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?

I vote for no bonus; the medals are already a bonus.
Cmon Kris - we both know the medals are not already a bonus. They hold no value other than a colorful picture to look at Even Sz agrees that the top spots should have bonus points. (see his comments above). That's a vital incentive for working hard to get the best time! It makes perfect sense!
mike flips
option 1 looks the best if bonus points are implemented. It gives bonus because top 10 is hard to get into, but to get the good bonus points you have to work hard. But then agian, ill lose first place
I think there should be bonuses and would go for option #3 - a gentle non linear ramping up...I think I have an 8th and a 7th somewhere so would get an extra 7 points
Bonus points for the best times makes sense, but Kris has a point here too. There is a great deal more meaning attached to the gold medal place - admit it! it?s a kudos thing.
Otherwise why would there be so many comments on those gold times, why would players get so wound-up about losing a gold and just one point? Some even leave the game when ?their? golds get systematically plundered which, BTW, is not good news as surely the game is better with its best players in it.
Anyway, I digress, and this won't affect me much at the moment but my vote is Option#3
mike flips
Yeah, you guys are right, option 3 is probably the best now that ive taken a closer look.

And Shane, i love the way you've put it..."systematically plundered"... it makes me and Cirenco sound like a bunch of Vikings or something
Bonus or not doesn't affect me at all. I don't have much top ten time. But if i have to choose i maybe choose option 4. Don't give the top tenners too much bonus Sorry guys
The greatest effect will be among the top three players, and it would be a disadvantage to DavidKing. But he should still be champion. All of his records are in the top 13 for the levels, but MF's aren't.
mike flips
Remember the rankings that you made that told us how many levels were at each ranking for each player? u can use those and apply each bonus method to the charts and see who would be on top.
Let's all please keep in mind that it's probably best if you steer clear of voting based on your current standings and/or any one individual. It?s not a good idea to choose based on how it would help you or the top player or the top three or Cirenco or DK or anyone really. I would encourage people to take a good look at how it will effect the entire rankings and what seems most correct for everyone instead of just a certain group. If you focus on how this system will effect one particular player, it may be a skewed perspective because of your thoughts about that player or whatever. But if you focus on pure numbers and logic (which is most appropriate for BoD), you keep it clean.

Please I hope everyone realizes that my bonus points idea gives no advantage at all to the current players with the most medals and here's why........... because YOU (whoever) can pass any other player in any level at ANY given time! So it favors nobody. Not even the top people now because they have earned their position in those levels. In a private message to Tabs, I asked him if he still plays and if he plans to recover his lost gold. His answer was very good. He said it?s just a game, and any gold in any level is up for grabs by any player, and then commended Cirenco and Mike Flips for being the excellent players that they are. That?s class. Props to Tabs for understanding that. If you want to get bonus points on a level, it?s simple..beat the best. So the reason why I push so hard for bonus at the top are simple. It's the most appropriate place to weight merit.

And Shane and Kris....You make a good point about the medals and how players (including myself of course) fight for a gold already even w/out the BP scale. But I believe many players are content with lower scores spread across more levels because they are rewarded with a higher potential to climb the standings for playing that way. Should they be allowed to be content with ?pretty good? scores???.Absolutely. That?s their choice?The problem is that meanwhile the players who really want to obtain gold on certain levels are in a sense penalized for taking the outrageous amount of time it takes to achieve gold (or a top spot). An average or 'pretty good' player can get #40 on 10 levels in the time it takes for another player to obtain 1 gold. #40 on 10 levels is approximately 60 points times 10 or 600 points. 1 gold is 100 points. !!!THAT!!!, my friends, is the one and only reason why the bonus points awarded for a higher rank is crucial. It will balance out a player?s choice of play more accurately. Check this out. Even with a 20 point scale for gold, that still only makes the gold worth 120 points while the other is 600 points. Hypothetical situation?yes?but I think you all can grasp this idea. Maybe it?s slightly different for each level, but the concept remains true across the board pretty well. Hope this wasn?t a boring speech
mike flips
Then maybe bonus points should be worth even more Vega. I think the average player can beat over 50 the levels in the time it takes to get a gold. How long would it take someone who is decent to beat Standard levels? Under 2 hours im sure. Yet a gold, usually, would probably take a lot longer then that, especially on harder levels. Maybe it should be 50, 40, 30, then 15,10, 5,4,3,2,1

And i agree with you Vega, we have to make sure that people vote based on what is best. Even for me, i dont think any of these options would make me better off. Right now, i am best off because even if DK submits his last game, i can take back first place fairly quickly. However, with the bonus points, id lose first place to Cirenco's vast ammount of medals. But still, i would vote for bonus points because i am very familiar with the difficulty of getting good times.

Well I agree with you now Mike, ramp up the rewards even more - that's where the action and the true skill really is.
And the formula should definitely be purely based on a logical fair argument with no forecasting on how it effects current rankings. GOLD should definitely be worth winning, it is made of Gold after all
Well I like the idea of weighted golds, but 50 points might be a little heavy . How about option #6 with Gold at 25?

Option #6
Gold: 25 points
Silver: 18 points
Bronze: 12 points
#4: 7 points
#5: 6 points
#6: 5 points
#7: 4 points
#8: 3 points
#9: 2 points
#10: 1 points

This may seem like random assignment, but actually it's systematic.
There is a 5 point spread from #4 to #3, a 6 point spread from Bronze to Silver, and a 7 point spread from Silver to Gold.
Below is an example of how Options 3, 4, and 6 would the top 3 ranked TTC players. (Simply bcuz they are the top 3, not because of any other reason).

Mike Flips - Current
Gold: 21 Silver: 15 Bronze: 11
#4: 16 #5: 15 #6: 12 #7: 4 #8: 7 #9: 7 #10: 5

DavidKing - Current
Gold: 8 Silver: 28 Bronze: 17
#4: 11 #5: 13 #6: 19 #7: 8 #8: 9 #9: 7 #10: 5

Cirenco - Current
Gold: 28 Silver: 22 Bronze: 13
#4: 13 #5: 9 #6: 2 #7: 7 #8: 6 #9: 7 #10: 1

Option #3
Mike Flips: 12,752 + 1,142 BP = 13,894 > > rank #2
DavidKing: 12,705 + 1,147 BP = 13,852 > > rank #3
Cirenco: 12,653 + 1,297 BP = 13,950> > rank #1

Option #4
Mike Flips: 12,752 + 751 BP = 13,503 > > rank #1
DavidKing: 12,705 + 796 BP = 13,501 > > rank #2
Cirenco: 12,653 +798 BP = 13,451 > > rank #3

Option #6
Mike Flips: 12,752 + 1,245 BP = 13,997 > > rank #2
DavidKing: 12,705 + 1,236 BP = 13,941 > > rank #3
Cirenco: 12,653 + 1,468 BP = 14,121 > > rank #1

I say we get a solid vote on which option is the most popular among the players and have Sz implement the scale into a test for ALL players to see how the standings look!

What say all of you?
Option #7 How about if the bonus point is like the point in Moto GP and Super Bike. The player who got the bonus not just 10 person but 15.
Gold : 25 points
Silver: 20 points
Bronze: 16 points
#4 : 13 points
#5 : 11 points
#6 : 10 points
#7 : 9 points
#8 : 8 points
#9 : 7 points
#10 : 6 points
#11 : 5 points
#12 : 4 points
#13 : 3 points
#14 : 2 points
#15 : 1 points
How will the standing be for the top three? Vega you can count it i think
option 7 is the best so far if you ask me.......

If we do add bonus points, look at the extremes:

(points / medal)
1000000000 per Gold
10000000 per Silver
100000 per Bronze

That puts DavidKing below Smalls, next to me. That is not a good scoring technique.

150000 per Gold
120000 per Silver
100000 per Bronze

That would work better, and put DavidKing closer to Cirenco than Smalls (I think). That is better, because, even though DK has lost many Golds, he is still a very good player.

Giving similar weight to all medals will prevent a player from losing many points when he loses some Golds.

The biggest decision, though, is who should be #1 according to the new ranking? And you shouldn't vote on that.

-> So it favors nobody.

Yes, it does. If it favored nobody, then it would have no effect. It favors active players, who keep more Golds (note Vin has very few Golds now), instead of former players, who can keep good rankings in all of the levels, even though they will lose most of their Golds.

And of course, no former players are here to vote with me against the bonus points.
As for inactive players who lose their golds, is there a problem with that? Let them lose them. Let them lose the bonus points too. If I quit BOD for a year and come back and all my medals are gone then what does that automatically mean? Somebody is better than me at those levels and they deserve the bonus points and I don't anymore. right? If players leave and their accomplishments get diminished by active players who smash the records, well then GREAT! That means that clearly the new players deserve the points bcuz they got a better score than the inactive player ever could. Is there even 1 ounce of unfairness in that? Look at the comments on Riding School back in the day. People were trippin when they got 29.xx and 28.xx was approaching 'perfection'. Rachman's 17.92 on Underground was 'pixel perfect'. Now lot's of people could do that sleeping. So what happened? I agree with Mike Flips that the players today play this game better than the players of yesterday. It's not even an opinion it's actually fact. You don't create scoring to favor retired players. The Gold club doesn't even do that. It just reports who had gold for the most days. It is what it is. It doesn't know who the inactive or active players are. Also, the bonus points DO favor certain players. It favors the players that earn them! Duh!! Open to all. And why is a bonus for 1-10 not enough? Why to 15? Surely anyone can get in the top ten of a level if they want to bad enough. It's intended for the top scores. Why don't we just drag it out to the top 40 eh? no the top 100! Yah! Or wait. what about just give ever player that submits a game an autobonus! Yah! That's perfect! If you want number 7 then great...let's implement it. I think it's very strange to have it go to 15 but whatever. I am sorry I am not trying to mock anyone but seriously what's the deal here people? Why is there so much resistance to the idea of rewarding the best games? I'm stumped here.
The scoring is already quite accurate for ranking the best players first. It is not fair to change the scoring now, because then the former players would have been using a different strategy, and are disadvantaged by the change.
Thanks for proving my point Kris. They should have played for the best time regardless of the scoring method, but some players played to score mediocre on many levels and now that's being exposed by people scoring exceptional and their times don't look as good anymore. It's never unfair to put more weight on the top scores. Let them return and get gold. If Rachman and Prayer return, they would probably get a bunch of new medals because they know the game so well and they will see that it takes more to score well on levels than it used to. So they will try harder to do better. They would probably be surprised that they could have easily beaten their current best times if they just continued to play it until they have their "true" best. MATA is a great example of this. He saw that the bar was raised and now all of a sudden after a year absense he is beating his previous best times like crazy. Why? Because we all raised the bar! Bingo!

Bonus points is a good idea

mike flips
some sorta system should be there, its hard work getting golds.

And ya, we took that bar and threw it over our heads. People like you, vega, play your games until you get a great time. That is how you hold golds. They played until they got "great times" only to leave and lose them all. Playing a level as much as we do for the current golds deserves extra credit. I bet 1000+ tries for a level back then was unheard of. Nowadays its almost required for a gold.
©2008 Szymon Ulatowski @ TOYSPRING