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...
...more

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...
...more


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...
...more

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...
...more




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?


Henoch
Oke now bonus seems like fun and sounds fair enough. But I have one question, whatever the option will be choose by all active players, how about the levels like bottle level that several players get the same time. I don't think it is fair enough to add some bonus to that kind of level. Even in non bottling level, there are possibilities that some players will get same time but different rank, because those older game will gain better ranks. Doesn't it give some more controversy to point calculation?? Does anyone have any idea about that?
bones
i'm pretty sure if this was put into action thatsz would put it by best time nt best rank. just like the normal points go by time not rank. the only thing affected by who did it first that matters is medals.
mike flips
313017
Ye, we will maintain the same structure that we have now. If i get a time of 9.52 and then someone else does, we still get the same amount of points. But if i am gold, then i get the medal and he does not. Right now, on the bottle levels, such as bottle and shelf, although dk and rachman have the golds, the medals do not count towards golden club.

If we had bonus points, then the best time, like bones said, would get the bonus points. In other words, the bonus points will be awarded to the fastest time (or times if there is a tie) and will not be awarded based on the medal. So on U-Jump for example, me and Cirenco would get the same amount of bonus points, even though he has a better medal than me.
Henoch
Okay Mike and bones, I got your point. But for example in the shelf level, more than 30 people will get the full bonus point. It will look so wierd, i guess.
I don't really care how many people will get the bonus point, whether 10, 15 person or even only the medalist (or the top three best time). But if Vega tell in disapointment top 40 or top 100 or even automatically after submit their game that was just cynical to me.
I believe for certain good player to reach top ten is very easy if they want to, but not every player is like that. Not every player can devote their time to get their best time defeat every other player all around the world.
So I only make some suggestion, even the method i suggest is used in the real world, not just in virtual comunity. If anyone agree that's fine, but if everyone is disagree, nothing to loose with me, that's fine. I will not getting disapointed.
I myself very appreciate great players here like Mike, Dr C, Vega, Small, DK, Kris, Tabs, PMD etc. For me their achievement getting gold medal, their effort to get it is very amazing and i think i can't ever make it.
So why should i bother to suggest 15? Since there are a lot of better player than me, mmmmmm, i'll keep quiet then. . I'll let them speak for their own favor and good sake, and i will step aside
mike flips
313017
Well, maybe on "bottle" levels such as shelf, no bonus points will be awarded. The golds dont count for the golden club, which means the bonus points should not count either.

As for bonus points and the scoring methods, each player is different, maybe we should make some "sterotypes" of the most common types of players, then we try to make the bonus points be a compromise of what best suits all of these stereotypes.

For example, there is the :

1) Player who plays few levels but focus on excellence in the levels they play.
2) Players who are weak all around but play most of the levels. (ranks 75-150) get no medals and maybe 1 or 2 top ten times at most.
3) Players who are average all around and play most of the levels. (ranks 40-75) and get maybe 1 medal and a handful of top ten times.
4) Players who are good all around, and attempt to get into the "Total Race" and get 1-3 medals with a good ammount of top 10 times.
5) Players who are great all around with few medal times and many many top ten times.
6) Players who are great all around with many medals and top ten times.

Im sure there is more and i dont knwo if this helps but maybe it will.
Vega
141010
Hey that's pretty cool Mike. How can incorporate that info for our voting?

Ok so let?s finalize a decision so we can present it to Sz. Here are the options again. Let?s have everyone give their first and second choices.

Here is a list of some of the people I would expect to vote for this. This is basically the people who have been actively commented in the forum recently. But anyone in BOD is welcome to join in if you are not listed below!

Kris
Mike Flips
Cirenco
Vega
Smalls
Henoch
PMD
Ibanez
Tabs???
MATA
Bones
Shane
Schneider
ZodiacFreak

*** My first choice is for #1 because it?s conservative and simple. My second choice is for #3. ***

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

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

Option #7
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
Ibanez
I say #3 then #6 - both ramp up to different degrees...
mike flips
313017
I think we are missing out on the glory and huge amount of effort that it takes in order to get a gold medal. For me and im sure others (vega has mentioned it), on some of my levels i have golds in, i have become good enough that i could get a top 5 run all the time. I could get a bronze or even silver easily. However, if i was asked to beat my own gold time on the level, it would be extremely difficult to do so. This illustrates the fact that as you move up in the rankings, the difficulty of getting higher positions increases exponentially. It may take 1 hour for 10th place, 1.1 hours fot 9th, 1.3 for 8th.... 7 hours for 2nd, 12 hours for first. Therefore the spread should be much larger. Heres my little input... sorry its a bit late.


I think it should be something like
1 = 15
2 = 9
3 = 7
4 = 4
5 = 4
6 = 3
7 = 3
8 = 2
9 = 2
10 = 1

or

1 = 25
2 = 15
3 = 10
4 = 8
5 = 6
6 = 5
7 = 4
8 = 3
9 = 2
10 = 1
Vega
141010
Mike...I completely agree. Of the two you have below, I like this one better.
1 = 25
2 = 15
3 = 10
4 = 8
5 = 6
6 = 5
7 = 4
8 = 3
9 = 2
10 = 1

But option #6 is also worth looking at as far as the way it's spread, cuz it's a plus +1 factor from #4-#1 What do you think?
Kristopher
91118
Instead of simply changing the scoring, you should first define the objective of the Time Trial ranking:

  • Rank players by capability regardless of how much they play (would not give penalties for incomplete levels)

  • Rank active players above equal players of the past (high bonus for Gold)

  • Rank players by how well they follow the current rules of the Time Trial, regardless of a player's capability (current system). The Time Trial ranking here, although not directly ranking players by skill, works with the Golden Club, Total Race, and Medals by Country to show the best players. This one competition does not need to account for all aspects of the game (I.E. Golds) by itself, since it is just one part of the competition.

  • Etc.
  • mike flips
    313017
    Yea, thats true Kris. But the issue comes up with what about silvers and bronzes. They take an awful lot of work as well and there is no scoring for these scores. Top 5 is really difficult. Thats y a while back i suggested an "Acheivements" club instead of golden club. Prayer suggested this too way back.
    Vega
    141010
    Bonus points for Gold is not ranking active players above inactive players. If an inactive player holds the best time, they would get the bonus. It's not my fault that some players are inactive. And there is nothing they can do about it if I beat their time. That's ranking. It's not personal. It's just who has the best time. It doesn't necessarily mean that whoever has the gold in that level is a better player. It means whoever has the gold in that level is the best player for that level. No matter if they are active or not, the gold medal holder deserves the gold bonus! #2 deserves the Silver bonus, etc........
    mike flips
    313017
    I agree with Vega. We should change current scoring and the golden club. The current scoring should take into account the bonus points because they are well deserved. I think one of my new methods would be pretty good. And then the golden club should take into account mayb ranks 1-5
    Kristopher
    91118
    -> "Acheivements" club instead of the Golden Club

    Yes, it sounds like this should be another competition, not a change to the Time Trial.

    -> Bonus points for Gold is not ranking active players above inactive players.

    Yes, it is. Vin had more Golds than me once he had played for awhile; he had as many as I have now. But not long after he left, he lost most of his Golds. You can't say that I am 9x better because I have more Golds. If he was still playing, or if he had played for the same length of time starting one year later, he would have more Golds than I do. The only reason I have more Golds, is because he stopped playing.
    Vega
    141010
    I am sorry Kris....but you're logic is flawed. So I hope you'll respect the fact that I just can't agree with what you are saying here. Vin's accomplishments are no longer as great as you're current accomplishments. It doesn't mean that Vin is not good, or Rachman, or Prayer. It simply means their accomplishments have been bested and are no longer worthy of being considered 'the best'. That is how all sports, records, and competitions work. If a new person came along and acheived EXACTLY the same scores as Rachman in all Rachman's levels, he would never acheive the same accolades and BOD fame as Rachman previously once knew. And that is exactly as it should be. The golden club is the only ranking system BOD has that, by default, honors & acknowledges great accomplishments of the past for the players of "that time". I agree with Mike that there should be a great accomplishents system in place of a Gold Club. But perhaps it should only be for Gold, Silver and Bronze. Keeping track of how many days all players held #4 and #5 would be a very long list...But I wouldn't be against it if that's what the players want and if Sz could use the same method of calculation that is used for Golden Club then it probably wouldn't be very dificult to implement
    Shane
    57
    I like Henoch's Moto GP idea (Top 15) - in fact I suggested the same thing a couple of months back. If not then Vega's option 3
    Vega
    141010
    I just noticed a good example. Over the last month or so, Smalls has been accumulating golds like a crazy person. I remember just in December I was ahead of him in gold Club because he had 5 golds. Now look! And then look at his little rating picture chart in his palyer profile page. It doesn't even acknowledge that he did anything. That's because he only gained a few points here and there for all that work. It's not that I am just dying to see Smalls in front of Alex, but how can Alex be ranked ahead of Smalls in the TTC when Smalls has TEN more gold medals!!! It's bcuz the points Alex is credited for getting #5-#20 on more levels than Smalls is outweighing Smalls 10 gold medals. The bonus point gain for Smalls would more accurately represent his accomplishments
    Shane
    57
    Vega, Alex is ahead because he took the time to get very good at all levels (and there are a lot of levels) . It looks like Smalls will soon sort this problem out for you because he is beating players old and new on whatever level he wants to medal on .
    bones
    henoch's bonus idea is definetly the best because then some average people get some points as well. plus it keeps players around40-60 closer together
    Vega
    141010
    bonus is not for average scores, but ok and yes, Alex is very good at all levels
    ©2008 Szymon Ulatowski @ TOYSPRING