[Rolken]

Two major options remain in the battle for TSC championships, with a few questions on each:

- One championship per game and a sub-championship for each category
-- Same championships as now or score added?
-- If the latter, score added in all games or a few; same weighting as time or less?

- Two championships per game: Speed (the one we have now) & Universal (all categories)
-- Equal or different weighting for all categories in the complete total?

Post your opinions for the win.

As for my opinion - I'm actually really happy with both options, as I think they both reward pretty much all players and neither TAers nor score/rings fans get shafted. As for the details, I'd put score in with one championship and make categories equal in a universal ranking.

Edit: Perhaps I should reiterate to those players saying that categories should be weighted by the number of players - categories already are weighted by the number of players. If both Rings and Time are taken into account in point rankings (right now Rings never are) and a level has a Ring division with 4 players and a Time division with 40 players, pure time players are penalized 4 points for lack of Rings, whereas pure ring players are penalized 40 points for lack of Time.

[Spinballwizard]

Eh, my edited stance is one overall championship (all weighted), and subcategories for the following:
Speed (anything with a time)
Accumulation (Score, Rings)

But meh, I'm really pro both ideas. Stamp of neutrality here.

[SprintGod]

- One championship per game and a sub-championship for each category

I'm leaning towards this, with the game championship taking every record into account, and weighting each category (or maybe even each level) depending upon the number of players.

So submitting a load of rings records won't do much for your position unless everyone else is doing so as well.

[Aere Alouette]

- One championship per game and a sub-championship for each category

I'm leaning towards this, with the game championship taking every record into account, and weighting each category (or maybe even each level) depending upon the number of players.

So submitting a load of rings records won't do much for your position unless everyone else is doing so as well.

[snapback]7934[/snapback]

^ What he said.

[SadisticMystic]

- One championship per game and a sub-championship for each category

I'm leaning towards this, with the game championship taking every record into account, and weighting each category (or maybe even each level) depending upon the number of players.

So submitting a load of rings records won't do much for your position unless everyone else is doing so as well.

[snapback]7934[/snapback]

This could easily be done right now by reversing the current system: instead of getting 1 point for each user who beats you (with points being bad), you get 1 point for each user you beat (and points become good).  Ties would give 1/2 point for each other user in the tie, so City Escape 1 would currently award 74 points for 1st (awarding an extra point for the existence of non-players) while Final Zone 1:13 would be 28.5.  These point values could be doubled to avoid nonintegral point values, but with sub-1 category weights being proposed, avoiding that might not be necessary.

This will lead to different point totals between games, so you can't always "aim for 900" like you can aim for 0 now, but percentages can be reworked under this system and will still be a consistent measure.

[douglas]

Wouldn't that encourage people not to post records unless they were really good though?  I'd rather see lots of times and lots of competition personally.

[Spinballwizard]

That technically can happen under the current system though. IIRC, Sprint only submits a new time when he has a record.

SM brings up a good idea; I don't even think it would be that hard to adjust to (since percents determine how many of the game's competitors you actually have "beaten." Or something better worded than that.), especially considering most people aren't used to a "golf-style" points system (you know, the "less is more" philosophy).

Interesting rating suggestion too, Sprint. However, I'm not sure how it would work. Obviously it means that first level times would end up being more important, which could balance the rest of the charts. Do what you guys wish in that respect.

[Taco]

It would be silly to have two champions for one game because I think that would go against the meaning of the word champion (although I am too lazy to look it up in the dictionary).

There can only be 1 champion. Lets keep it that way

also, I don't see a problem with having an individual time/score/ring champ(or leader).

I'm still somewhat clueless on the wieghtings of each one though and how much it should affect the overall champ.

I thought we already had a discussion about this though. Like, score should definetly only count in the 3d games since score relies heavily on time bonuses in the 2d games.

[Rolken]

This could easily be done right now by reversing the current system: instead of getting 1 point for each user who beats you (with points being bad), you get 1 point for each user you beat (and points become good).

[snapback]7936[/snapback]

Er... is this not just the inverse of what we have now? maxpoints - current points = those points, as far as I can tell

Also if y'all want a system like that which is functionally identical (assuming it is), I can just make it default and make the golf-style points a user setting.

Edit: Also I was intending that all versions of championships sum up the points for each constituent division, so Rings wouldn't be worth much if nobody played them. Though they could sum up sub-champ points instead and it still seems that it'd weight appropriately?

[Rayku]

I like the 'more points you get the better' idea SM has. That sounds spiffy to me

[magnum12]

With the options narrowed down, I'm in favor of Rolken's first option for 1 championship and sub-championships for each category. In regards to the weights question, I'm with Nintendan on this one.

[sonicam]

Yeah, I'm pro on Rolk's first idea. I understand everything that Ninty said about the definition of a champion, there really should only be one champion. That one champion would be the leader of the game overall. There would be sub leaders for each category; Time, Score, Time Attack, Bosses, Rings, Special, Races and anything else I missed. So in essance, there is only one champ with Times and Score incorporated (excluding Score from the 2D games and Rings) and there are sub-leaders. How I said the sub leaders is probably iffy since omg, that's a lot of leaders, but take it into consideration. Maybe we can put Times, Time Attack, Bosses, etc... as the Time Leader. Rings for the Ring Leader and Score for the Score Leader. As opposed to Times Leader, Time Attack Leader, Races Leader, etc... but some do only like to play Races, Time Attack and the such and they can be recognized for it. I dunno. D:

[SadisticMystic]

Er... is this not just the inverse of what we have now? maxpoints - current points = those points, as far as I can tell

I can think of a difference right away, and that's in the way ties would be handled.  The "golf" system looks to work best when 0 points are given for ties, as that means no points could ever be given for an unbeatable run.  That system is capable of the consistency "0 points in a game = 100%" which would be retained that way.

The revised "points=good" system wants ties to be worth 1/2 point.  In a case where 20 users are tied atop a board (with, say, 0:25), with one user alone in 21st (with 0:26), a 0-point tie would mean 0:25 would be worth only 1 point more than 0:26 despite a 20-place difference.  Granted, if someone comes along with 0:24 then they get 20 extra, which is in fact the reverse behavior of the current system, but 1-20 tied and then 21 looks to be more common than 1 leading with 2-21 behind.  1/2-point ties would award an extra 9.5 points to the tied players, which provides the same number of points to the chart as if 0, 1, 2...19 were arbitrarily assigned to those players.  The consistency in this system would be "points per chart = 1+2+...+number_of_submitters" no matter how many ties there are.

The two can't readily be converted to each other in a form where they can both exist.

[Tails47 2]

i feel there should be ONE CHAMPION. But subchampions aswell as you say.

Let's take Sonic and Knuckles for example!

When you click on Sonic and Knuckles, you see the overall ("true") champ. This would be times, scores, and rings combined.

Sections would look like this

Overall I Times I Scores I Rings I

Scores and rings should be worth half the amount.

So essentially times iwould be worth 1/2 and scores and rings would be the other 1/2!

Yay!

[yse]

- One championship per game and a sub-championship for each category

I'm leaning towards this, with the game championship taking every record into account, and weighting each category (or maybe even each level) depending upon the number of players.

So submitting a load of rings records won't do much for your position unless everyone else is doing so as well.

[snapback]7934[/snapback]

I'm very much in favour of this idea. To have an overall championship and each category being subordinate to that makes sense anyway - but this idea matches the sort of weighting idea I was looking for when I first proposed an overall TSC rankings scheme.

Of course, to incorporate these into the rankings we need to reach a consensus on what they should be weighted. At the moment weighting them all equally seems the most likely, but that seems silly given the relative emphasis put on the different divisions over the past two years.

Actually, the more I think about this the more it makes sense. Since there're more players in time-based ranks this rankings scheme would favour time players for now, but the change in rankings would get players competing in all divisions and even them out over time.

On a final note, if we're serious about giving ring divisions a fair go, we need the ring picture next to ring submissions back. X)EDIT: Done already! Quick response time ftw!

[Shadow Wedge]

I like Sprint's idea the best. I'm unsure whether I like fewer points being better or more points being better yet.