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?
|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 |
| 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
|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?
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
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
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
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.
|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. |
| 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.