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...

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...

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...

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...


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?

Ah it wasn't a double, Vega posted at the last second.
The discucusión on the ranking is interesting. I think that Fertile valley has reason when giving him merit to golds, I believe that always it is necessary to aspire to being first and the total graduation does not recognize totally that. For a my right score it would be that it was assigned that points of advantage by the places occurred (like in the F1), as much in each game as in each package and by the total of games. And it would please me that to the new ones she was awarded to them according to the speed which they are raising positions in a short period of time, for example the best player of the week or month, I believe that MF has merit in this because it plays constantly and is making times hard beat. But also it is necessary to give merits him to DK always locates its times between the 5 first at least. It is difficult to find a graduation in that all we agree ourselves, but that is my opinion. I already finished the levels of new deal, tomorrow if I can I raise them.
mike flips
i guess its just a mindset. we all want TTC and nothign else. As we develop more ideas and suggestions things are making more sense. The extra bonus is really worthwhile and it will make the better players have recognition.
I always face the dillema of going the extra mile. For example, i recently got rank 5 i thihnk on Big Cheese, but i had screwed up on a part that i dont normally screw up, and this costed me the gold medal... I knwo that i can take the gold but i realized it would be hours of work and i would rather improve other levels... this tradeoff of time vs. medals is hardly worth it when the time = many hours but for this extra reward i would consider going for it and that would definately improve the "standard" of the level...

this is worth some thought

Cirenco i cant wait till you submit
mike flips
Double post

the thing that makes me not so inclined to follow this is just that to do what DK did is just as hard as what Cirenco did, even though Cirenco has more medals. When it comes to the top 3 or so players, i feel that this wont make a difference, but as we go down to where gus is, it will matter a lot...

but ya it does make sense to do, i can take out alex in a heartbeat if i want to but if he had the medal bonuses it would be harder
im not just saying this cos i dont want new way to have MF overtake me but having 25 points for a gold? your forgetting thats quite a lot when some levels are bare to the bone and can be very hardly improved
mike flips
its true, its just too many points... me and alex are very closely matched now, even with all my medals i am behind him because he is better at more levels then me...

although i must mention alex, that you are only ahead becaues i want you to be ahead, but as soon as i feel like it ur down
mike flips
also, these points would make it impossible for a ttc to maintain their position...

look at my times on new deal, when there were about 20 players i had at one point 10 golds and 5 silvers... but as more and more people played i lost half of my golds... for each gold i lose sure i can play and try and get it back, but when there are 10 people taking golds at once, there is no way i can maintain my golds... this applies to all of bike or die...

DK was the leader (and technically still will be when he submits). He focuses on one level at a time and improves his rank... when people takes his golds, he loses out on golden club, but he can afford to take a few hits as he will only lose a few ranks... with this system he could lose 40 points on a few levels. This is way too much to lose, as it would turn the game from a fun competitive game to an obsesive game in which you have to play 20 hours a day to maintain your lead...

Vega, if all your golds were taken tomoro, and you were TTC, you'd still be TTC but you would just have less golds, but to gain these golds back would take months...

we have to be allowed to lose our golds without a necessity to play 24/7 to get back in the game
We could really make a novel of this- or an essay, speech... so much opinion with little effect! As I saw when the official scoring was changed, all of the scoring methods will sort the players similiarly, unless they played abnormally (many Golds, or not all levels played). So it really shouldn't ever affect you, Mike Flips. If you are better than _Alex_, you will be ranked above him in almost every scoring chart.
mike flips
its not alex that im worried about kris... its Cirenco and his abundant medals...

the golden club is for golds, ttc is for overall best
cirenco's accomplishment is great, so was DKs, so is alex's, you probably understand more then vega what its like trying to improve all the times in every level, kris

do you like how it is now? you move up by the amount of ranks you climb, or do you think that medals should give bonus points?

The problem is there are just different levels of competition... me, alex, cirenco, and dk, are the point where to be that good you need to have medals so all of us have some medals, and have worked extremely hard to get where we are, when i move up from 7 to 2, i want those 5 points, i dont want to have to worry about Cirenco being number one and taking a bonus 20 points or something... but when we move down a level to 5-15, these people may want medals because some people like kris have quite a few, while other people dont have and this gives kris a huge advantage...
then we get to the last level, where most of the other players may have up to 5 medals at most (aside from vega/tabs, etc..) and this bonus wont help them in any way
Novel Chapter 11, page #999:

The scoring isn't right or wrong; it sets the rules, so the players are right or wrong. The goal is to play the way the scoring was made for you to play; play all of the levels well, and get a few medals. Cirenco medals many levels, and doesn't play all of the levels well. As a result, he is not as hard to beat as he could be.
If you think the scoring should encourage people just to get medals... that doesn't make much competition. If everyone just once Gold medals, they can all pick different levels to medal, and there is no competition for the medals. The scoring shouldn't support "medals only" for this reason.
So the scoring promotes competition as it should.
What is so hard to understand about this. It's cut and dry. Fair for all. The idea of bonus points neither benefits nor targets any one individual. Rather it would apply to anybody that has a rank in the top ten of any level. This doesn't have anything to do with Alex or Mike or Kris or DK or me or Gus. And it doesn?t having anything to do with how long you can keep a medal or any of these other temporary goofy situations between 2 players that you guys are bringing up. I am talking about a system that will reward top performance instead of the way the mathematics in this particular system that has recently been developed appears to work, which is lop sided heavily toward quantity of play no matter how good you are. ANYBODY can rank #50 on 100 different levels. But hardly anybody can rank #1 on 50 levels out of 100. The current system would score these two types of players as even. What?s up with that?

And Alex, before you say that 25 points is too much bonus for a gold, do the math please. Because even in Cirenco's case, it STILL wouldn't put him above you and I must say that is pretty much outrageous in and of itself. As more levels are added, the bonus points would be diluted by percentage of total points possible anyhow. If somehow holds 10 golds and they have 250 bonus points, do you realize that?s probably less than 2 percent of the point max right now. And if the number of levels double, those points would diminish to less than 1% , which by the way can be wiped out by merely ranking #50 on 5 new levels. In fact, I think it should be even higher! It's too easy for consistent widespread 'good' play to rapidly wash out far superior and far more difficult excellent play. People say Tabs is one of the best players in this game. Why do they think that? It's because he gets incredible rankings on some levels and doesn't even pay attention to others. And guess what, his ranking suffers severely for it. But I remember reading in a post somewhere a while back where Tabs answered someone who had asked him why he doesn't play more levels and his response was that he doesn't have the time. Do you think he doesn't have the time to rank 40th on every single level. Sure he does, but he wants to play excellent and 40th is only 'really good' in most cases. Even if you tripled my bonus points idea, Tabs ranking still wouldn't be anywhere near yours. But I'll bet that Tabs has spent more time playing BOD then most of the players ranked ahead of him and can probably wax 90something percent of them in a stand off in any particular level. He doesn't have the time to play each level the way Tabs plays, and neither do I. But I could have already ranked in the top 20 on every level in the game by spending merely half the time I have already spent to get just a few golds. That's because the top is the hardest part. It's where all the concentrated strength is. It's where the best of the best are. A bonus for top spots wonderful and fair idea that I am very surprised is met by so much opposition from even some of the best players. Every new level that comes out will deflate the value of these points anyway which is a shame because that means in order to stay in the top rankings in BOD, you MUST stay in the game forever and it will pretty much own your life. So someone who stays with it over the next 3 years can play every level that gets added on, build up 25,000 points for reaching like rank 47 on everything, and they will be ranked as one of the best players in the game for being consistently decent, while players that have held excellent scores and all kinds of medals over the years will only get to be recognized in the Gold club and..... quite obviously, that's only for their golds, not any other medal.

I don?t know what else to say. I can?t drive this point any more. I guess in the end whatever the ranking system becomes is what it will be. But keep in mind that Nobody, not even the best of the best, can keep up with getting medals on every level. But anybody can keep up with getting in the top 50 on every level. So players have to choose which they want to be, and they are ranked accordingly. I hope we can all still be friends cuz I think you are all really great at this game, but that?s my beef. Chow for now
OK. Time for me to chime in.

I agree with some kind of bonus points. I am not sure exactly what they should be, but I do know that the few Golds that I do have took an immense amount of time to get. If I spent that time on just improving other levels and not taking the top spot, I would most certainly have a higher ranking than I do right now. I am much more proud of my Golds in Standard than the ones I have in The New Deal.

The only thing I would add to all this is that a Gold in Standard Levels was much harder to pick up than a Gold in The New Deal due to the number of people that have attempted and completed the levels. So, maybe a different bonus scale based on certain thresholds of players attempting a particular level. For example:

If only 10 people have played a level a Gold gives only 3 point, Silver 2, and Bronze 1.

11-100 - Gold 6, Silver 4, and Bronze 2.
101-250 - Gold 12, Silver 8, Bronze 4
251+ - Gold 25, Silver 15, Bronze 10.

A system like this would lessen the benefit of a new player jumping up the rankings just because they played a new level pack that less than 25 people have completed.

Just my 2 cents to the novel that has already been posted.

Oh, and I might as well double post since you are already reading my previous post.

Upon farther thought I would make it more points for 1000+. Those first 5 levels in Standard should be worth a whole lot more for having a medal (100 Gold, 50 Silver, 25 Bronze). I know it would take playing one of those levels probably 10,000 times to pick up a medal. I have played Underground 7,077 times and it is only good for 10th place. You have to earn those medals with so many players and it should be justly rewarded.

For Vega to have the 6 Golds and one Silver that he has, he had to earn them. Which didn't allow for him enough time to even complete all of the Standard Levels. Leaving him ranked #116 in Standard, which we all know he belongs way higher than that in Standard. With my proposed bonus points schedule (which is just throwing something out there), he would only move up to #57, but that is more like it.
With a catalogue of mediocre times in established levels and better times (for now) in new levels, I am one of those players that unwittingly take advantage in the TTC system - so I thought I should chip in. This is happening because players like playing new levels and there are not many active players right now. Somehow the game needs more players - spread the word I found BoD by accident when browsing for mountain bike parts!

I can see why its important to add some points weighting to the top performances and something should be done. Why not mirror the Moto GP points system as bonuses on top of the current points calculation? 1st = 25 points, 2nd = 20 points, 3rd = 16 points, 4th = 13 points, 5th = 11 points, 6th = 10 points, 7th = 9 points, 8th = 8 points, 9th = 7 points, 10th = 6 points, 11th = 5 points, 12th = 4 point, 13th = 3 points, 14th = 2 points, 15th = 1 point
You could factor in something for the number of competitors on a level and this would keep us upstarts that play new levels at bay :p . But this does not take account of difficulty, so perhaps would fall down when you look at very tricky levels like parachute & cave dweller where Lee & Cirenco have Gold times that were, no doubt, very hard to achieve. On the other hand, is riding school competitor #1000 much of a threat to Vega, Tabs & Co.? In time the new levels will gain more players and #15 in a new level could be more deserving of its bonus point.

Cirenco's 'player of the week/month' seems like a good idea, as does Mike Flips idea of recognizing all ranking systems on the home page.
I have devised a mathematically fair system that I believe you will all like because it's based on an accelerated percentile decline but it's very conservative. I have it in an excel document and it incorporates some of the ideas suggested by other players in the previous comments over the last 2 days. Is there any way to post this excel document in this forum so you can view it and let me know what you all think?
I agree with Shane on the difficulty aspect. There will never be 1000 people that will complete Breaking School. It is too hard to have large numbers of people complete it. A Gold there should be rewarded adequately.

I too found BoD by accident. I was just trying to find some apps to put on my new Treo and I found it somewhere.
mike flips
look at standard levels, imagine DK was 2 points behind oliver instead of 25

getting to within 2 points of oliver is a feat on its own, and is very difficult to accomplish (right PMD?).

the new scoring would push oliver way ahead of DK, it would also throw Cirenco way up... I thought people thought that Oliver was the best (just like tabs is good) and Cirenco, right now with 6 silvers, 3 golds, and the new scoring system may even pass oliver... i feel in this case, the extra work for the medals is outranked by the fact that it is really hard to be # 1 in standard

nonetheless the idea isnt too bad as a whole

Here is my idea for a new format... hopefully this posts right. It's simple and completely duplicatable. It's based on a conservative percentile decline taken from the next highest ranking in successive order. This type of system cause larger gaps in the top spots and progressively becomes smaller gaps the lower the rank.
#2 is 97.5% of #1
#3 is 97.5% of #2
#4 is 97.5% of #3

#11 is 98.0% of #10
#21 is 98.5% of #20
#51 is 99.0% of #50
#101 is 99.5% of #100
#301 is 99.8% of #300

I brought this formula of 99.8% out to 1500 player spots and it gets to be slightly less than 1 point at that level. That's very close to Sz's current system for points, but it more appropriately addresses the top spots.

The bonus points are 10-1 for levels of less than 300 players and 40-5 for levels of 300+ players. What do you all think?
Bonus Points
RANK POINTS % 1-299 300+
1 100.000 97.5 % 10 40
2 97.500 97.5 % 9 30
3 95.063 97.5 % 8 25
4 92.686 97.5 % 7 20
5 90.369 97.5 % 6 18
6 88.110 97.5 % 5 15
7 85.907 97.5 % 4 12
8 83.759 97.5 % 3 10
9 81.665 97.5 % 2 7
10 79.624 97.5 % 1 5
11 78.031 98.0 %
12 76.470 98.0 %
13 74.941 98.0 %
14 73.442 98.0 %
15 71.973 98.0 %
16 70.534 98.0 %
17 69.123 98.0 %
18 67.741 98.0 %
19 66.386 98.0 %
20 65.058 98.0 %
21 64.082 98.5 %
22 63.121 98.5 %
23 62.174 98.5 %
24 61.242 98.5 %
25 60.323 98.5 %
26 59.418 98.5 %
27 58.527 98.5 %
28 57.649 98.5 %
29 56.784 98.5 %
30 55.933 98.5 %
31 55.094 98.5 %
32 54.267 98.5 %
33 53.453 98.5 %
34 52.651 98.5 %
35 51.862 98.5 %
36 51.084 98.5 %
37 50.317 98.5 %
38 49.563 98.5 %
39 48.819 98.5 %
40 48.087 98.5 %
41 47.366 98.5 %
42 46.655 98.5 %
43 45.955 98.5 %
44 45.266 98.5 %
45 44.587 98.5 %
46 43.918 98.5 %
47 43.259 98.5 %
48 42.611 98.5 %
49 41.971 98.5 %
50 41.342 98.5 %
51 40.928 99.0 %
52 40.519 99.0 %
53 40.114 99.0 %
54 39.713 99.0 %
55 39.316 99.0 %
56 38.922 99.0 %
57 38.533 99.0 %
58 38.148 99.0 %
59 37.766 99.0 %
60 37.389 99.0 %
61 37.015 99.0 %
62 36.645 99.0 %
63 36.278 99.0 %
64 35.916 99.0 %
65 35.556 99.0 %
66 35.201 99.0 %
67 34.849 99.0 %
68 34.500 99.0 %
69 34.155 99.0 %
70 33.814 99.0 %
71 33.476 99.0 %
72 33.141 99.0 %
73 32.809 99.0 %
74 32.481 99.0 %
75 32.157 99.0 %
76 31.835 99.0 %
77 31.517 99.0 %
78 31.201 99.0 %
79 30.889 99.0 %
80 30.581 99.0 %
81 30.275 99.0 %
82 29.972 99.0 %
83 29.672 99.0 %
84 29.376 99.0 %
85 29.082 99.0 %
86 28.791 99.0 %
87 28.503 99.0 %
88 28.218 99.0 %
89 27.936 99.0 %
90 27.656 99.0 %
91 27.380 99.0 %
92 27.106 99.0 %
93 26.835 99.0 %
94 26.567 99.0 %
95 26.301 99.0 %
96 26.038 99.0 %
97 25.778 99.0 %
98 25.520 99.0 %
99 25.265 99.0 %
100 25.012 99.0 %
101 24.887 99.5 %
102 24.763 99.5 %
103 24.639 99.5 %
104 24.516 99.5 %
105 24.393 99.5 %
106 24.271 99.5 %
107 24.150 99.5 %
108 24.029 99.5 %
109 23.909 99.5 %
110 23.789 99.5 %

full excel doc available if anyone is interested
To clarify
Column 1 is rank # (1-110)
Column 2 is points (100 down to 23.789)
Column 3 is the percentile decline (97.5% down to 99.5%)
On the far right at the top is the bonus points for spots 1-10.
(10-1 is for levels of 300 or less players)
(40-5 is for levels of 300 or more players)
interesting discussion

the time trial champions is of course designed to reflect the overall performance. players like vega are not ranked high in this ranking for obvious reasons (but if vega submitted most of the other levels without even trying to achieve good times he would be probably around #50, this would however destroy his uniqueness )
but the medalist are not really harmed - they are listed high in "medals by country" and "golden club" (often for months/years after they quit playing, which is impossible in the general ranking)
it's just different awards for different work

the whole idea of paying more for top ranks may be worth pursuing.
what i don't like in the vega's formula is fractions. in the current system you get 1 point for 1 rank - clear and simple (or 1 point for 2 ranks if lower than #50, and so on).
95.063 for #3 is awkward
©2008 Szymon Ulatowski @ TOYSPRING