[douglas]

Would bosses remain the same value on the charts though? I suppose it's time-attacking, but I hate them and it's my worst area in SA. What say you guys?

Again I shall say that arbitrarily assigning values is not the answer.  The more people compete in a chart, the more benefit to being at the top and the more damage from being at the bottom - that's the way to determine the value of the charts, not "I don't like RAing so make it worth half".

If many people are RA/SAing, it's competitive and deserves to be recognised as such.  If not, no problem.

[magnum12]

I am strongly anti rings and scores being removed.  In a lot of cases there's as much if not more strategy and skillful gameplay involved in RA/SAing.  Sure, it can be time consuming and frustrating, but as has been said so is TAing on occasion.  Championships are a measure of who is all-around best at a game, not who is the best TAer.  That's what Time Leaderships are for.  The only change I'd be in favour of is more prominence of Time/Boss leaderships - that happens anyway, because more people TA than RA/SA.

In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway.

Also don't take my scores kplz, adv2 is mine >_>

Douglas wins yet another topic. If you want to give time more weight, why not just add a new division to the time charts called the Natural Division? Basically, this special class of TAing does not allow you to use glitches, thus challenging players to not rely on them to get fast times. Obviously only applies to stages in which a glitch is used to get the best time. Comes with the "Nature Boy" award to the division leader.

[Crowbar]

Good luck defining "glitch". And actually enforcing that rule.

[Shadow Jacky]

Good luck defining "glitch". And actually enforcing that rule.

concur'd

[douglas]

Douglas wins the topic again.

Douglas wins yet another topic.

I have won every topic; some of them just aren't aware of it yet.

[Waxwings]

"In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway."

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic

This is an old point, but there's at least some merit to it.

[Spinballwizard]

I am personally against scores/rings.

More rings than scores. Rings have a defined maximum (though some, i.e. SA2, require skill to attain and aren't blatantly obvious) that in most cases is relatively easy to achieve (late levels and character altitude limitations aside). Scores, on the other hand, can have some variance; enemy chains, presence of score gimmicks or lack thereof, or timing on your jump off a ramp (the bane of my few Shitty Escape SA's). Even then, though, once a trick is found stuff can be broken (take, for example, my discovery of near-infinite scores possible just by tricking repeatedly off a spring in Advance 2).

But I remember a day when only times counted towards your overall ranking. Those days pwned. I was a top 5 player in Adv2. And I wouldn't mind those times again. >_>

But keep rings/scores as a novelty I guess without weight. Or lessen the weight. I don't care.

[Parax]

"In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway."

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic

This is an old point, but there's at least some merit to it.

Ring totals display everyone who has submitted to even one chart while time totals only display people with a full times chart.

[Waxwings]

Even so, there's quite a disparity. S3D rings have come up quite a lot before on this account.

[P.P.A.]

As I never get around to SA and RA in Sonic CD I would really support it. It would cause damage in SC though, where my only redeeming quality at the moment is my perfect ring stats.
That, and I found RAing Sonic CD also rather relaxing, it gave you a chance to explore the levels more...
I'm not sure about RA yet, but if score attacking was gone I'd openly welcome it (except for games like Sonic Battle or PINBALL PARTY where it's the whole point of course >_>). I never found it interesting, it's annoying and also feels so pointless.

tl;dr fuck scores but rings can stay.

[bertin]

As I never get around to SA and RA in Sonic CD I would really support it. It would cause damage in SC though, where my only redeeming quality at the moment is my perfect ring stats.
That, and I found RAing Sonic CD also rather relaxing, it gave you a chance to explore the levels more...
I'm not sure about RA yet, but if score attacking was gone I'd openly welcome it (except for games like Sonic Battle or PINBALL PARTY where it's the whole point of course >_>). I never found it interesting, it's annoying and also feels so pointless.

tl;dr fuck scores but rings can stay.

Yeah I almost forgot...Sonic Battle is all scores!

[Aitamen]

As usual (as much as I hate to admit it), Doug put more of my ideas into words.

To Jawzun: Why don't you like RA/SA?  I'm curious. You hold a fair amount of the records in said areas...

To RPG: Before the new trick was found it took be about 30 runs to get max rings on SB1, and the new trick didn't seem that hard for me to pull off, personally, so I could see netting them all if fewer than 100 runs, even on a bad day...

compare that to the 634 runs it took me to get :24 GH1 (and the previous 1k+ to get :25) or the 10k+ runs to get :18 EH1S, or the omgwtfbbq runs to get my 24'45 NGH1S in SAdva.

Now as I've said, I am fairly ignorant concerning SA rings/scores, but if it's just because people aren't good at them, or are too lazy to do them, then it's a BS reason to weight the charts differently.  S3DB, as noted above, requires you to max rings before really bothering to compete, lest you start out with a ton of points before you even really start trying to beat those awesome times.

)I will, at some point soon, run RAs of Sonic Adventure, once I finish getting over the whole "damn I hate 3D games" thing, and once I find a way to snapshot or record my recs off my TV, if for no other reason than to understand why everyone hates these rankings so much...)

[douglas]

"In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway."

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic

This is an old point, but there's at least some merit to it.

The reason so many have done S3D rings is that it's easy to 100% them.  There is an incentive to play things that can be perfected; so little in life is perfect, that which is is satisfying.  My point remains: if we are to allow a democratic system for weighting rankings, there isn't a better one that the one we have currently, where the popularity of a stat directly impacts its importance to the championship.  Anything else is going to be contentious and subjective, and that's not good in my book.

Having all the charts count doesn't impact anybody's ability to only play what they enjoy playing.  "Ah, but if I want to be champ I need them all", I hear you say.  Why such a weighting on the championship if there are elements of it you don't value?  That's what Leaderships are for.  Either be a completionist, suck it up and set stats for each chart, or play what you enjoy and only complete there.  I enjoy playing Leaf Forest 1, Hot Crater 2 and Ice Paradise 2 in adv2, and I don't particularly like the Music Plant or Techno Base stages - as such, I play them more and have tended to set better stats (not just times) in them.  Should I be demanding those are the only ones that should count?  In general, people like to play the earlier stages as Sonic, so those are more competitive.  Should we only count those?  No, that would be ridiculous.  Asking for RAing and SAing to be banned where there is valid competition might not be that silly, but it's not far off when the reasoning is that you just don't like them.

tl;dr: if you only care about times, compete for Times leaderships, stop bitching and have fun.

[Waxwings]

As usual (as much as I hate to admit it), Doug put more of my ideas into words.

To Jawzun: Why don't you like RA/SA?  I'm curious. You hold a fair amount of the records in said areas...

To RPG: Before the new trick was found it took be about 30 runs to get max rings on SB1, and the new trick didn't seem that hard for me to pull off, personally, so I could see netting them all if fewer than 100 runs, even on a bad day...

compare that to the 634 runs it took me to get :24 GH1 (and the previous 1k+ to get :25) or the 10k+ runs to get :18 EH1S, or the omgwtfbbq runs to get my 24'45 NGH1S in SAdva.

Now as I've said, I am fairly ignorant concerning SA rings/scores, but if it's just because people aren't good at them, or are too lazy to do them, then it's a BS reason to weight the charts differently.  S3DB, as noted above, requires you to max rings before really bothering to compete, lest you start out with a ton of points before you even really start trying to beat those awesome times.

)I will, at some point soon, run RAs of Sonic Adventure, once I finish getting over the whole "damn I hate 3D games" thing, and once I find a way to snapshot or record my recs off my TV, if for no other reason than to understand why everyone hates these rankings so much...)

Well the original issue (and one that should probably be brought up here, too) is over sitewide. <_<

[douglas]

As usual (as much as I hate to admit it), Doug put more of my ideas into words.

To Jawzun: Why don't you like RA/SA?  I'm curious. You hold a fair amount of the records in said areas...

To RPG: Before the new trick was found it took be about 30 runs to get max rings on SB1, and the new trick didn't seem that hard for me to pull off, personally, so I could see netting them all if fewer than 100 runs, even on a bad day...

compare that to the 634 runs it took me to get :24 GH1 (and the previous 1k+ to get :25) or the 10k+ runs to get :18 EH1S, or the omgwtfbbq runs to get my 24'45 NGH1S in SAdva.

Now as I've said, I am fairly ignorant concerning SA rings/scores, but if it's just because people aren't good at them, or are too lazy to do them, then it's a BS reason to weight the charts differently.  S3DB, as noted above, requires you to max rings before really bothering to compete, lest you start out with a ton of points before you even really start trying to beat those awesome times.

)I will, at some point soon, run RAs of Sonic Adventure, once I finish getting over the whole "damn I hate 3D games" thing, and once I find a way to snapshot or record my recs off my TV, if for no other reason than to understand why everyone hates these rankings so much...)

Well the original issue (and one that should probably be brought up here, too) is over sitewide. <_<

In that case, how about sitewide Times (including Bosses?), Rings (inc Special Stages?), Scores and Other (Special Stages/Bosses?) charts to accompany the main Sitewide rankings may be in order - yesno?

[Stefan]

Magnum, that may have been one of the most terrible suggestions I've ever heard. The problem at hand is that scores and rings detract from the more real competitions. Adding a new, arbitrary time division (which is entirely undefinable, by the way) is adding more pointless charts we don't need. If we are arguing scores and rings are unnecessary, what possibly makes you think we want more charts?

[Magnezone]

I think the real problem with the site is the amount of redundant rankings plaguing all of the games. There are too many stats on the site that can be easily maxed by barely trying. If we're going to conclude the discussion of completely axing scores/rings because they are all broken in some way, then lets move on to wondering why stats like these are obtainable records, like I originally posted about a million internet years ago in the beef forum.

I don't know about you, but the basic fundamental of a competition site is competition, and when competition is dumbed down to a scenario where everyone is simply striving to tie each other instead of overcome each others challenges/set new precedents, it isn't exactly exciting. It's depressing to look around the site and see so many lines of silvers leading into yellows/greens/blues, completely skipping red/orange stats, and in most cases, have a number of players that is more than most that aren't the described scenario. And don't tell me that the thirteen links I provided are the only cases. I estimate 300-450 stats on the site like this, and they are spread into almost all games.

[Stefan]

I plan on evaluating your estimation, Skyl, but I must make some points.

Often, in a difficult ring attack, the only people who submit are those who managed to get the max. As such, a hard ring attack often skips over red and orange entirely, as in here:

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_1/rings/scrap_brain_1

Second, I think there has to be a distinction between -competed- in statistics that have no red/orange, and statistics that have no red orange because nobody plays them. When the issue at hand is that of easy records distracting competition, I think records that aren't competed in in the first place should be immune from the distinction of 'Degenerative, redundant' statistics.

in other words, http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_the_hedgehog/rings/boss_attack/shadow

is not

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_and_the_secret_rings/times/lost_prologue/mission_11

[flying fox]

Please don't remove the rings and scores, I love RAing and SAing its so much fun. I'm not much of a TAer. Do whatever you want to them I don't care just please don't remove them :(

EDIT: If something is going to change can't you just change the weight/value of them. i'll be happy with that, just please keep them. 

[Magnezone]

Your second point first, I agree. The rankings only get accurately color coordinated when a certain number of stats have been submitted. I tend to think of that number as somewhere from 8-10.

Your first point is more complicated because we have no real definition as to what "easy" is defined as when used to describe TSC's competition. Personally, having experienced S&K ring attacking, I find S1 rings very easy... Scrap Brain 1 only required an hour or two of practice for me to get originally :( All it required of me was that I felt like figuring out the route on how to do it.

Also, concerning Scrap Brain 1, might I note that 9 people were originally on the Scrap Brain 1 ring chart before i put my video up in February? There's 15 people there now :( It seems as if my videos for Sonic 1's Rings division made most Sonic 1 rings redundant, degenerative, noob fodder, ect. The point - plotting the strategies + recording them + providing them has destroyed Sonic 1 Rings exclusivity.

[Shadow Jacky]

except hiding strats is lame >_>

[Auriman1]

Your second point first, I agree. The rankings only get accurately color coordinated when a certain number of stats have been submitted. I tend to think of that number as somewhere from 8-10.

Your first point is more complicated because we have no real definition as to what "easy" is defined as when used to describe TSC's competition. Personally, having experienced S&K ring attacking, I find S1 rings very easy... Scrap Brain 1 only required an hour or two of practice for me to get originally :( All it required of me was that I felt like figuring out the route on how to do it.

Also, concerning Scrap Brain 1, might I note that 9 people were originally on the Scrap Brain 1 ring chart before i put my video up in February? There's 15 people there now :( It seems as if my videos for Sonic 1's Rings division made most Sonic 1 rings redundant, degenerative, noob fodder, ect. The point - plotting the strategies + recording them + providing them has destroyed Sonic 1 Rings exclusivity.

I agree with this. Rings and scores are only challenging when you aren't provided the information of how to get them. If you've got that, there's not much to it, except maybe patience where ? ring containers are involved. Are people really proving anything by following the crowd for a few generic stats, or investing countless hours in hopes of getting the better result by complete chance? Tying into what Shadow Jacky pointed out, does it make sense for people to only have an edge because they might know something someone else doesn't, especially when they'll quickly lose this edge upon the information's discovery? I do not see the relevance.

Times are a different story. People can be shown the exact route the best time has taken, and still struggle to get even remotely close to it. Also, assuming you can duplicate your movements exactly, there's no random factors, just skill. You can improve upon yourself by perfecting techniques and devising new strategies, maybe even developing routes of your own. That's more the concept of what competition should be in my mind.

[Stefan]

Tying into what Shadow Jacky pointed out, does it make sense for people to only have an edge because they might know something someone else doesn't, especially when they'll quickly lose this edge upon the information's discovery?

Welcome to competition?

[flying fox]

At this point the voting is too skewed for wiping the categories completely to be a reasonable option. As noted in chat, my favored option is to give rings/score half credit on overall rankings and leave full credit to times. Are there any substantive disagreements or alternate suggestions?

I would be very happy with this, so please do this. As I said before please don't wipe them out.

[FuzZerd]

I think 1/2 is a little bit low I think 3/4 or a littler bit higher would be best.

[Cutiefox]

If they're removed, competing in Sonic Heroes will be no fun. :(
Besides, scores and rings usually decide your rank. Why keep a bunch of shitty ranks on your file just because you didn't want to get more points/rings?

[Rolken]

Secrets don't make competition. It shouldn't matter if information is public, it should be how people can use it that matters.

Your competition ideal is not the same as the one TSC operates on. If competitors were beholden to reveal all their new routes to everyone else, there would be little point to figuring out new routes, which is silly; plus it's obviously nonenforceable.

In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway.

This is a key point (and one I now remember making myself before I forgot everything about this competition stuff <_<). Looking over the rankings, in almost all games rings and scores are already weighted below 50% compared to times, and none come close to parity. So I suppose the only remaining question is whether they are unsufficiently skillful to justify even that, which is a tough case to make.

[Stefan]

In some games, however, the little effort put into scores in rings often overpowers that put into times. Though in most games times dictate competition, there are a few exceptions which may need looking at.

[Shadowfan]

Removing scores and ring charts is a pathetic idea. Even changing the game weights for ring and score attacks is a pathetic idea. If you remove them or make them weighed less just because less people compete in them, then you shouldn't include games that hardly anybody competes in(i.e. Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity, Sonic Rivals 1 & 2, Sonic The Fighters and Sonic Jam). I could see valuing them less if like 10 people competed in scores/rings while like 70 people competed in times, but it isn't like that. Besides, in some games, ring attacking is way harder than time attacking. In Shadow, for example, ring attacking various levels is even harder then time attacking them. Also, just because things like rings and scores have less competitors, isn't a legitamate excuse to remove them. It means that members just don't compete in them because they might not know how to or be able to figure out how to do something or they're simply too lazy to compete, which is punishing more skilled, clever or ambitious players for being more skilled, clever or ambitious.    

[Magnezone]

HELLO I AM SOMEONE AND I THINK I WILL IGNORE READING THE TOPIC BECAUSE IT IS TOO LONG FOR ME AND JUST MAKE A POST BASED ON THE FIRST POST IN THE TOPIC REGARDLESS OF ANY DISCUSSION CURRENTLY OCCURING OR WHETHER OR NOT MY POINT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE