[Rolken]

I'm testing a change to the sitewide ranking formula to make it more 'regressive'; games that are played a lot will be worth more, and games that aren't played much will be worth quite a bit less. I've updated the sitewide FAQ page to show you the changes in the weights, with the new weight equal to 1.25 * (oldweight - 1). You can see that SBK as a lesser played game lost almost half of its value, while SA2 as a highly played game gained some value, and the Unleashed DLC with almost no submissions is worth nothing at all until it gets more players.

I've updated the sitewide formula to reflect the experimental values so you can check out the differences. Most players are around the same, but players who emphasize highly competitive games will be a bit higher, and those who play less competitive games will be a bit lower.

So, question: is this a worthwhile change? Do you like the experimental weights on that page, do you feel like it makes a worthwhile difference? Would you feel more or less inclined to compete? Do you think TSC should be encouraging people to play underplayed games, or rewarding people for competing in highly competitive games?

I'm not making this a typical forum poll because I would like to see who is responding. If there is not a consensus in favor of the change, I will be tossing it out.

edit: I reverted the sitewide table changes to the usual formula as people were getting upset about it. The proposed new weights remain on the FAQ page to consider.

[Thorn]

Personally I'd prefer to see the old method stick. The more weight you place on games that are highly competitive, the less likely it is that the games that aren't as competitive will ever be competitive, because the effect of a new player is minimal. Granted, many of those games are aging and aren't likely to get more people anyway, but this doesn't exactly help the situation.

Also, if we're going to continue to bust on Heroes and Shadow and treat them like a poison, giving them more weight seems to be encouraging most people to torture themselves while giving the few odd birds that enjoy the games more incentive to stay odd --no offense meant to anybody.

[Zeupar]

I do not support this change. In my opinion, the formula is fair as it is.

The more weight you place on games that are highly competitive, the less likely it is that the games that aren't as competitive will ever be competitive, because the effect of a new player is minimal. Granted, many of those games are aging and aren't likely to get more people anyway, but this doesn't exactly help the situation.

I do not think that people choose the games they are going to compete in depending on how many sitewide points they can get if they get good at them (games in which you can get easy leaderships being the exception).