|
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? |
mike flips
|  |  | I gues what im saying is that, as we go from lets say the 20th ranked player to 1st, the obvious thing we see is that the avg rank/level is getting lower but also medals are increasing for the most part with players such as you (Vega) being the exception. Even if we do incorporate the new bonus points system, will it really have much of an effect? Then what if we get a new champion with 30 Golds, 20 Silvers, 10 Bronzes, and then the rest of his times are at rank 15 on each level. He will still be the TTC, but one could argue that on over 70 levels he is not very good yet he is number 1 overall.
So, what is our real goal here? Do we feel that the current ranking is not actually representative of how the standings should be? (For example, people may feel Cirenco should be #1 because he has many medals and many great times) If that is how we feel, now i understand why we want the bonus points, to make the TTC more representative of who we believe is #1. This will only really affect those with many medals, everyone else's ranks shouldnt change much at all. Vega may move up a few ranks but he will still be way in the 100s.
Anyways, thats just some other things to think about it. Im not sure where i stand yet. I like the idea of points a lot. But, as for the weighting of the bonus points, im not sure. This whole bonus points thing, just looking in the top ten will lower players such as You Qi, alex, mata, and aleksey because they do not have many medals. However their accomplishments are still very great and it is really hard to get where they are. I know we dont want the way the rankings will end up with bonus points to influence the way we vote but i think it has to be considered a little bit. For example, Smalls has 10 more golds than Alex, giving him 200-250 points extra. Normally to get those 250 points he would have to spend hours and hours and hours and hours improving on many many many different levels. Now, Smalls would just be handed 250 points right away. Now you can say that Smalls already spent those hours and he chose to go for golds instead of improving his overall time. But the thing is, Alex chose to go for the best rank that he could in each level and didnt worry as much about medals. That was his strategy. Now, his rank is jeopardized because of the strategy he chose. This is bothering me a little bit. Kris brought this up earlier and you talked about inactive players who shouldnt count anymore. HOwever, the problem is that many active players chose to go for rankings rather than medals. Should these people be penalized because of the choice they made. Had i known bonus points were coming out, i would play a lot more like Tabs did, excelling in many many levels while not playing or trying on other levels rather than go for an average of rank 10 on each level for example....
Just some more food for thought  I guess its turning into a meal now, right Vega?
mike |
| Vega
|  | | Mike - you are ranked #1 player right now so your voice is loud here & appropriately so. But you are gonna need to give us something solid so we know where you stand. Going back & forth is a little dizzying. We are pretty far into this idea with lots of discussion behind us for you to bring this all back to the table now. Most people agree that BP will more accurately reward the work it takes to get the top times. Perhaps there was a miscommunication somewhere but I definitely don?t support the BP idea to make the TTC representative of who we ?believe? #1 should be. It?s a simply math consideration & has nothing to do with any one player.
Again, be careful not to take individual players into consideration too much (other than to use their stats as examples for numbers purposes of course) because ALL of the players at the top of the rankings in BoD understand & play far better than average & I am amazed how challenging this game is. But if a new player joins & submits 30 golds, 30 silvers, & 30 bronzes, they would have a total of approx 8,910 points & be ranked below Vin. (of course not considering the small amount of points Vin would lose as a result of being pushed down by this new player). Nothing wrong with Vin, infact I saw Vin come onto the scene when he first started playing & we exchanged several private messages. He was kinda like a running mate to me. But he has 1 gold, 3 silvers, & 7 bronzes & hasn?t even submitted for 30 levels!!!! So Vin submits for 103, has 11 medals, but a new guys comes & submits for 90 and smashes all with 90 medals but isn?t even in the top 10. Why do I say this is a problem?.because no matter if it?s Vin higher ranking comes from doing good on that extra 13 levels & that 70-90 points per level outweighs an INSANE amount of excellent medals. So why wouldn?t that new player just play all the rest of the levels & get #20 just to get #1 in TTC? Because we are constantly producing new levels in BoD & in order to keep up with all of them, you must sacrifice the time it takes to really focus on a few in order to rank pretty good on all. The bonus is just to even it out.
I have played over 190,000 games & I have only played standard levels. I could have a top 15 spot on every level in the game by now if I wanted to. That?s how hard it is to get a measly 12 standard medals! Meanwhile my ranking isn?t very high. So should I have done what a lot of other players do? Strategize according to the ranking system & play pretty good all around? We are all aware that this is what many players do. Infact, that's where this all stemmed from. As for Smalls earning 260 extra points, don't overlook the fact that it would be a mere 260 points on top of what is already a pot of well over 13,000 possible points. Smalls alone has gold on 10 percent of the possible levels but would only get a 2% bonus! A minimal bonus bcuz there are very few players who could do what Smalls has done, but Smalls could spend his time getting #20 on all levels and no golds & succeed absolutely. Anyway, like I said, it doesn?t matter to me which players we mention, I am just using their #s as an example. I think they are all great.
And yes Mike this is a full course Steak & Lobster meal with a baked potato on the side and a bottle of wine at this point |
| Kristopher
|  | | -> Is this what we want to have - a bunch of little Vegas running around???
That is the greatest problem with emphasizing Golds: no one plays all of the levels well, which creates a hit-and-miss competition. Also, you can better judge a player's talent from 100+ levels than from 10 of them. Vega seems great at the few levels he has played, but it doesn't exactly show how he compares with Mike Flips. We could just forget the bonuses and have him play all of the levels.
BTW, Alex is not an anti-gold player; he had several Golds. PrayeR also had many Golds, but he lost them after he retired. He was a great player, and the bonuses will disadvantage him. 
BTW, Vega wants to change the rules, but that is because he has not been playing by them. 
-> So, what is our real goal here?
Still, no answer. 
I think the minimum a player should do to get a fair scoring is complete all of the levels. Then you don't have to worry about bonus points countering losses from incomplete levels.
But what is Vega planning?
-> I have played over 190,000 games, and I have only played standard levels.
Wow, that is almost as much as me (220K)! |
| Vega
| | | you missed everything I said Kris...and your comments are sort of rude in a way. I'm done with this topic. My vote is in. |
| bones
|  | | a little but at the same time also respectful for fearing more people like you |
| Kristopher
| | | mike flips
| | | Mmmm wine....
Well, im gonna have to vote. So ill do that now
|
| Henoch
|  | | If someone want to pass Mike he has only to be rank 3 on every level. 98 * 133 will be 12901. Without bonus point he has already become number one. If he can take rank 10 on every level (don't consider about the same time), he will get 91 * 133 will be 12103, that's enough to get top tenner position. But how can anyone be that good just as Kris says. We play it for fun and with trial and error.
Well again, for me bonus just a fun side of this game. My own goal is to make all my level better than before let says rank 20 or rank 15 of all level (that's become 10773 or 11448 without the bonus). Maybe lot of player here focuses are getting better their time, each day better and better, am i correct? For several people gold is at the upmost, but for average player like me gold is beyond my reach right now, so why should i consentrate at that. The better i get my time equals the better my skill at bod (unless there is a fluke game that can only be done once in a life time), the better our skill, the better our time again. That's become a long cycle and at the end the better our rank will be. Is that our goal point become the best player? Automatically if we have become the best player, gold will come automatically also.
Everyone has his point of view. Someone wants gold, the other wants to be equally mastered all level, that's fine. We have to respect each other. Don't ever get offended or irritated because of diversity. 
BTW, Kris when i look at the stat, you know i have play 233806 times with only 9086 completed and 190933 failed. I am not alone playing bod in my 650, my 4 years son also plays with the same device. |
| Henoch
| | | Kristopher
| | | You played more than I did??!!! And more completed, too, although that is due to my strategy.
I didn't want the scoring changed, since I had been using the scoring to play where it gave me the most points, and the change seemed a disadvantage to players who had played based upon the scoring. The scoring change doesn't change my rank, so I might as well welcome the new scoring.
There are arguments for and against the change that may not have been mentioned yet, though:
For: This change continues the scoring curve started by the latest scoring changes.
Against: Every retired player (*Every*, I think ), is disadvantaged by this scoring, regardless of whether they have played all of the levels or not. IMO, they were some of the best and should not be forgotten. Especially the players who are still in the Top 10 for certain levelpacks.
I will vote now, since Vega seems to have studied this more, why continue debating? But I do wonder what theory/objective underlies this plan. |
| Henoch
| | | Vega
| | | 189,646 played
12,389 completed
|
| mike flips
| | | If you do that Henoch, it will work fine. As long as u change the name. But the games might end up in the "unauthorized games section" at first.
I have a crapload of games but i cant check at the moment.
As for voting.... i feel like we are in Florida now... !!!
YOu guys forgot my option on the ballot Now we need a revote!!! what kinda democracy is this
Hmmm we can do 1=30,2=26,3=21,4=15,5=14,6=13, and so on until rank 15
no ones rank will change at all kris, this will mainly just jumble the top 3, and give a few more people like you and smalls, etc... a little boost towards the person above you. |
| Ibanez
|  | | Mike - sorry your option was missed, however just add your proposal to the voting thread as Option #8 - anyone should be free to amend their vote before the end date. Kris may like to add Option #9 = No Change... |
| Vega
| | | Henoch is right?. BoD is just a game indeed. So my cheerios will be just as crispy tomorrow morning even if we never implemented this bonus thing bcuz this isn't real life. But one of the coolest things about this game is that the records keeping is permanent, so I think BoD will be around for a long time because it?s unique. I know we are moving forward in a positive way here?.but I would like to give one last piece of info if that?s ok. I want to clarify with everyone that I am only trying to help. I have no hidden agenda or maniacal scheme here. I really tried to consider how this type of change with affect the rankings mathematically (and I manage the reconciliation of hedge fund accounts for an international investment firm so I understand math/equations very well) The reason I give all these examples is simply to support my theory so that you all don?t think I am suggesting some random idea for the ranking system. I wouldn?t be foolish enough to think so short term and make all of this effort to change the ranking of BoD for my personal benefit and effect everyone else. That type of mentality can be expected of some people in this world, but for me to do that would require me to lack character, which I don?t. I could have cheated in this game a long time ago if I wanted to . Because of my playing style, these points won?t do much good for me for quite some time I suppose. I will likely never be overall TTC in BoD bcuz every time I try to play a new level, I have a really hard time feeling satisfied with my final time if it?s not my best. (same reason why it?s taken me 2 months to create 4 levels )
For retired players, I promise to the ends of the earth and back that a bonus points system is not in any way unfair to inactive players that once held many golds like the greats of yesterday (PrayeR, Rachman, Oliver, etc???). The reason is simple If we had implemented this change 2 years ago, their ranking today would be identical to what it will be once we implement it now. The only changing factor is perhaps they would have played with a different strategy, but it?s hardly something that can be considered unfair to inactive players because the ranking system has been changed several times anyway. The Golden club is permanent. But the bonus points are temporary. So these points would have effected their ranks when they held those golds, but since they lost the golds now, they would have lost the points then anyway. This is important t understand because there?s really nothing we can do to the ranking system to be unfair to retired players. Their best times don?t change if we implement BP. This goes back to my example of if a new person equaled every time of Rachman. He would immediately be ranked identically to Rachman temporarily, but would not match rachman in gold club points and popularity in BoD. And like I said, any of them are welcome to return and reclaim a high ranking. That would be a lot of fun to see Rachman return like MATA has, wouldn?t it? Thanks for listening everyone. Hopefully you still think I?m ok. If you don?t like me anymore, perhaps I will regain respect over time
-Vega
|
| mike flips
| | | Vega
| | | mike flips
| | | ...i still dont like you |
| Vega
| | | mike flips
| | |
|
I don't mind you only playing a few levels - it has actually been nice to have one of you. 
