Bike or DieHall of FameSubmitLevelsForum

Navigate to


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?


mike flips
again that is what the golden club is for... its there to recognize the great players who are no longer with us or are taking a break...

Detroit took 95 wins this season and st louis like 83. Clearly Detroit did a better job with more wins (just like medals) but if detroit decides to quit playing in the middle of game 4, and doesnt show up to any more games, St louis will win the World Series even though they may not have has such a great regular season...

However, theres still the point that St Louis topped thier division with 83 wins and Detroit was second in their division, but that relates to why i dont think golden club is fair because it was easier back then but thats a whole different thing

nonetheless, what im saying is that to win in TTC you have to play all the levels and be the best overall player, by playing all the levels and holding your ground

even in the business world, sure there is always money in specialization but the Walmart supercenters will always take out the local thrift shop, or grocery store because they are very good at everything and therefore can afford to have lower prices just like the TTC champ can afford to have lotsa rank 4s and 5s
Vega
The problem lies in how valuable quantity is compared to quality. And it's not just about the gold either. The higher the ranking, the higher percentage of weight it should have. What about something like this.....an increase in percentage of value for the higher rankings so it doesn't necessarily weigh on medals, but more so the higher scores. So the gap between rankings would increase with acceleration.

Top Ten Example -
1=X (1000)
2=X-1 (999)
3=X-1-2 (997)
4=X-1-2-3 (994)
5=X-1-2-3-4 (990)
6=X-1-2-3-4-5 (985)
7=X-1-2-3-4-5-6 (979)
8=X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7 (972)
9=X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 (964)
10=X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 (955)

Of course these are hypothetical #s, but the formula has an accelerated decline in value as the ranking in a particular level drops. This puts more appropriate weight on better play than to have each ranking seperated by the same #. This would not destroy the value of beating all levels. That would remain intact. But as for winning the TTC based on holding your ground on the best levels, that is perfectly.....absolutely perfectly measured by the new "Total Race" standings. That is a very accurate measure of each player that has played all levels and has the lowest total time. But to have someone that has played just ok or even pretty good on all levels be ranked ahead of someone like Cirenco who has smashed tons of records and dominates the game overall makes no sense. Anybody who is racking up the points for having the higher rankings should not be in question anymore of whether or not they might be good at the new levels that they haven't submitted for yet. Clearly Cirenco could do very well in "New Deal". Kris you mention above that someone could play for golds only and take advantage of the scoring. Take me for example. If you apply my idea to my rankings, it wouldn't do much for me. I may advance a few, but nobody would even take notice.

With the current system, if a player submits for 50 levels and gets 50 golds, they would be squashed in points by a player that submits for 70 levels and ranks #20 on each one. That's what I am saying doesn't make sense. That system favors consistent mediocre play over superior concentrated play. I would take 50 golds and 20 blanks any day over 70 #20 spots. It almost the same as now, but the accelerated aspect would favor the better scores rather than more submissions. The evenly accelerated ranking decline is worth a look!
mike flips
thats a good idea before, now that it is spread out over all the rankings, it just isnt fair to make it specifically for the medals... because someone who is rank 4 in every single level in my opinion is the best player... but if it goes by rank like you suggested that is really a good idea
mike flips
except i dont really like it
mike flips
i would love to see you come up with some sort of formula that works

right now, with your formula, your losing points,lol, unless you have rank 44 or better, but nonetheless, thinking up some sort of formula that is fair would be genious!

The whole reason the ranking system changed was to make it easier to get more points, for newer players...

what you are suggesting makes it more competitive for the better players but it makes it virtually impossible for the players who arent as good to climb up the rankings
Vega
Mike Flips - re-read what you just wrote - because that's exactly my point. It makes sense to have the better, more competitive players rule the champion standings and have players not as good (or new) not be able to climg unless they get better. Isn't that the most fair and logical thing on earth? The better players win!

I know my #s above counting down from 1000 is not a good idea. But it was an example of accelerated decline. The problem with 1000 points per level and having them decline the amount that I showed is that it goes the opposite way that I am trying to go here. (It lumps players even closer on a percentage basis. Gold = 1000 and 10th = 955 would be like Gold getting 100 and 10th getting 95.5 on the current scale. But the idea is still good. I will think up a formula that may actually work well all things considered. Sz - maybe we can collaberate if you're willing. I'll play around with some numbers and see if I can come up with something that is fair and correct and makes sense arcoss the entire game given the number of players. And I still think bonus points for medals is a great idea. I don't see anything wrong with that because otherwise the medals are just fancy icons that don't have any award at all. My bonus points suggestion is a small percentage of the overall points. Even Cirenco only increased his points by less than 10% with all of the medals he has. This means everyone else would be far less than 10%. Anyway I'll think on this for a few days and keep you posted
mike flips
what i was saying is that this new system was made to award newer players more points, aside from the fact that this is economically good for SZ as more players will play and tell their friends about the game if they are ranked higher...

the current scoring system is fine to me... to me, being the champion requires being good at all levels.

Rachman and Prayer are both still in the top 50 and they havent played half the packs. Should they be ranked higher then Jayce who has played more packs yet never really got any medals. Should they be ranked higher then me because they had more golds bank in the day? The answer is yes... they should be ranked higher in the golden club, the system designed as another hall of fame for the players who are the best at each level... This is different from the TTC.

You are playing for the golden club now, which is much more difficult than time trial champions but its not as important to most people, so i understand why youd want a new scoring system
Gus
I think that medals should be rewarded more than they currently are, and that all you need to do is ensure the medal *bonus points* aren't too highly valued. Nobody will take the trouble to play for a gold to get them 1 more rank, but if it gave bonus ranks then it would be played. If you spend 3 hours on a lvl that you are 5th at because you want a medal, this hard work is not represented in gaining 2 ranks. If ypu spend 30 minutes on a lvl that you are bad at you can gain 50 ranks, or even more if you haven't beaten it yet, which fails to reward people pushing the limits on levels, but it does reward average times. I'm with Vega, medals should be incorporated into TTC, not just golden club, because, as Mike pointed out, it is (to most people) more important.
mike flips
Im stilll happy with the way it is, but if some sort of medal points came into play, there should be only 1 "level of medal" that gives points. As in if you have a medal, it doesnt matter which one you get the points. I know a gold is harder, but it should just be top 3,

what to do for bottles"?
Gus
Discount bottles entirely - we can't have 27 gold bonus point awards on shelf. I still think that it would be better to have more points for better medals, but even if it is an all medal bonus thát's still good.
mike flips
but what about downhill madness for example? is that a bottle?, that level takes a lot of skill
Gus
Personally I don't think that it is a bottle because there is no fixed route that has to be taken. If you look at the games you will see that the veenk flies higher and faster, and I am lower and slower. I also have a motive for this being rated as a non-bottle though because I have a medal there. Some levels would have to be reviewed but I think on the whole it is relatively simple.
mike flips
GOOD POINT!, but how would people like jayce feel about this... before the new level packs he was rank 8 and he had one medal, he was good at many levels but no medals... does that mean he sucked?

Gus
We're getting into vague territory here but possibly alternsting the curve so that 1-10 give good points, 11-50 ok, 51-100 not so good 100 onwards awful, and still medal bonus. That would be very hard to implement and very unfair on 1) rsp2 and 2) on cavedweller, because everyone woud get great points on cavedweller, (if you've completed it) and most people would get very bad points on rsp2, despite having 0.5 worse than someone with a good rank. This rewards completion of difficult levels, and rewards good times, but is harsh on mediocre times. Maybe a bit of number-crunching here, but it seems to me that too many people get points too fast. If I were to make a ghost account with rank 20-30 at everything, he would do very well in ttc, simply because someone else has failed to complete, or to submit a couple of levels.
Vega
Gus - you and I are on the EXACT same page here. It's too easy for average or mediocre players to be high in the ranks because there's not enough gap between ok scores and excellent scores. If there are currently approx 12,000 points to be had in all levels combined, going from #6 to #1 on a given level is an extremely small percentage in the grand scheme. Here's the whole entire problem behind the current system. Here it is in one short sentence..... Someone who goes from #49 to #40 essentially advances the same points and reward in ranking as someone who goes from #10 to #1. There it is. And here is the reason why that's a problem.....because there is far more incentive for players to be a Jack of All Trades and a Master of None. Having the top scores weighted more will cause people to achieve better times. It's clearly a lot easier to pass other players who have lower rankings than it is to pass anyone in the top ten of pretty much any level, and especially medals. Gus said it beautifully....what's the incentive currently to spend 3 hours going from 4th to 2nd and gain 2 measly points when you can spend 10 minutes going from 24th to16th and gain 8 points. I think Gold, Silver, and Bronze should be rewarded different bonus points for sure. Gold is usually much more difficult than Bronze on most levels. And by the way, this has nothing to do with me at all. I have a very long way to go before any of this will affect me anyway, so my motive is not warped here. This "bonus points" idea and weighted ranking on higher scores won't do me a lick of good at my current standing. I will continue to think of a useable way to implement my idea and present it when it works
mike flips
It may be the same amount of points from 49 to 40 and 10 to 1, however, it is insanely hard to do the latter. What is the point in spending the 2 hours? Gus what is the point in having a p-hat set on runescape? or having a $300 million business verse 275?

Medals are just things to boast about, the whole point is, you need to spend those 2 hours to become the best... that is the point, get a good ranking in all levels and you will be the best... right now to become number one you need an average of like 95-96 points per level... placing rank 5 -6 in every level is extremely difficult

i guess we are looking at this differently, i am thinking in a top 10 manner, you guys are thinking in a 20-50 manner, for the better players, the hard work is there, and medals are a result of spending the time trying to get top ten... for the mediocre players, sure they can climb fast but there is already an accellerated level of difficulty...
to get to 50 is relatively easy, to get to 40, you need to finish all the levels and start improving some times, to 30 you need to have ok timmes on all levels, to get to 20 you need to be like top 30 in all levels, to get to 15, you need to start improving those even more, 10 is averaging top 20 or something each level, then top 5 you need top 10 in everything... so its not easy to break into the top 10, but it is relatively easy to climb the ranks so i understand your points of view
mike flips
i mita been a bit off with the numbers...

to me, the golden clubs purpose is to make people want to get golds, thats why i try the extra hours for the gold, its for the golden club, i guess we could argue that it should be a medal club, but then people like rachman will soar right to the top which isnt really fair and that doesnt work...

the problem is golden club = golds, total race = fast times
TTC = overall best, presumably a combination with both

the thing is that the hall of fame is TTC and you guys want the other 2 categories to be considered when determining the true ttc, maybe if they all displayed on the homepage? so they are all considered important?
Gus
mike, there is absolutely no point at the moment, which is what I am complaining about - no-one will try for better times, even though it would greatly improve the standard of the level. Getting that extra rank is pointless and it shouldn't be. There should be a reward for that hard work. Very few people will raise the standard of a level if there is no reward, so introduce a reward and, voila, everyone wants to raise the standard. Rank 20 in everything should not be enough to get a good position in time trial, and with this system it wouldn't be. My point is twofold: 1) It stops rank 20's getting good at everything. 2) It rewards rank 1's for going that extra mile and getting that medal. I am more concerned with rank 20's taking over than getting points for medals, but the two can be harmonised to compliment each other. Extra effort SHOULD be rewarded, 10 minutes in a car getting 80 ranks just isn't right.
Vega
Mike - I understand what you are saying. Basically Sz has already developed several different ranking categories and anyone can pick which ones they want to focus on. The thing that the TTC is kind of like the overall ranking. And although Alex is an awesome player and kick's butt at BOD, Cirenco and DK have far more accomplishments and have mastered way more levels. So basically they are penalized in the ranking for mastering a whole gamut of levels instead of ranking very good on all. Maybe the problem is that Sz set up the system to have 1-50 be seperated by 1 point each (save for a tie) and then after 50 there is a calculated system that comes into effect. All I am saying is that the calculated system should start from the top down on every level (position #1... or gold). Because to say that 50 was the magic # to change the gap between ranks may not have actually been the best idea. To get 50 on one level (like RSP2) is sometimes far different than getting 50 on another(like any level where there are less than 100 participants anyway). A new ranking system would be very complex, but awarding bonus points to top rankings is easy to implement and simple to understand. What about something like this.

Bonus Points
Gold - 25
Silver - 20
Bronze - 15

#4 - 10
#5 - 7
#6 - 5
#7 - 4
#8 - 3
#9 - 2
#10 - 1

If you do the math with these bonus points, it's very reasonable. Try it on any player and see what happens. It doesn't make a huge difference. So what's purpose? Simply to reward people for going the extra mile to achieve the top rankings. If anyone is concerned about a player taking advantage of this and qualifying for tons of bonus points. May I present to you a profound thought?......There is only one way under the sun for them to do that and that way is very difficult. The only thing they can do is get medals on lots of levels and if they do, they most certainly earned their bonus points. What do you all think about this bonus point scale?
Gus
Sorry to double post, just read mike's 2nd post. mike- as you are always pointing out Golden Club rankings are hell to raise, so newer players like myself, have no hope when compared to old greats like prayer, it would take an eternity to get there so there is no IMMEDIATE reward for golds, and there should be. I really like the total race, but if even 1 level is lacking you are gone (for obvious reasons), so it is necessary to integrate golden club into ttc to reward the golds. Golden club rewards old golds, which are now void. Are you going to spend 3 hours getting 1 rank in ttc or 3 hours getting 1 rank in golden club, and watch it accumulate slowly? Not if you want to be champion. You'll improve your bad times. There must be an immediate reward system for golds, or they simply are not worth the trouble for most people.
©2008 Szymon Ulatowski @ TOYSPRING