Was thinking about some sort of notification for the player if his time is beaten on a map. Being notified about losing your first place (or top 20 spot or w/e) could very well motivate people to try and improve their time on that map. In N (a platforming flash-game I used to play a few years ago), they keep the information about which rank you had in the toplist at the time of setting your record, while also displaying the current rank. This is how it looks on their site:http://n.infunity.com/lv_score_speedrun.php?name=kryX-orangeExample: 0th->*4th (0th being first place in this game) means I used to have first place, but has since been bumped down to 5th place (not 4th, since the 0=1 :p) (Oh, and the star means I'm at tied 5th) Obviously this site is not goodlooking, but such info is still nice to have in my opinion. If some sort of notification could be implemented, it'd be nice to be able to clear specific ones at your own will. That way you can have reminders to improve times on the maps you want, but also remove the notifications for ones you have no intention of improving (so as to not have the notification list become unnecessarily huge and cluttered.)
I think it looks ugly, but can't really think of a way to represent the information in a better way. I don't understand the point of the information either: "At some point in time when there was an unknown amount of players you were rank 1, your current rank is 5". I would be interested in a personal page about yourself. There you can find some information like:
- Maps where you're last
- Maps where you're first
- Times you should improve (that will grant the biggest ELO boost)
I would say users mark their own times that they care so much about. Perhaps when you set a time, it would suggest an option of "let me know if someone gets better time". If it was to automatically send notification for every #1 time beaten, it would result into so much spam especially when a new map has come out or if you take a break for few months. Also there are many #1 times that would just suck in general, and you wouldn't care what your rank in them are/you'd know they get beaten easily.
Obviously this site is not goodlookingSo obviously I agree with you on that. :PThough the info does have value. Sure, at first, when there hasn't been very many entries made to the toplist of a map, it could appear pretty random.But seeing a "pro" player be, like, 5th place and 2s behind the current rec often leaves me wondering if he did a good run, but with a much worse route than the current rec-holder, or if he just barely tried at all.It would also clear up some cases where people just stop trying after they set a record, even if they could easily improve, just to be beaten by someone considerably worse than them.But yes, in most cases the info will only be interesting to yourself.One example of how it can be made to look better is having the toplist display something like:#<current rank>: <name> - <time> - <date/time of rec> (#<rank when rec was set>)Example:#6: Whoever - 19.064 - 2015-01-12 17:06 (#2) Wouldn't clutter alot, and if the table has titles, you can just describe the parenthesis part as "former rank" or so.Only displaying maps where you're first and last would not be information that people care to look at, as far as I can see. If you're good enough to care about stats, you're never going to have a last place. And if you're already first and noone has beaten you, you'll have 0 interest in that information aswell, I suppose.It's when you're beaten that it's worth knowing about (thus the notification idea)And the ELO thing (is there going to be such a feature, btw?), wouldn't that just list the maps with your worst scores? And aren't the worst scores often that way because you weren't really interested in playing that map in the first place?And only showing "recently" beaten maps, could cause you to feel in a hurry to beat them, before the "reminder" disappears. And (depending on what "recent" means, and how it's displayed) it could mean you'll loose a bunch of info you really wanted because you've been inactive for a while.Why not, then, just add one notification for each map where your rank has declined, while letting you remove them once you don't feel you need or want the info anymore?by QaleQ
If you want to see if it was an easily beaten record or not why not suggest that the number of attempts is included as a stat?At the ELO thing I hope there is ELO, skill or some equivalent. I'm much more interested in "Am I better than that other player?" rather that "have I played more maps than that other player?"
If you want to see if it was an easily beaten record or not why not suggest that the number of attempts is included as a stat?At the ELO thing I hope there is ELO, skill or some equivalent. I'm much more interested in "Am I better than that other player?" rather that "have I played more maps than that other player?"by stealth
Number of attempts is a stat way too easy to tamper with, practicing in devmap or smth along those lines would nullify the value of that stat (shameful behaviour, but still very common).
Also, I'm not sure what we'll have in terms of being able to practice maps (in Warsow we can choose a position and speed to spawn with while in "practicemode", to more seemlessly practice later parts of a long map). If something alnog those lines will be available, attempt count will be utterly pointless.I absolutely agree with you that a skill stat would be very nice to have (so long as it can be made accurate and fair, preferably without causing people to feel the need to cut their runs short when they run the risk of not getting a time they deem "good enough")Not sure where the "have I played more maps than that other player" part entered the discussion, though :PI would say users mark their own times that they care so much about. Perhaps when you set a time, it would suggest an option of "let me know if someone gets better time". If it was to automatically send notification for every #1 time beaten, it would result into so much spam especially when a new map has come out or if you take a break for few months. Also there are many #1 times that would just suck in general, and you wouldn't care what your rank in them are/you'd know they get beaten easily.by huPo
Good point and idea! Notify people about loosing a 1st place (by default?), and let people choose wether to be notified if below 1st place (will rarely be used i suspect, but I don't have any experience with tryharding to be top 5 on a map, so I wouldn't really know..)
Kind of like following a thread on a forum?Not sure where the “have I played more maps than that other player” part entered the discussion, thoughby QaleQ
Let's just say a certain mod by a certain dev used this ranking method. :)
I like huPo's idea of subscribing to a map if you want to be updated if your rank changes. That way scoreboard remains clear and the players that want to try-hard can try-hard :D
About that, explain to me why elo is so awesome? Sure it works in chess where every player plays one other player at a time etc. But I cant see any advantage to using it here, other than being able to tell ppl its elo based :p
Read my elo comment above :p Am not planning on using the tjmod ranking system. But imo the result of that system is prett good still..E: tjmod gave 1 point for playing any map. And if you set a #1 in a map with 100 records, you got 99 points. Bad side, if you lose your #1 to a #2 on a map, you could make up for it by just setting a time in w\e other map really. Upside, it encourages actually playing new maps, as opposed to either just setting times when you know you can get good ones, or only setting #1 times even.. Which is lame. But yeah, explain to me what's so awesome with elo! :P
It doesn't have to be ELO, but most skill rating systems are based on that or a derivative of that. Old tjmod system favoured players that just play a lot. If you were a new player unless you were willing to invest a lot of time you would never get to the top of the leaderboard. Timeruns.net now uses a skill based system (based on ELO) so it's not about amount of maps played it's about players you have beaten. Timeruns.net net is not perfect since the system was not implemented from the start so all current records had to be transferred. Since projectRIK is brand new you could probably do it better.
@rank decrease\increase, Just have numbered up\down arrows if anything, like a normal sensible person would.
Player 1 is ranked 1/100 players on 1 map. Player 2 is ranked 50/100 on 3 maps. Player 2 is ranked higher than Player 1 on the leader board (and therefore better). That's why I don't like it.
or only setting #1 times even.. Which is lame.by Dinius
Or the whole point? If a player consistently gets #1 times and nobody can beat that person then yes I think they deserve to be rank 1. I agree that then there is less motivation to play new maps, maybe a tweak could be implemented to slightly benefit players for playing maps with 0 records.
Yeah at point 1 there I totally agree.But on the second point, not at all. People shouldn't be encouraged to ONLY set times when they can get #1 href="http://projectrik.com/forum/hashtag/1/"><a href="http://projectrik.com/forum/hashtag/1/">, it's so damn lame.My plan is to have a custom ranking system that fixes both of these issues, wouldn't that be fine? :P If the player gets #1 times generally etc and has the most #1s (that matter at least) then yeah, sure, he deserves to be #1. But if people even would be borderline punished by setting non-#1 times, it's just retarded. That I'll-only-set-times-when-I-can-get-#1 mentality is something I'd very much like to avoid. E: Skill, as in getting #1 times should obviously be main reward, but activity etc should be a factor as well (i.e. someone shouldn't NECESSARILY be overall #1 coz he's got #1 at the 50 most popular maps, but no records on the other e.g. 250 maps.)
Well I don't know what you have against ELO, but if your going to make a system that basically does the same thing then good :D reinvent the wheel for all I care
When would there ever be an up-arrow? And everyone would have down arrows with no more info than that if someone new comes to a map and sets 1st? Confused as to how those could represent valuable info
Naturally a new record causing everyone a down nudge could be ignored, or worked around somehow, I realized that after I posted it but there could be some good way around it imo.Up arrows, let's say you have #5 on a map, then you get #2, you'd have ^3 or something like that? Isn't that just as useful as the <downarrow>5 or whatever kind of thing?
ELO is too "only-set-#1-times-friendly" imo. And the default version of it doesn't make that much sense for a system like this, but more for situations where players compete against one other single player at a time. I.e. in a 1v1 duel frag kind of situation. That being said, I'm no elo expert, but I'd rather make a new system that works exactly like I want it to.
i would suggest not having a player top ranking at all, defrag doesnt seem to have one and people still know who's better than who, shouldnt the amount of sick times you set be enough validation?
what happened to AP with the ELO system is that no one dared to play maps anymore because of muh elo ratingmaps that had 20+ recs were worth a shot, but playing a map with 3- records? no way. theres too much risk that the time set sucks and a noob can beat you and you jump down 3 ranksi stopped believing that having a player ranking is any good, it just makes people anxious and cautious about setting a time and playing the damn game imo I don't disagree with this idea either.
(not you stealth :P see how the finger points in a line to theos post :P)There we have my exact point about the ELO system :) However, NOT having an overall player ranking type of thing is just .. I don't have words for how retarded that is. I can quote myself though:Yes let’s stick to how it’s always been and try not to change stuff at the risk of improving things!Oh, and yeah, go tell that to basically every sport type of thing out there, racing, boxing, football, whatever! There's no point in having a ranking system, people should just "know" who's best by looking at separate stats for each race or match or whatever. Yay!by Dinius
Elo, not ELO. Please.
Yeah, but imo it's still better to award activity than to punish non top records.. ;) Like theo or something also said, with this system, you'd be punished if you set a #1 time that wasn't very good, coz then you'd be beaten etc.. = discouraging for actual activity = bad. And another thing, RIK won't have "permanent" records database like defrag\tjmod\etc has.Records will be reset once or twice or more a year. Then archived so you can see full details for FOR EXAMPLE first half 2015 (all records set, final player rankings, etc) and same for second half 2015 etc. This is a far better solution imo. Both for new players who won't be faced with having to compete to get on top of some rankings list players have spent a decade (or something) getting top times on, and I think at least it also makes it more interesting for existing players as well. Old records will still be fully visible etcetcetcetcetcetc.. More on that some other time :)
Heres how i think elo should work. [code]// Piercy is pro. if(player.Name.ToLower() == "piercy") { player.Elo += 1000;} [/code]
Btw, used to play that N game too in 2006ish while at school, fun stuff :)
Hmm, how about every map there's a possible c number of points to earn, which is constant across maps. The number of points (p) players earn depends on the percentile their rank is in (r, where 0<r<1), and is defined by:p = c^(kr)k is a constant to scale how rapidly points increase with rank. So for example, if c = 100 and k = 1, then the points earned per rank percentile is as follows: (r,p): (0,1), (.1,1.6), (.2,2.5), (.3,4) (.4,6.3), (.5, 10), (.6,16), (.7, 25), (.8,39), (.9,63), (1,100) Such a ranking system means that getting a #1 is worth much more than 2 mediocre ranks. It also means that players can't lose points if they set a time, only gain them. Hopefully this makes sense.
What is that? Is that math? ![Image]()
I'd guess it'd make a bit more sense WITH formatting :P But yeah.. I was actually contemplating some sort of a fixed point sum to earn for a map as well. Or at least some initial sum of points.. In any case, I'll get back to this later on, focusing my attention on getting stuff ready for the alpha release right now. Anyways, appreciate the input. After christmas I'm guessing I'll start on this :)
I'd guess it'd make a bit more sense WITH formatting :P But yeah.. I was actually contemplating some sort of a fixed point sum to earn for a map as well. Or at least some initial sum of points.. In any case, I'll get back to this later on, focusing my attention on getting stuff ready for the alpha release right now. Anyways, appreciate the input. After christmas I'm guessing I'll start on this :) My equation is wrong. I made a new one... this excel spreadsheet explains it better: https://www.mediafire.com/?kxb6dmpopy6dbb6. You can play around with the constants in the red boxes.I have too much free time right now : /
If only I had office/excel installed on any PC I got access to right now :lol:e: found some online web thing to view it, and yes, that is having too much free time indeed :mrgreen:But yeah, looks pretty reasonable :)
For the other ppl without ms office.![Image]()
Apache OpenOffice is free to get and it opens MS office files.
Yeah I know, I got access to ms office licenses as well, I just haven't bothered since the last time I reinstalled mai pcs. Hardly ever use it 8-)
That system must be flawed. Pikachu would never be that slow.
gah you're right! back to the drawing board...
Google sheets opens xml files, for those of you not interested in downloading and installing a program to view the file.Also, currently calculation seems really harsh, 32 points lost for for #2 being <0.1% slower than #1, when their both practically equally skilled.The point system we're currently making for Warsow bases scores on how fast you are compared to the first place holder, with some caps. Something like: 100 points for 1st place, 90 max for 2nd, max lowered by 2 points between each player, minimum 20 points to everyone in top 20, maximum 10 points outside top 20.This to boost motivation to go for first if you're second, and to go for top 20 if you're close to top 20Can post sheet if anyone's interested, but I recall Dini saying a system that rates people only by times set makes people too #1-or-nothing hungry. (Tho our system is at least alot more forgiving than what's been suggested here :P)
Agree, it's harsh, too much so imo. But as I said earlier on, I'll get back to this after xmas or so, feel free to come with input meanwhile though.
The "harshness" of the rating system is affected by the POINT_SCALING value. You can change it in the spreadsheet and the points will update accordingly. For example, if it's 2 the scores will look like this: ![Image]()
I was playing around with a rating system where the points were awarded based on times and not rank, but I was worried that such a rating system wouldn't encourage as much competition.
I was playing around with a rating system where the points were awarded based on times and not rank, but I was worried that such a rating system wouldn't encourage as much competition. The system I suggested has a lot of caps that ensures going for 1st and reaching top 20 are rewarded, and 2 point between each spot no matter what the time difference is still somewhat of a motivator to improve too. It's more based on showing you the actual skill of a player, rather than solely acting as a carrot for getting a better better rank, though.
What about the rating system I proposed doesn't reflect player skill?Also, I don't entirely understand the rating system you're talking about.
What about the rating system I proposed doesn't reflect player skill?Also, I don't entirely understand the rating system you're talking about.by Pudd
Based on your "less harsh" model:
Mario is 5,70% slower than Sonic. Peach is 5,71% slower than Sonic. (0,01% difference)Peach gets 86,22% as many points as Mario.Bowser is 14,28% slower than Sonic (and 8,57% slower than Peach). Bowser gets 85,21% as many points as Peach.How can you argue that a point system like this reflects actual skill?Mario and Peach being 0,01% apart, Peach and Bower being 8,57% apart, yet the percental decline in points is around 85% in both cases.Peach is not 85% as skilled as Mario and Bowser isn't 85% as skilled as Peach.-As for my suggested point-system, I'll write explainations on how everything is calculated, and put it in the example sheet I've created, tomorrow.The “harshness” of the rating system is affected by the POINT_SCALING value.by Pudd
Yeah I know ;) Was just agreeing that as-is without adjustments, it would be too harsh :)
How can you argue that a point system like this reflects actual skill?Yeah your argument makes sense... it could more accurately reflect player skill if the points were based on the time relative to the leader. The sacrifice of accuracy is worth it in my opinion though, since the way it is now encourages competition and offers more of a reward for going up in rank.by QaleQ
Up and downsides to both those methods of thinking imo.. Some sort of a golden mean would be bettahr methinks.
So your elo rating would only be like 1001? :lol:
So your elo rating would only be like 1001? :lol:by Dinius
no its += so it would keep adding 1000 :D id be on about 10,001 by now
I updated the spreadsheet. The link should be the same: https://www.mediafire.com/?kxb6dmpopy6dbb6.The formula takes the time relative to the best time into account as well as rank. There is a value to choose the importance of time vs rank.
That one didn't work online, so I tried installing openoffice and it didn't work there either :s Will try ms office later on probably..
Hmm it might be because there's an image in it. I reuploaded it without the image... see if it works now.The image is here: https://www.mediafire.com/?n9py5b352gj71tb
Worked better in excel, everything goes to crap if I "enable editing" though. Anyways, this looks pretty good to me :mrgreen:
But, doesn't this mean that if you're e.g. rank 50 on map, that you won't get any points at all? Because it should keep giving points further down as well. E.g. a map with 400 records should still give #350 something.. And should also possibly give some more points all in all since it's a map with a lot more "competition" on it. Given I've only looked at your table, not your math, so it might account for it somehow already. But if it doesn't, it's bad. Non-top players might want to compete for lower ranks as well :p
Tried it in MS Excel 2013 and it indeed doesn't work in edit mode.What happens if there's only 1 time on a map. That players gets 50 points? (with the values in the excel sheet)As Dinius said it would be nice that even if a player is rank 350 he can compete with other players that have low ranks so points should go all the way down.I personally don't really like this system, because it doesn't take into account who you beat. *Broken record* use Elo rating, use Elo rating
But why should you get points for the act of beating someone in particular? For CHESS and other direct non-record-saving competition, that makes sense, but for RIK/timeruns, it will result in punishing people for actually setting a time.Let's say you're a top 10 player. You know you can set a time that will be very hard to beat. Normally you'd just set whatever time in a ma, and keep setting times in order to improve it. If you don't have much time to spent playing or you want to play another map, or you suddenly have to leave or something, no harm done,you can improve on the record some other time.BUT, with Elo, if you set any time you're not fairly confident won't be beaten, you'll be punished for it. Set a time that's only somewhat good, the others in top 10 could beat it, just for the sake of "beating you". The result is that every time you play, you'll have to stop before the end to avoid setting a time, until you've "perfected" it enough to be satisfied with it. That's not a good solution at all, in fact its a huge pain.. As said above and before, Elo in a 1v1 type of scenario, where both players are competing against each other, is a good system. But not for this kind of record\competition stuff, then it's just awful.
Yes I understand that if you perform badly you are "punished", but it gives a more accurate representation of how good you are compared to other players. When you look at the leaderboard you should be able to say I'm rank #5, all players below me I can beat. At least that's my view.With this points per map system it's like participation rewards. I can be a bad player and still get rank #5 just by playing more maps than everybody else. Then when I look at the leaderboard it's meaningless. I'm rank 5, rank 6 always beats me but he just hasn't played as many maps as I have. :DWith Elo system you might not have that big of an incentive to play new maps because you run the risk of decreasing your rank (on the other hand if you perform well it secures your rank). But I argue that with your map system there is no point participating at all since if I can only play 1 hour per day I'm never going to get to the top (Unless I'm a God and can beat every map quickly and other players allow me to swap map). Play more = higher rank. Let's say you reset the ranks every 3 months, what's the point playing the game if I have 0 records and there's 1 month left to go?You could implement rating decay. If you don't play for a while then your rating starts to go down, then you have an incentive to play new maps and stay active.Another possibility is giving new players a certain boost. For the first X amount maps you get additional rating.EDIT: By the way your example of having to leave in the middle of setting a rank... Even with Elo rating that would have minimal impact. But consistently doing that obviously would have an impact since THAT'S THE POINT.
That first point is mute imo, it's a more "clear" *I can beat those below me* kind of deal with Elo, but it's basically the same with the other method as well. At least it essentially amounts to much the same practically speaking. And the downsides to Elo like I mentioned are just too big. How can you justify that whole "punishing non-"perfect"" times deal..? As far as that second point goes, I just simply disagree. I see your point, and I just don't agree. I think the arguments have been made / you know where I stand. Don't think we'll get any further on that part by me arguing and making more points.. :)E.g. if you can beat #1s or whatever inside that month Elo-style, surely you can beat #1s with the other ranking system and you'd be ranked better anyways! Sure you might get top rank sooner with the elo system, but are you really "better" then? If the other player(s) still have more #1s than you etc, sure it COULD be because you just havent "had time" to beat them yet, but it could also be that you just can't\it's too hard\takes too long. Etcetcetc, damn I managed to argue some even though I was trying not to :mrgreen: Decay or such COULD be interesting point though, but with the reset every X months it might just be confusing mostly..
As said above and before, Elo in a 1v1 type of scenario, where both players are competing against each other, is a good system. But not for this kind of record\competition stuff, then it’s just awful.by Dinius
This point still stands, methinks :)
How can I justify the punishing stuff. Well because it's not punishing it's the same as the point system you are going to use, but it can't as easily be gamed.
With Elo-rating if a player has more #1 ranks than you and you are ranked higher on the leaderboard it makes sense. It means that if you go and play those maps where he is ranked #1 you will become the #1 rank, because you are better than all of those players. Hmmm... I just realized that there is 1 problem here - maps are different so if a player is good at a rocket map and you're not then it doesn't necessarily mean you're better.if you can beat #1s or whatever inside that month Elo-style, surely you can beat #1s with the other ranking system and you’d be ranked better anyways!No, with the map system it's not possible. Both players keep setting times for the last month and eventually the player who was already rank 1 wins (more play time)I feel that the Elo rating is being too easily dismissed. It's as though it already had a negative connatation before I even mentioned it. At the end of the day I'm still going to play the game even if the leaderboard is meaningless. Can we run some numbers before we make a decision? I like what Pudd did, but that's just for 1 map. What happens for 10 maps? 100 maps? As a final request can you save the date when a record was set?by Dinius
it’s just awfulWell I say it's great. Boom, counter that. :Dby Dinius
:mrgreen::mrgreen: Yes ofc dates will be visible :). And the negative connotation* is because I've thought about it many times even before timeruns.net implemented some version of it, and yes, you make some points, but I gotta stick by what I said earlier.. :) The main bad thing with elo is the discouraging of setting "bad times", that's what it comes down to for me, it's just too big of a downside. And also, saying it's "meaningless" without elo is just dumb, come on. It's not like it would practically speaking make much of a difference on the actual rankings tbh. :/ And yes, lol, ofc. Nothing is anywhere near to even being a tiny bit close to decided. After xmas sometime I'll sit down and put some actual work into this as opposed to just making quick comments on stuff here. Will probably spend days if not a couple weeks running misc numbers with misc data and scenarios etc.. Btw, thumbs up for contradicting again and again with actual arguments :) (seriously)
And also, saying it’s “meaningless” without elo is just dumb, come on. It’s not like it would practically speaking make much of a difference on the actual rankings tbh. :/by Dinius
I don't think so, but will wait to be proven wrong with datasets. I think by using the percentile thing Pudd suggested the problem of "more records = higher rank" will be alleviated, but not solved.
Maybe not as noticeably for the top 10 list, but probably very noticeable for players that aren't that good. Who said I'd SHOW any datasets? :twisted: But for the record, I'm not opposed to the principal of what you're suggesting, i.e. higher rank by beating others. I'm against the consequence of it that will result in the whole "I won't set a time unless I'm sure it can't be beaten-ish" kind of thinking. And yes, X sets a "bad" time, Y beats X, but then X beats Y etc.. But if Y was < X then Y gets a good boost for """"beating"""" X when it was just a result of not having set a "proper" time yet. In an actual 1v1 scenario with evenly matched players playing eachother, that problem doesn't apply, but for this is definitely does. So it's just not good as-is like that imo .. :)
I'm sorry you guys couldn't open/edit it! I put it on Google Drive, something I should have done from the start. I also gave it the name "polynomial rating system" to make it easier to talk about. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JlPYy3Avk5I_stTJpr4JMFXcgTWyPMLLTmreVvDx9BY/edit?usp=sharing
But, doesn’t this mean that if you’re e.g. rank 50 on map, that you won’t get any points at all?This isn't necessarily true. There are two factors in the equation now: rank and time. As far as rank goes, it's the percentile rank that matters, not the actual rank. So if you're 50th on a map that has 500 records set, your percentile rank is .9. This means that it would be the same as being 2nd on a map with 10 records set. But if you're 50th on a map with 50 records, the rank-part of the equation will award you the minimum possible points for the map.by Dinius
What happens if there's only 1 time on a map. That players gets 50 points? (with the values in the excel sheet)Actually this would produce a divide by zero error, oops!. The part of the equation where it's (n-r)/(n-1). Since n = 1, the divisor is 0. So I guess this case will have to be checked for. I'm thinking they should be rewarded the maximum points per map though.by stealth
I personally don’t really like this system, because it doesn’t take into account who you beat.My math instincts tell me it *would* be possible to factor who you beat into the equation along with the percentile rank and time relative to the best time. It's not obvious to me how I would do that. I think things would get really complicated with all the constants that need balancing too.*edit* I figured out how to factor in a third variable to the rating system. I'll explain if it ends up being needed.by stealth
With this points per map system it’s like participation rewards. I can be a bad player and still get rank #5 just by playing more maps than everybody else.If this is an issue, then the rank harshness and time harshness values could be increased, and the minimum possible points per map can be set to zero. This could make it so that only players with (what is deemed as) good times/rank get points.by stealth
But I argue that with your map system there is no point participating at all since if I can only play 1 hour per day I’m never going to get to the top (Unless I’m a God and can beat every map quickly and other players allow me to swap map). Play more = higher rank.I think that it's fair that a player who plays 1 hour a day is ranked lower than a player that plays 10 hours a day, assuming the player playing 10 hours a day is not 10 times worse ; ).by stealth
You could implement rating decay. If you don’t play for a while then your rating starts to go down, then you have an incentive to play new maps and stay active.Personally, this would demotivate me from playing, since there is less permanence to the points I'm getting. The same is (even more so) true if the points are periodically reset, Dinius.by stealth
Another possibility is giving new players a certain boost. For the first X amount maps you get additional rating.Would the points earned by the boost go away after a certain amount of time, or remain? If it remains, then everyone would have the same boost, so it wouldn't be an advantage at all. If it goes away, then these points seem, well, pointless.by stealth
What is all this talk about more playtime equating in higher rank? I don't see how those two relate :s
I've just taken it for granted up until now, but won't your "skill" be something like points / maps played? Not just the total points you have on all maps added together?
And if so, wouldn't that eliminate the benefit of just playing more, but rather push you to try and do as well as you can on each map? (I can see how this could make people feel "forced" to set a good time.. but the more maps you've done well on, the less your "skill" would suffer from setting a mediocre time)
Maps with fewer times could very well present a problem. I would prefer this being solved by not spam-adding maps into this game, but rather adding maybe a handful each week at most, so they all get their fair share of playtime.
What we had in mind for Warsow to "solve maps with few/no times", was to make the points for 1st place equal to the "skill" of the highest skilled player to have a time on the map. (This to prevent people from being able to bump up their skill by uploading a bunch of maps, setting a time and call a new map right away).
And I do agree with Pudd on the whole "resetting periodically" thing. It's a huge demotivator for me, as I suspect it will be for many other players.
We're going through this in Warsow right now, having changed so much in the new version, we had to wipe the toplist. Many players are so opposesed to this that they've stop playing entirely, even with us keeping an archive of the toplist in a seperate /topold command, letting you see past records..I don't see myself ever tryharding to improve a run if I'm already 1st, if I'll have to do it again in a few months just to keep my position..Who would benefit from this, and how?Personally I would always perfer being rated according to where I fit into the all-time rankings way ahead of being rated according to how well people has re-played these maps in the past few months..What is all this talk about more playtime equating in higher rank? I don’t see how those two relate :sby QaleQ
Some player may be the best jumper in the game, but in my view if he only set times on one or two maps, he shouldn't expect to be ranked high on the leaderboard, even if they are #1 times.
I’ve just taken it for granted up until now, but won’t your “skill” be something like points / maps played? Not just the total points you have on all maps added together?by QaleQ
This again runs into the issue of demotivating people from setting new times. All I would have to do is focus on a single map, then I'd be on top of the leaderboard.
The whole "skill = points / maps" played is just dumb. (no offense :p ) That way if you set just ONE time on the most popular map, you'd be the overall #1 player... Unless I'm missing something? The periodical reset isn't up for discussion. A lot of other games use that sort of system, e.g. League of legends, I don't see them suffering on account of it. It's far better to have a fresh record set to compete against, as opposed to defrag-style where a new player is faced with a decade of records set.. The older records wont just be removed or "archived" somewhere in the far distance. The PHYSICS of this game will also change and etc, making it a reasonable method to have minor differences that makes times easier\harder implemented after a reset. And also, it's a fun competition aspect to have a sort of "final ranking" / winner of season X type of thing every X months, or even just once a year or 2 times a year, or something like that.. :)
Me and Dinius will share the #1 rank anyway, so doesn't matter what kind of ranking system the rest of you use.
http://i.imgur.com/mNP4UpY.jpg
Sharing is caring. Show some Christmas-spirit!
That way if you set just ONE time on the most popular map, you'd be the overall #1 player... Unless I'm missing something?I see a number of ways to work around that. A minimum number of maps required to be played (say, somewhere between 30 and 50) before you get a "skill" ranking. Or, smth more advanced, reducing the "skill" by a certain amount depending on how many maps you have time on. Like: <so... I had an example here but editing my post removed all the rest of this line, nice! example below..><5 = -30 skill, 5-10 = -20 skill, 10-30 = -30 skill (or something more dynamic, but along those lines) (Can't believe both you and Pudd put down my skill suggestion with an argument that's so very easily fixable :p)by Dinius
As for periodical resets; yea, if physics change and old scoreboard becomes irrelevant, then by no means should we cling to the old times (Kind of thought this was smth you wanted to avoid.. can't see why physics would ever need to change, either).
But in all other cases it's a demotivator for achieving the best possible time. Can't really compare timerun games with LoL in that sense.It'll demotivate people from improving times when they are already first, and it'll demotivate people playing at all the last few weeks before season ends, since the times they set will be moot in a matter of days Sure, the top 5 people might tryhard like crazy in the end, to fight for a better position, but for everyone else it's just playing for nothing then..If resets-for-no-real-reason is a definate thing, then this game will only be something I do for casual fun, I can't be arsed with tryharding the same map every 3 months, that sounds super boring to me.
And I would never feel any sense of accomplishment for being #1 on a map if I didn't know I was #1 overall.. Not saying this to change your mind, just letting you know how I (and probably alot of other people) view it. But yea, who knows, maybe I'll fall in love with some of the other game modes instead ^^ err,, the problem still remains. If we got a minimum of 50 times, then there'd only be points to LOSE by setting records on maps aside from the 50 most popular ones... Even if you work around that somehow, it still discourages activity.. I'm not gonna lock down the physics or such stuff to "this is how it is", stuff can change \ improve :) I don't get that argument at the resets at all. 3 months might be too often sure. But let's say it happened once a year. Like a 1 year running cup, at the end you'd have "winner of 2015" or so. That's just tenfolds more awesome and encourages activity a lot more than just having it the "typical" way.. :)
err,, the problem still remains. If we got a minimum of 50 times, then there'd only be points to LOSE by setting records on maps aside from the 50 most popular ones... Even if you work around that somehow, it still discourages activity..by Dinius
Im still confused. Where has it been suggested that you'd get more points for playing a popular map?
If you're going by my "Warsow-solution", then yes, there would only be points to lose playing a rarely played map IF! none of the players that has a time on the map (or sets a time in the future) has a higher skill than you...What's not being fulfilled by the Polynominal system?I would argue that you get the number of points you deserve with this system, and if you set a time on an empty map, the only thing you won't know is how well your record will compare to the other peoples times, once they set them. You could ofcourse get 100 points for a record on an empty map imo, so long as there aren't 4k maps in the game and 20 people in the community (warsow style), the map should get played enough for you to be rated fairly eventually.Yea ofcourse not gonna lock it down, what I said was that I thought you wanted to avoid it. Unavoidable situations could ofcourse occur. Other than that I thought any new additions to the game would mostly be map-specific things, and thus wouldn't affect the integrity of the toplist.
What can I say, it just isn't for me. I don't want to feel forced to do well in a pre-decided time-window. And I don't like the idea that going on a month long vacation, or taking a break from the game, could make many months of tryharding be for nothing.
And really, you don't get my argument "at all"? You see no sense in me being more interested in where I fit in to the overall rankings than some seasonal ranking?And people just WILL not tryhard the last few weeks of a season, no matter how little sense you see in my argument. If you go on a map knowing that if you tryhard it today, it might sliiiiightly bump your score a little bit (at the end of the season, one map won't make much of a difference at all, so it's not like it's gonna give you a better place in the rankings), and people might see your time and give you some kudos or w/e for a few weeks (though, it probably won't get re-voted again in that short time period, since there will probably be enough maps that we wont see the same maps twice in a matter of a few weeks, so ppl probably wont ever know you did it). Or, you hold off for a few weeks and tryhard it in the next season, making a toplist entry that people will see for a whole year, and that will affect your rank for the whole upcoming year.. I think the choice is going to be obvious..And people just WILL not tryhard the last few weeks of a season, no matter how little sense you see in my argument.by QaleQ
That's just not true, I've experienced just the opposite actually. As for the rest I'd just be repeating myself :P
This whole forum became TL;DR to me thanks to this topic. Fuck you, /logout.
Your idea may very well work great, and attract a lot of people. I'm just not one of them. But as I said, I don't doubt the other gametypes will appeal enough to me enough to keep me playing RIK for many, many hours. No way you'll let those of us that have 0 interest in season-specific toplists have a way of seeing an all-time toplist instead (merging current and past times)?
Why wouldn't it be possible to see all time as well? In a sort of unofficial method on the side though, kinda like "adding together" seasons, i.e. you can select to show a "merge" or rankings from all seasons from 2015-2020 to see overall for example..
That sounds really good. So for those of us ignoring seasons, we'll just have the downside of not getting a seperate ranking that reflects our way of playing? If so, then that's not really a big deal.(I have to apologize if I've come off a bit stick-up-ass:y in this conversation.)