[yse]

My current stance on version differences is as follows: I'm working on an algorithm to rank them fairly.

Observe the following hypothetical chart (loosely based on Final Egg):

1. 10 (DC)
2. 11 (DC)
3. 50 (GC)
4. 51 (GC)

Now obviously all submissions will have to be marked DC or GC for this to work. This can work retroactively by stating that "if a submission has no marking, it's assumed to be the one that's worse to their ranking".

Additionally, a user setting would be implemented, with three options:
* Let me choose my system manually (Default)
* Mark my times GC automatically
* Mark my times DC automatically
If you choose manual, you'd have a DC/GC checkbox per stat, probably on the Confirm screen. (This might be a good way to get people to check their stats!)

The process to obtain a ranking now has two steps:
1. The best DC and GC times are both records, worth 0 points.
2. Rankings are now obtained by the percentage difference between their stat and the record.

This puts our ranking as follows:
1. 10 (DC)
1. 50 (GC)
3. 51 (GC) [2%]
4. 11 (DC) [10%]
Or, they can be viewed as side by side DC/GC charts to look less confusing.

I think it's a more accurate representation of skill than to just say "tough cheese" if you don't have the right system. Of course, there's easy and hard glitches to get close to the same time on... I don't know whether, and how, it should take effect, but I'm leaning towards it being the same for all version differences for the sake of simplicity.

Propose hypothetical bad situations for this, propose alternative solutions... the whole point of having an awesome community like this is to collaborate on awesome ideas.

[EngiNerd]

Isn't that similar to what I said here?
I like the idea, one question though - I may have just never noticed this, but the actual number of points someone has is related to how far away from the record s/he is?  I somehow thought it concerned more number of players than distance from record.
Mostly because I'm tired of the "tough cheezers".  And I have zero incentive to actively play Final Egg until something gets fixed for this.

[yse]

For the first, yeah, it is similar, but I at least give reasons why the rankings are the way they are. :)

For the second, 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.

EDIT: Also note that the way I've laid it out, a player would be able to submit twice: once for each division. This wouldn't have any impact on their score from the level because only their best would count, but if a player had both the DC and GC record, it'd affect the rankings, I think in a positive way, as the record time is the basis by which the rest of the rankings are affected.

[EngiNerd]

Yeah, shut up.  I explained myself eventually.  But still, all I mean is that I fully endorse your idea.  Now I just need to work on people taking me seriously, and we're set.  :P

[Stefan]

To anti: Final egg sonic dx has gotten under 50 seconds in the past, and I've currently got a 1:02, on gamecube. There is plenty of incentive to play the level, and it is very possible to get orange, or even red times, on a gamecube.

To mike:
Oh it's percentage based. Haha never mind.

Instead I'll bring up a chart like this: http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_adventure_2_b/times/eternal_engine/mission_1

Blazest played on Dreamcast, I'm almost certain of that. Assuming I -am- right when I say that, this system would push him into the green. For only the reason that SM broke a level to pieces, blazest would be pushed back into the green, as his percentage from the record is worse than almost any gc players to the gc record. The only reason this is true is because the dreamcast record was pushed so low. I don't think it's fair to require people, who would come in 4th place otherwise, to execute glitches in order to keep their stats out of the green. It's a problem that low records will cause anywhere. SM will certainly break another level in the future, unfortunately pushing all the other dreamcast players way lower than they should deservedly go.

[Bilan]

Not to be a "tough cheezer" Anti but I doubt you could pull off the DC FE-S strat anyway >__>

[EngiNerd]

Not to be a "tough cheezer" Anti but I doubt you could pull off the DC FE-S strat anyway >__>

Ooh, I sense a challenge.  What, now, makes you think that I couldn't do that, huh?  Do you think I'm weak?  DO YOU THINK I'M WEAK?!?!

[Bilan]

Nope, just that its a ridiculously tricky strat and this >_____>

[yoshifan]

Stefan brings up a good point, I think.  I'm not sure how to arrange the ranking order to not look strange, but I might have another idea to fix the chart-point system.  It's similar to mike's idea, but still based on rankings instead of percentages from the top time.

Suppose we have a chart in a game with two possible systems - A and D - and A has an advantage over D in this chart.  Then for that chart, we could apply a chart-points algorithm like this:

- any submission under system A uses the same points system as the current one: one point for each player ahead of you.
- any submission under system D uses the same points system, except it only takes into account the stats from the top system-D time to the bottom of the chart.  However, it's not one point for each player ahead of you: it's scaled so that if you're last place in a chart of 75 people, you'll still get 74 points.

Here's an example, not-so-subtly based off of Final Egg (Sonic):

Rank	Time	Points	System
1	0:07:83	0	A
2	0:08:51	1	A
3	0:08:63	2	A
4	0:09:44	3	A
5	0:09:48	4	A
6	0:14:84	5	A
7	0:16:06	6	A
8	0:17:96	7	A
9	0:19:98	8	A
10	0:59:33	0	D
11	1:00:96	1 * (85/76)	D
12	1:02:66	2 * (85/76)	D
13	1:03:60	3 * (85/76)	D
14	1:05:58	4 * (85/76)	D
15	1:06:40	5 * (85/76)	D
...	...	...	...
82	9:02:63	72 * (85/76)	D
83	9:17:48	73 * (85/76)	D
84	9:39:58	83	A
85	12:18:68	75 * (85/76)	D
86	12:37:10	76 * (85/76)	D

Like mike's algorithm, this algorithm would leave the top few system-D times with pretty good (low) point values, and overall system-D players would be boosted a bit compared to our current simple algorithm.

There's another significant thing that I think both algorithms address: toward the bottom of the chart, the system-A and system-D algorithms come closer together in point value, which is consistent with fewer players taking advantage of system differences near the bottom of the chart.

One large conflict between mike's idea and this idea is how a system-A time of 0:50:00 would be treated.  In this algorithm it would be about equivalent in points to the 9th-best system-D time, 1:20:75.  In mike's algorithm, which is based on percentage, I think it would be equivalent to a system-D time of about 6:18:86.  (7.83 / 50.00 is approximately 59.33 / 378.86.)  What do you think this kind of time should deserve?

[Stefan]

I like that system a lot more; it no longer punishes players when an advantage is found.

[yse]

And a 1:00 time on System A (1 point, for being below  the D record) works out better than a :10 time on System A (5 points). It's better than what I had, but still proving tricky to nail down.

[Stefan]

i've explained to miek that a 1:00 a time isn't better than a  :15 a time and all is good~

[Bilan]

The only problem I see with that is that it would punish people that cant finish the level in 15 seconds;

What I mean is, for any DC player that finished in say, 3 minutes, theres no reason why a GC player...ok I cant explain that in words very well, so Ill try and illustrate what I mean by crudely stealing yoshi's fantastic chart

For sake of saving space, lets imagine this is part of yoshis table, and there is 1 more time marked "A"  between 15th place and lets say 40th.

Rank	Time	Points	System
40th	3:01:83	39	A
41st	3:18:51	29	D

There is no reason why the person using system D should not receive full points once all times slip below a certain point or something, I know that youre trying to make the rankings fairer, but looking at it here, it just seems as though this new system will wind up unjustly benefiting people with crap times, unless Im missing something anyway

[yoshifan]

Actually, it goes something like:

Rank	Time	Points	System
40th	3:01:83	39	A
41st	3:18:51	34.67 = 31 * (85/76)	D

But I think the problem you're trying to illustrate is still there.  While this algorithm makes the system A/D point difference lower gradually toward the bottom of the chart, there's really no point in having any difference midway down the chart or lower.  Particularly in this level, the main system advantage isn't going to matter midway down the chart or so, since the advantage yields such low times.  It's a good point... I'm not sure how to address it right now.

[Bilan]

I wasnt sure if I got the algorithm right in my example but Im glad that it was at least comprehendable enough to get my point across X)

[Groudon]

It has been brought to my attention that details regarding Sonic06's free roam were requested?

Well, even if not, here's how it goes.

On all of Silver's town missions (and some of Shadow's and Sonic's), if you hold a certain button (or button combination) during the loading screen to load the mission intro (or the end scene), Sonic/Shadow/Silver will be able to roam around the town (or forest) without any worry about being timed.  If the town has any breakable objects (like street signs or barrels), you can destroy those to add to your internally-tracked score.  The score will carry over to when you actually begin the mission objective.  The objects will respawn each time, so you can destroy the objects again to get those points again.  New City seems to almost always lack any breakable objects, and I haven't found anything in the forest, even when not doing a mission.

However, a small number of missions (only two that I've noticed of Silver's) put random people in the town with blue "!" over their heads, identifying them as people who give you a mission.  After completing the mission objective once, going into free roam and talking to one of these people will restart the mission, but with all your points and rings from your previous attempt, but reset your time.

[Bilan]

Aha, thanks for clearing that up :o

[Groudon]

Actually, I was a bit mistaken.  The timer does not reset, but if you're doing a timed mission, the time remaining resets.

[DsSaster]

I agree, that rule should definitely be enacted for Sonic 06. Also, as far as the handling of version differences go, although I -hate- it when I'm at a disadvantages(and often find myself searching for a way to get around that disadvantage, which sometimes I'm successful in...like here), I would say to keep things the way they are.  Yes, the disadvantages can be quite...staggering at points like SA(DX)'s Final Egg, but even with disadvantages, it's not impossible to climb up the charts.  For example, yoshifan is the champ of SA2(B) with only the gamecube version, while Psyknux has both versions.  I'm the champ of SA(DX) with only the gamecube version, while Jawzun has both versions. 

Alternatively, I would go with yoshifan's method of handling it, but there's only 1 problem I see with that which would, in my mind, create a bit of "unfairness" for some.  Let's create a scenario for Final Egg: Sonic in SA(DX).  We'll assume that the top 9 are dreamcast and the rest are gamecube.  A newcomer, dantheman(lol), arrives and starts to compete in SA(DX) and has the dreamcast version.  If you'll look at the chart, in accordance with yoshifan's method, you'll see that the maximum points this newcomer can get is 9 points, regardless of what his time is.  Let's say he knows not of the glitch, and couldn't care less about it.  He runs through the stage and finishes in 3:03:xx.  Now, according to yoshifan's method, if he had done this run on the gamecube version, he would receive 23 points, but since he used the dc version he'll only receive 9 points.  You'll notice that SkyL finished the stage in 1:21:96, yet he'll receive 10 points for his time.  Although RPG brings up a good point of how to handle that situation, what if there's a dreamcast player who could finish the stage without using the secret capsule in 58 seconds?  The player should get 9 points instead of 0 just because they have a dreamcast instead of a gamecube?  I do believe that the capsule is the only difference between the 2 versions, so in actuality, they take a hit solely because of the version they have(which is exactly how the current system is).  I see no way possible to make competition completely fair when it comes to version differences, other than deleting every chart that involves the slightest version difference, though I hope it won't come to that.  Although that would make things completely fair, it would eliminate a shitload of charts on the site, especially for SA(DX) and even more so for SA2(B).

So in conclusion, I believe that the "suck it up" concept should stay in place.  Besides, the disadvantages -usually- balance each other out in the end, though not all the time. My only example, don't expect to be champion of Sonic Heroes if you only have the ps2 version. >_>

[yse]

Actually, that got cleared up for me because I was asking the same questions myself.

Basically, the way it works is that there's two "start points" for calculation. This means that a bad Dreamcast time has all the Gamecube players applied to it: if a DC player is 33rd, he gets 32 points; the amount of DC players ahead of him is irrelevant.

Additionally, the Gamecube ranks are actually worth more than one point, so that once you get down the lower end of the chart the difference between DC and GC is nullified.

Mind you, Gerbil insists this isn't practical to implement so any discussion on the point is moot. >_>