have a hard time getting in the top 100!!
    Kristopher
    91118
    It appears that completing a level won't help until you get to be #100. So I think it is 100 points for the Gold Medalist and 1 point for #100. Sz seemed to say you get at least 100 points for completing the level no matter what your rank was, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Notice how Vega is ahead of you in the Standard Levels.
    Ibanez
    Yeah - and he's only completed 6 levels! OK, 5 of them are Gold, amazing...I actually think the scoring is pretty good, really makes you work to get in that top 100, even I have a couple in there.
    Sz
    the situation gets worse with increasing number of players... it can be seen even more clearly when using the new tool " Distribution chart" (btw. the idea of this chart comes from   Ibanez - thanks!). currently most people won't earn anything from improving their play until entering top 100 and this is bad because someone with average level ranking #200 should be higher than people having #300.
    the time has come! i'm going to change the scoring method during this weekend (in the begining it will be presented as alternative hall of fame category that will replace the current ranking eventually)
    ©2008 Szymon Ulatowski @ TOYSPRING