Up to:  IdeasSuggest a new feature for the game!
Sz | Improving the global ranking calculationi 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? |
| Vega |  |  | Sz - I agree about the weird fractions. Maybe #2-50 can be rounded up to the nearest 1 point and the fractions can be reserved for 50+ kind of like your current ratings. |
| | Vega | | | Actually perhaps the nearest 1/2 point (up or down whichever is closer) so everything would end in .0 or.5 |
| | Kristopher |  | | You could have 100 competitions, each with different scoring methods, so everyone is happy.  |
| | Vega | | | Hey good idea Kris!
No seriously though I would like point out that Sz has put a lot of thought and time into modifying the point system to be what it is and I don't mean to thrash it with my opinion. I know it's tough to rank this game since there is so much variety and so many different types of players. My idea is worth a serious look, but even if it doesn't get implemented or if some other variation of it does, that's ok too. BOD is such a unique and different game that there really isn't any other type of thing to compare it to so we are all having to come up with what makes the most sense for competition  |
| | Sz | | | | Sz | | | and i think it is not very different from the current scoring - except for the "top 10 bonus" of course.
so let's focus on the bonus.
i could add an additional "experimental ranking" (like before the previous change) to help us evaluate different options |
| | mike flips |  | | hmm, adding it to see what happens would be nice, but i have a few games i havent submitted, how would i be able to figure out what i would really be ranked with the new system |
| | Sz | | | another file from vega - 2-50 rounded to nearest .5 (up or down) and 51 - 300 rounded to nearest .xx or one hundreth and 301 + with .xxx or one thousandth.
Ranking System with BP no fract.xls |
| | Vega | | | the major diff is in the top 100 spots. If you notice the points for #20 are 65 versus approx 80 and #50 is 41 versus approx 50. So because of that, I suggested 10 for a gold instead of 25 on levels less than 300 players. If no change in the rankings, the bonus should be much higher than the suggestions in the spreadsheet or it wouldn't even make a diff.
|
| | mike flips | | | 2 things
first, you wrote 3 players split 63 points or 31 each, im assuming that was supposed to be 93 points.
Already the 10th ranked player has lost 10 points, so it shows that there is quite an incentive to go for the gold, but then the bonus points add a lot more to that still....
this would greatly affect people like oliver, if he loses a gold, he loses 10 points + 2.5 points, thats 12 points instead of just 1 (i know he has extra points to start off with, but that is stilll a lot)
what kind of change are you hoping for vega?
oh and also, instead of putting it 300+ make it standard levels, and 300+, cloudwalk and pipe universe are still pretty competitive levels even without 300 players...
and this brings up a whole debate, what about the really hard levels, just because they dont have 300 players or more does not mean that they are not extremely challenging.
everyone always mentions parachute as a hard level... i bet lee worked extremely hard for that gold, why should he only get 10 BP and not 40 BP? on many of the levels the same amount of competition is there, even on that level look at the top ten, Lee, Louis, DK, cirenco, alex, vin, jayce, you qi, schneider, beniot... that is a stacked top 10, clearly there is a large element of competition in that level by gauging the skills of the players. Lee topped the best of the best, and you are saying that just because a level has 300 players it is harder... that isnt always true, most of the top 10s in standards have 4-5 players that i just mentioned, so the same people are competing in both cases.... the main competition is between the better players, it is rare to find a random player (like leoceuller) in the top 10 of any level in standard
also look at cave dweller, another hard level... most people can not get under 30 minutes, and Cirenco got 2 minutes... that is a huge accomplishment, why doesnt he get 40 BP? |
| | mike flips | | | oh and SZ, a suggestion, i think right now it displays 20 posts / page, if you look at the length of these posts, it should probably be 20 posts per page or a maximum of "x" lines |
| | Vega | | | Mike Flips - I noticed my typo earlier. 31 should be 21 > > > 21x3=63
You raise a decent point about the difficulty of certain levels versus others regardless of how many players there are. Normally, more players means tighter rankings which makes moving up very difficult. But in some cases I can see why that may not be fair. Perhaps a flat rate BP scale would be better no matter what level it is.
As for Oliver losing a gold to someone, I see nothing wrong with that. I am not trying to devise a system that favors anyone. It doesn?t matter who loses what gold. Because they will only lose that gold if someone else earns it. And if so then yes Oliver would drop 12.5 points. There is not an ounce of unfairness in that situation. That?s ranking. That?s the whole idea. Is Oliver a talented BODer that has proven his talent? Absolutely! Nobody intelligent would question that, but Oliver isn?t the God of BOD so why are bringing up how would he would feel if he lost 12.5 points. And it also doesn?t matter if he has spare points to lose because he has earned them. That has nothing to do with anything at all. That?s what I meant earlier about you making these strange circumstantial references about certain individual players and the whole ?what about how they would feel? mentality. If someone wants to keep their rank they will need to earn it to stay at the top. I am not concerned at all about people losing their positions. The only reason I keep making reference to Cirenco and DK is because they dominate this game right now and their ranking doesn?t reflect that. I would say that you (Mike Flips) are the next closest on their tail as far as widespread excellent play.
Every person playing this game is aiming for one universal thing when trying to improve their ranking ? that is to improve their time. It doesn?t matter if they want to get Gold or 20th. So since not one single player is looking to worsen their time, the weight and the prize MUST be heavily tilted toward the best possible time. If this is not the case, the goal becomes a paradox because players will accidentally figure out that they can score higher altogether by not scoring as high on each level. The most challenging part of this game is passing the very top ranks. So players who rank #10 on everything and often aviod the most challenging aspect of BOD are being ranked as some of the best of the best in the TTC. Just as PMD mentioned in an ealier post, getting a gold takes far more time & effort than getting #20 on 5 different levels. Nobody knows the price of gold in BOD better than I do. I may not have the most golds but I certainly have some of the most difficult. That?s why to me my BP idea for gold doesn?t seem outrageous. What?s the current prize for a gold > > 100 points. What?s the current prize for #20 on 5 levels > > approx 400 points. Hmmmmm something doesn?t seem quite right here. Players begin to realize that they can spread out their time through mass levels and obtain a better rank for their time by not playing to their best on each level. This causes players like me, Tabs, Cirenco, DK and many others who ?go for the gold? to be penalized for the type of play that is normally rewarded. There is never a problem with heavy weight at the top of the ranking scale. In fact some sports and games don?t recognize anything beyond bronze. Because nobody cares about who can be #37. We all wanna know who?s the ?best of the best?. Not ?who?s the most consistent pretty good player?. But if you want BOD to be a socialistic game where all players are supposed to feel good about their rank even if they are not the best, then I guess that will be up to Sz and everyone involved in this discussion that will determine the final decision of how the game will be ranked. Please understand that I am not trying to be a jerk I promise. But you are definitely missing a very basic and fundamental understanding of the purpose of a competition. If the reward is skewed toward mass mediocre play, that is exactly what most people will choose because it?s easier. As for me, I go for the gold every time!
I guarantee this is the last long post for me as I am growing quite weary of this topic and I feel that there is nothing left for me to say. I am going to revert back to short and sweet posts now and just go for the gold
|
| | mike flips | | | Vega, im feeling the bonus points (flat rate or not, who knows)
i understand completely what you are saying, i just feel that this many points will make it impossible for the top players to hold their ground,
i know im using another specific example, but lets say DK is ahead by 100 points, and then 10 players over the next day or 2, each take a gold from DK... Lets say this puts Cirenco into First, because Dk just lost 125 points. If Cirenco hadnt even been playing and it was 10 other random players, he didnt do anything at all, and was thrust into first. I would argue that DK would still be the best player, but it would take him months or weeks just to recover those goals, while Cirenco could be at home sleeping.
I know you are going to say that if DK wants to stay at the top then he has to play those levels, and because he lost those golds then Cirenco would be considered #1, but that doesnt make sense considering his 100 point lead. |
| | Vega | | | Mike - There is a logical flaw in your example. You are not considering the same points Cirenco would potentially lose as a result of those 10 players passing DK to acheive gold. The scenario you mention could never actually happen in reality just as you portrayed it. Points will always shuffle around that's ok though. |
| | mike flips | | | i guess your right, im just saying that the increase in points for higher ranks makes the people at the top rank play nonstop to maintain it, which is encouraging bike or die addiction while now you can take a break for a few days and not worry...
i think most people would rather being able to stop for a little bit and take a breather rather then play all day being addicted... thats my whole point, maybe im jhust a softy? |
| | mike flips | | | oh and technically it can happen, if DK is number 1 in all 10 levels, random player #2, and Cirenco is number 3, then the number 2 players all take gold, DK moves down to # 2 in 10 levels, and loses 125 points, Cirenco sits back and says thanx 
but ya its not likely
CIRENCO SUBMIT ALLREADY |
| | Vega | | | Your reasoning is still flawed Mike. Your example can happen with the current point system already. It's ok we don't need to beat this to death. |
| | mike flips | | | ya buts its 10 points instead of 125, but then again it may be a ratio based on how the medals are distributed in which case it wont make a diff
|
| | Vega | | | Hey I just wanted to follow up on the Bonus points idea. Is this idea still in the works? Could I ask that all of the active players comment in this forum category whether or not they agree with the idea of bonus points for top times by voting for one of the following options or by suggesting a system? I can remember that several key players agreed with the idea of having a BP scale. Here are my suggestions below in order of how I would vote for them. So naturally I would vote for option #1, then #2, etc.....
Option #1
Gold: 20 points
Silver: 15 points
Bronze: 10 points
#4: 7 points
#5: 6 points
#6: 5 points
#7: 4 points
#8: 3 points
#9: 2 points
#10: 1 point
Option #2
Gold: 20 points
Silver: 18 points
Bronze: 16 points
#4: 14 points
#5: 12 points
#6: 10 points
#7: 8 points
#8: 6 points
#9: 4 points
#10: 2 points
Option #3
Gold: 20 points
Silver: 15 points
Bronze: 12 points
#4: 9 points
#5: 7 points
#6: 5 points
#7: 4 points
#8: 3 points
#9: 2 points
#10: 1 points
Option #4
Gold: 10 points
Silver: 9 points
Bronze: 8 points
#4: 7 points
#5: 6 points
#6: 5 points
#7: 4 points
#8: 3 points
#9: 2 points
#10: 1 point
Option #5
Gold: 15 points
Silver: 10 points
Bronze: 5 points
Thanks,
vega |
| | bones |  | | i agree to option four but 11-20 get .5 added |
|
|
