[Stardust Speedman]

Obligatory FAQ reference!

How does the ranking system work?
Players are ranked in each game by points. Points are calculated by adding up your rank in each division in a game and then subtracting the number of divisions. This means that first place is worth 0 points, second place is 1, and so on. If you had all the site records for a game, your point total would be 0.

Thanks, Mike89!

This way your points depend on your ranks, but not directly on your records. I have a new idea for calculating points. I know that you guys won't use it in all probability, but I still like to explain it:

In every mission of every stage in every division, The one who has the best record gets 1000000 points and the one who has the worst record gets 0 points. In rings and score divisions the points of all the others on the list will be calculated as follows:

[(the record of this player) - (the record of the worst player)] / [(the record of the best player) - (the record of the worst player)] * 1000000

And in times divisions as follows:

[(the record of the worst player) - (the record of this player)] / [(the record of the worst player) - (the record of the best player)] * 1000000

That is pretty much it. The way you calculate points, you only show who is the best, but this way, you can see how much better than the others this person really is, by looking at the points.

An example:

In Sonic Heroes - Times - Rail Canyon - Team Dark, Eredani gets 1000000 points and GarnetPrincess 0 points. My points would be:

(61744 milliseconds - 27113 milliseconds) / (61744 milliseconds - 20848 milliseconds) * 1000000 = 846806.5336 points (which is ~ 846807 points)

With a high number like 1000000, the possibility that two persons get accidentally exactly the same points, because of rounding off the numbers after the comma, gets very very low.

[SprintGod]

Making points dependent upon the crap players is a stupid idea.

[Thorn]

I've always thought that an idea like this would be nice... until I saw it written down.  It's just too complex (and I'm saying this after doing calculus homework).

[Stardust Speedman]

It may look complex, but when this gets done automatically with a software program, then it isn't really that complex.

[Thorn]

^True, but I don't always have access to TSC when I try to better my stats.  I frequently do the math in my head when I'm away from a computer.

Pretend I'm 24687 points behind you in Rush.  That would mean I'd have to play Rush and subtract each new stat I get from my old stat to get the total point deduction.  I'd then have to total the point deductions and subtract that total from my current points to see if I surpassed you.

I can see how this idea might have some perks, because a player would benefit by improving a stat even if he/she already has the record.  But there's too much work involved, and it wouldn't be worth altering the entire rankings system.

Speaking of records, did you ever figure out how to do Night Carnival 2?  I gave up on writing the guide I mentioned in your old topic since the level's so complex.

[SadisticMystic]

-It values divisions too equally.  A chart with 2 players will award 1000000 and 0, but one with 89 players has the same 1000000/0 bounds.  There's no extra bonus for being in first on a popular chart and no larger penalty for being behind 88 others.
-It makes the rankings easily manipulable.  Someone creates an alternate account and submits 99:59.99 for everything, inflating their own score to move it asymptotically close to the record point-wise.  Once someone does that, everyone else gets clumped really close to the top.
-1000000 points is just too much.  It'll make for some really long table cells in the rankings page, and it's not that big a deal if two players are close enough together that they get the same point total.

You might give Cyberscore's formula a look.  First place is worth 100 - (40/number of players), and further places are scaled down, probably by a comparison formula similar to your suggestion, but I haven't figured it out yet and the last-place points are variable.  It would solve the problem of improving from 10 seconds behind leader to 1 second behind (with no one in between) not doing anything for your points, but we're still holding out for that perfect formula, and using an easy-to-see formula until then.  It might be a while...

[Stardust Speedman]

oO Well, thats true what you say, if you really bother yourself with calculating your points. I never did something like that. oO

Speaking of records, did you ever figure out how to do Night Carnival 2?  I gave up on writing the guide I mentioned in your old topic since the level's so complex.

I never played that level again and I won't do until I sail in with rings records. Thanks for asking, but for each record I have to give up at a point, otherwise, I have to play the game my whole life long. I'm satisfied with my Night Carnival 2 Time and Score records, even if I could do better (And I know that I can if I would spend more time on that level, but I think I've had it.). Those records are records wich I reached on my own without the help of someone else. If you help me getting a better record, then that record isn't really my record, because without your help I probably never would get that record. However, this doesn't mean that I would never accept help! ~^

Anyway, I really haven't enough time for doing records! In the moment, I play 7 games simultaneously: Sonic Adventure 2 Battle, Sonic Advance, Sonic Battle, Project Rub (Feel The Magic...), Sonic Rush, Shadow The Hedgehog and Sonic Riders and I plan to finish them all completely. However, I care only about records in Sonic Rush. Simultaneously, I have a lot of work to do for my studies. O God, this world can be really cruel! oO

@ SadisticMystic: oO Your right! I never looked at it from that view. Well it was just a dinky suggestion.

[Stardust Speedman]

Ok, I have improved my idea:

The one who has the best record gets 1000 points. In rings and score divisions the points of all the others on the list, encluding the worst one, will be calculated as follows:

(the record of this player) / (the record of the best player) * 1000

In times divisions we need a record that deserves 0 points. I thought 20 minutes is a good idea. If your record is worse than 20 minutes you get minus points. For example, if your record is exactly 40 minutes, you get -1000 points. If you don't submit a time record for a level at all, you automatically get 0 points for that level. This means that if your record is worse than 20 minutes you shouldn't submit your record at all. The points in times divisions for all players except the best one would be calculated as follows:

[20 minutes - (the record of this player)] / [20 minutes - (the record of the best player)] * 1000

20 minutes is 120000 milliseconds. An example:

In Sonic Heroes - Times - Rail Canyon - Team Dark, Eredani gets 1000 points. My points would be:

(120000 milliseconds - 27113 milliseconds) / (120000 milliseconds - 20848 milliseconds) * 1000 = 936.8141843 (which is ~ 937 points)

The record of the worst player, who is GarnetPrincess, would be:

(120000 milliseconds - 61744 milliseconds) / (120000 milliseconds - 20848 milliseconds) * 1000 = 587.5423592 (which is ~ 588 points)

I hope this resolves all the problems which my last idea had and that you like it. If you guys agree to use this point calculating system, you don't have to replace the old one with this. I would suggest to simply ad another column for this. By the way, I absolutly don't expect anything. If you don't want to use this, because it is too much work to add something like this, or whatever, I can totally understand. It was just an idea.

[SadisticMystic]

One nice thing about TSC is that it already has support for default times.  Rather than using 20:00 everywhere, it can just call the default value (in Sonic CD this is 5:00, in Sonic 1-3 it's 10:00, in SA2 it's 30:00).  A good idea there.  It would break a rule, though, that a player should never be penalized for adding a submission.  This is easily fixed by valuing times above the default as 0 instead of negative.

There's still the issue that the difference between first and last doesn't change as more players come in, and is actually dependent on the length of the level in this case (something like the Team One/Two boss battles in Heroes come to mind, with a huge default combining with a very quick level such that there's almost no difference between 5 seconds and 20 point-wise, even though it's a quadrupling of the time).

A bit better than the last, but I'm still holding out.

[Stardust Speedman]

There's still the issue that the difference between first and last doesn't change as more players come in, and is actually dependent on the length of the level in this case (something like the Team One/Two boss battles in Heroes come to mind, with a huge default combining with a very quick level such that there's almost no difference between 5 seconds and 20 point-wise, even though it's a quadrupling of the time).

Hmmm... Damn, your right again! :O Well, in the moment I can't think of any solution. :(

[Shadow Wedge]

You might give Cyberscore's formula a look.  First place is worth 100 - (40/number of players), and further places are scaled down, probably by a comparison formula similar to your suggestion, but I haven't figured it out yet and the last-place points are variable.  It would solve the problem of improving from 10 seconds behind leader to 1 second behind (with no one in between) not doing anything for your points, but we're still holding out for that perfect formula, and using an easy-to-see formula until then.  It might be a while...

I'll see if they still have the topic explaining exactly what they use for their system.

Edit: Ah, found it.

[CosmicFalcon]

20 minutes is 120000 milliseconds.

I give you a grade W in maths.

The W is for wtf.

[F-Man]

20 minutes is 120000 milliseconds.

I give you a grade W in maths.

The W is for wtf.

Yeah, milliseconds and centiseconds get way too much confused nowadays...

Also Siavash: why are you trying so hard to change the system when it's just fine as is?

[Stardust Speedman]

20 minutes is 120000 milliseconds.

I give you a grade W in maths.

The W is for wtf.

Yeah, milliseconds and centiseconds get way too much confused nowadays...

Oh, sorry about that millisecond/centisecond thing! You understood what I meant. ~^" And no one before CosmicFalcon even noticed that, so it was OK. XP

Also Siavash: why are you trying so hard to change the system when it's just fine as is?

Just for fun! XP I gave up already. The point was, that the current point system only depends on rankings, but it doesn't really show how skilled a player is, because the skill of a player depends on her/his recrords and not directly on his rank position.

[Rolken]

Just because the system's fine now doesn't mean it can't be improved. It's something worth considering.

There're several broad aims of an overall ranking system that I can think of (maybe others can identify more):

1] Reward average players for progressing
2] Reward exceptional achievement
3] Fairly compare people of disparate achievement
4] Be comprehensible to the players

I think we do a pretty good job of 3 and a really good job of 1 and 4. 2 is our weak point.
Cyberscore heavily emphasises 2 and completely ignores 4. I don't know their system well enough to judge the others.

I've occasionally considered some kind of "point bonus" for upper-level times, maybe 1st-4, 2nd-2, red-1. I wouldn't be universally opposed to a more complicated algorithm, but I wouldn't go with one unless there was some way of making it more comprehensible, such as "you need

• to reach [y]".

[Thorn]

I think that no matter what system is used, there's always going to be a problem with certain moves that some can do and others can't.  Consider Casinopolis for Sonic.  Clearing the level in a few seconds can only be done by Dreamcast owners; GameCube owners will have to settle for second-best.  If there's a dividing line that separates "exceptional achievement" from tricks of the trade, I'm okay with reforming the system.

[Cybrax]

they do something like this on mario kart.

[Marth]

I think that no matter what system is used, there's always going to be a problem with certain moves that some can do and others can't.  Consider Casinopolis for Sonic.  Clearing the level in a few seconds can only be done by Dreamcast owners; GameCube owners will have to settle for second-best.  If there's a dividing line that separates "exceptional achievement" from tricks of the trade, I'm okay with reforming the system.

25 seconds (and lower) counts as "a few", doesn't it? Sure, Dreamcast has about a 12-second advantage,
but that's not much of a problem. Still, I know what you mean. Even though CP's problem is gone,
there's still Final Egg, which gives GameCube players an even bigger advantage.
It would be nice to get more points for getting way ahead, but there would be flaws like that.
(Also, I'm not way ahead in Hot Shelter like I was before. I'm not even ahead at all for now.
I wouldn't get a big reward for that stage, although I guess I could get a decent number of points for WV.)

[Zeupar]

Just because the system's fine now doesn't mean it can't be improved. It's something worth considering.

There're several broad aims of an overall ranking system that I can think of (maybe others can identify more):

1] Reward average players for progressing
2] Reward exceptional achievement
3] Fairly compare people of disparate achievement
4] Be comprehensible to the players

I think we do a pretty good job of 3 and a really good job of 1 and 4. 2 is our weak point.
Cyberscore heavily emphasises 2 and completely ignores 4.

I support Cyberscore's formula. I prefer rankings with a complex and hardly comprehensible formula if they are fairer.

We should consider adopting Cyberscore's formula (or a similar formula).

I think that no matter what system is used, there's always going to be a problem with certain moves that some can do and others can't.  Consider Casinopolis for Sonic.  Clearing the level in a few seconds can only be done by Dreamcast owners; GameCube owners will have to settle for second-best.  If there's a dividing line that separates "exceptional achievement" from tricks of the trade, I'm okay with reforming the system.

That seems hard to do. Anyway, most charts don't have that problem so it's not so important if a supposed new formula is a little unfair in some charts because overall it would be way fairer than the current one.

[Thorn]

...that was an 20-month bump, Zeupar. WOW.

...although in all honesty this is a topic that should never die; there's always room for reform, especially now that Gerbil's done fuck all to the site. Marth's Final Egg example has been flipped around the other direction to aid Dreamcast players since this topic was last updated. :P If you're aiming for reform, though, you'd hafta check that Gerbil or an admin cares enough to do the necessary work, and that the end results, when viewed both in terms of per-game and Sitewide, still represent a fair ranking of skill.