Discussing possible alternative ranking calculations

[youseinthehouse]

Anyway, on this subject I had a random thought of a way Elite could be more newb-friendly.  Not in terms of the community, which seems to do a fine job of accepting people, but in terms of actual competition aka point achievement.  The number of points per stage being at 100 was great for the early days of the site when there were ~100 players.  What if this number were increased in response to the far larger pool of players (while scaling up the WR/2nd place bonuses appropriately)?  e.g. simply doubling the scale, the most basic and illustrative example, points would go 200->194->190->189->...->1->0.  With this layout, entry level players could feel like they were making progress by achieving points more easily, while the integrity/structure of the top 100 would be minimally changed (there would, perhaps, be minor shuffling that would no doubt be a source of squabbling).

I haven't thought of all the ramifications, so think of this proposal as fodder for friendly discussion, not a production-ready suggestion.  I suppose it is a matter of being more open and encouraging to budding players versus staying exclusive and old-guard (or shall we say, elite).  There is nothing wrong with either school of thought.

[OHMSS]

Anyway, on this subject I had a random thought of a way Elite could be more newb-friendly.  Not in terms of the community, which seems to do a fine job of accepting people, but in terms of actual competition aka point achievement.  The number of points per stage being at 100 was great for the early days of the site when there were ~100 players.  What if this number were increased in response to the far larger pool of players (while scaling up the WR/2nd place bonuses appropriately)?  e.g. simply doubling the scale, the most basic and illustrative example, points would go 200->194->190->189->...->1->0.  With this layout, entry level players could feel like they were making progress by achieving points more easily, while the integrity/structure of the top 100 would be minimally changed (there would, perhaps, be minor shuffling that would no doubt be a source of squabbling).

I haven't thought of all the ramifications, so think of this proposal as fodder for friendly discussion, not a production-ready suggestion.  I suppose it is a matter of being more open and encouraging to budding players versus staying exclusive and old-guard (or shall we say, elite).  There is nothing wrong with either school of thought.

That is an awesome idea! Right now ranks #178-#226 have less than 100 points and 153 players are tied for #227, even though some have considerable better times and PR coverage than others. This is dumb and discouraging.

[Scrambler Fanny]

^ That'd be basketball, mate.

I know.  It was stupid humor, obv describing the wrong sport.  :\

[Boss]

Why not just go by average ranked time or something like MK64 does?

[TheFlash]

What if this number were increased in response to the far larger pool of players (while scaling up the WR/2nd place bonuses appropriately)?

This is a fair idea....

Why not just go by average ranked time or something like MK64 does?

...but this is even better.

Don't see why you'd have to cut off points at 200 either, why not enough so that every time is worth some number of points?  Would the rankings change at all if you removed the tiny benefits to the top few placeholders?  If you want to do this, at least make it count AND make sense.

It seems like a better approach would be to rank tied players at the median ranking # among those tied, so holding an untied record is a moderate (or even large in some cases) boost.  This will encourage players to try for untieds more and encourage people to tie those more as well.

For example, the Streets 112 guy would be gaining about 12 points over the pack of 113s instead of just 3.  Right now, the top player would actually benefit in comparison to most players if someone tied him, how is that right!  In this alternative approach, his lead over everyone else would shrink a little bit if someone tied him, as it should.

I've observed people outside this site (read: Karters) making fun of the 'dumb points system' from the-elite multiple times.  It is pretty negative toward new players since they could score PRs on numerous levels and not gain a single point.

[OHMSS]

If someone with access (Flash? YE?) provides me with the PR and player database tables, I'd volunteer to experiment with different point systems. That would be at least the current 100p, 200p and MK64 styles all with the feature of averaging ties and without it. I would then put the modified ranking scripts (since open source) on my webspace so that people are able to inspect and discuss the resulting ranks. Visual results would help fighting skepticism and letting loose of dusty traditions.

Spoiler: Point whores and strong Agent players will hate averaged ties.

[RWG]

"the Streets 112 guy"

[wheatrich]

If you're on the opposite side of what karters think; you're probably on the right side of it.

There's many different ranking systems all with pro's and cons.  The elite scores method is a weighted average that would make duel 3 for PD about 2.5 points (would make more value to hit bunker 24 instead of 25, 112 would actually be worth a fair bit more).  112 would actually be worse in the kart system as it'd only be one point.  Kart system actually has less value on their points rankings (I don't know what the ranking list formula is, but that does give bonuses for them) for untied WR's.

It's not that negative toward new players, GE just doesn't have the # of players to make it so you can't get points if you pr a fair bit.  PD is actually worse in this regard b/c of more players but nobody cares.

Most of the new guys are already getting points on their pr's.  Unless we think Alecboy should be getting points for every pr or something.

[SimThreat]

I vote for 200 points per level.

[TheFlash]

If someone with access (Flash? YE?) provides me with the PR and player database tables, I'd volunteer to experiment with different point systems. That would be at least the current 100p, 200p and MK64 styles all with the feature of averaging ties and without it. I would then put the modified ranking scripts (since open source) on my webspace so that people are able to inspect and discuss the resulting ranks. Visual results would help fighting skepticism and letting loose of dusty traditions.

Spoiler: Point whores and strong Agent players will hate averaged ties.

Nah I don't have any access...guess you could even just manually copy and prcoess them if you didn't want to wait on YE.

[AZ]

we might as well go by overall time rankings and ignore the point system from now on

 

[RWG]

Fun fact: if we changed the rankings to "average finish" today, Shawn Johnson would be in 3rd place!

[OHMSS]

Completely ignored my post, good job.

[DYM]

2.x saves about .3.

[Darth Vader]

the Streets 112 guy


LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO

[Aztec Exemplar]

the Streets 112 guy


LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO

That's going to be your new forum user. 

[TheFlash]

Nah I don't have any access...guess you could even just manually copy and prcoess them if you didn't want to wait on YE.

Turns out I was able to snag a copy of the current times....here's what the site would look like if points went to 200 with 197 for 2nd, 195 for 3rd:

http://rankings.snorge.com/goldeneye

[Henning Blom]

Getting points should be somewhat hard imo so Id say keep the 100 point system as it is now. Imo its more of an achievemnt to get points this way and not get points with crap times because anyone who actually wants points today are forced to play for decent times also making the times on the rankings overall better Getting a top 200 time is way too easy and should not be "rewarded".  

I dont understand how the average finnish ranks works tbh. Total time rankings covers it up anyway for any non point whores and weaker Agent players. I see the total time just as important as points though the-elite has had an tradition to have the point rankings as the main ranking and I think that view should be changed (like top 10 total time does not gain you the achievemnt top 10 on the rankings which is wrong imo). If youre first in total time then youre the champion for total time and should get you the achievment for 1st, which should be viewed the same achievment and as good as points 1st!

[youseinthehouse]

I'd volunteer to experiment with different point systems. That would be at least the current 100p, 200p and MK64 styles all with the feature of averaging ties and without it. I would then put the modified ranking scripts (since open source) on my webspace so that people are able to inspect and discuss the resulting ranks. Visual results would help fighting skepticism and letting loose of dusty traditions.

This is exactly what I had in mind, but you doing it sounds better.  An example is worth a thousand words.  Looks like Thingy just did something to this effect as well.  Remember, doubling to 200 was merely a springboard for this discussion, which seems to be taking off.

I suppose if one were concerned about disturbing the status quo, the idea could be modified.  Instead of increasing the point pool, one could reward increasingly negative points for times outside of the top 101, instead of stopping at 0 points.  Don't know if the psychology of being a "minus" player would be too harsh, but fledgling players would still see incentive for times improvement across the board.  The rankings will reflect those with better PR coverage and 100+ people would no longer be tied for last place.  The averaging/weighting methods being discussed here also have merit in solving these problems.  They'd likely be more elegant, especially in rewarding top players-- a worthy goal-- but they also deviate more drastically from the current system.  I thought people would only accept a small change, if any.  But maybe there isn't so much inertia here.

[flukey lukey]

100 points is classic, looks much cleaner on the ranks. I don't see any need for changing the rankings...

[Boss]

I think average rank (as a category) can work if we did some sort of composite rankings as a way to rank the players (average rank, total time, WRs/UWRs). Just going by points to crown a champ is stupid now. Maybe 33.33% of weighted average could be in WRs/UWRs, 33.33% for average rank, and 33.33% for total time. I'm not sure how WRs would be valued (obviously untieds and uncommon tieds would be worth more relatively). This would get people to play for less common WRs since they would be worth more than WRs with 20+ ties. Yeah Runway SA 22 and Cradle SA 35 would be worth more than they should be, but that should drive people to try to tie them up more since they'd be worth more than your B2 24 or something like that.

[TheFlash]

Nah I don't have any access...guess you could even just manually copy and prcoess them if you didn't want to wait on YE.

Turns out I was able to snag a copy of the current times....here's what the site would look like if points went to 200 with 197 for 2nd, 195 for 3rd:

Scratch that, I switched it over to the system I proposed earlier.

Now instead of 100 points the score is out of 1000, and if you're tied you share at the median score of your tie-group.  This boosts the value of untieds, and seems to make more sense in general.  So now if someone ties an untied it's a pretty good boost usually....or if the 2nd and 3rd places are untied as well there's only a small difference.  That could be fine-tuned I suppose (like giving an untied at least 3 points over 2nd, or w/e)

Most of the leaderboard seems to be in the same order I guess.  I see Fanny lost a spot (narrowly) to Cervone, as one upset.

Not saying this should necessarily be more 'official' than the old 100 points system but I'd at least push for it to appear on the real site.  If the community tends to value untied WRs more than tied ones, then some form of this system should probably be incorporated into the main rankings

[youseinthehouse]

Good point, there is nothing that says we have to supplant the current system.  We can always add more ways to view the data.  My, how novel!

[DYM]

That system is pretty good. A point system of 3000 per stage is really troll and needless though IMO.

It doesn't really take into account untieds which are more than 1s faster than the next best time like Train 58, B2 44 and Control 405 BTW. B2 46 being 1 point off makes no sense because 44 is infinitely times better. I'm not sure what you would do about times like Control 3:57 either though. Big difference between that and a 3:58.

[Boss]

Yeah I realized multi sec untieds and strong 2nd place times wouldn't have much weight with my suggestion atm besides showing up as 1 rank better and 1 or so sec less. A strong untied or 2nd place time would need to show up more in my WR/UWR weighted portion of the rankings. Here's a bit of raw data for a starting point (only top 5)

Average Rank:
RI   17   13   9   
   8   14   33   
   25   27   42   1.566666667
DC   14   11   12   
   16   23   25   
   30   34   37   1.683333333
MR   13   8   10   
   34   63   59   
   47   71   69   3.116666667
HB   11   5   4   
   36   65   70   
   47   70   74   3.183333333
BB   11   3   4   
   38   71   68   
   49   74   72   3.25

Total Time as % of Elite Total Time
RI   19:41   24:53:00   28:39:00   1:13:13   0.992260414
DC   19:43   24:58:00   28:33:00   1:13:14   0.992034593
MR   19:47   25:08:00   28:46:00   1:13:41   0.985976024
HB   19:56   25:21:00   29:10:00   1:14:27   0.9758227
BB   19:56   25:22:00   29:13:00   1:14:31   0.974949676

WR Table (without taking account strength of top times)
RI 17 (3)   13 (3)   9 (1)   39 (7)
DC 14 (0)   11 (2)   12 (3)   37 (5)
MR 13 (2)   8 (3)   10 (2)   31 (7)
HB 11 (0)   5 (0)   4 (1)   20 (1)
BB 11 (0)   3 (1)   4 (1)   18 (2)

Everyone near the top will have similar average rank and total time points for the composite. For top players, the WR portion of the composite score will ultimately determine the rank (which is what I'm trying to implement here). For people that don't have WRs, your total score will be for average rank and total time (since you won't have top 3 times mostly, the point system is completely covered with average rank).

[Suprioten]

I think it is pretty good as it is. Sure it can be very hard to get some points if you are a beginner (like me), but you get a sweet feeling of satisfaction when you do get the points you've been trying and trying to get. If you just throw out points to everybody, the points won't be something exclusive and something to work hard for. People don't bother cutting some seconds on their current pr if they don't feel like they get something for it, which i don't feel you do if you get like 600points with a worthless time.

[Henning Blom]

Exactly my point.

And yeah make total time rankings just as official as point rankings are, points being the main ranking is stupid imo since its unfair to players who are good at 00 Agent levels but cant do the speed Agent levels requiers.

[Boss]

I love stats. Here's my WR portion of the composite (I gave an extra 100 points for 2 sec untieds, there are no 3+ sec untieds anymore and each additional sec untied would be worth 100 more points). I'm not sure how to go about times that are top 5 or top 10 since they would still get no justice under my system. Anyway..

2 sec untied = 200
1 sec untied = 100
2-way tie = 50
3-way tie = 33.3333
4-way tie = 25
5-way tie = 20
etc.

Level   A   SA   00A
Dam   2.94   100.00   100.00
Facility   100.00   100.00   50.00
Runway   5.26   100.00   100.00
Surface 1   12.50   33.33   50.00
Bunker 1   3.23   50.00   100.00
Silo   33.33   33.33   33.33
Frigate   16.67   100.00   100.00
Surface 2   16.67   25.00   100.00
Bunker 2   5.56   200.00   50.00
Statue   20.00   100.00   100.00
Archives   2.63   14.29   16.67
Streets   100.00   9.09   11.11
Depot   20.00   33.33   100.00
Train   200.00   200.00   100.00
Jungle   100.00   100.00   100.00
Control   33.33   200.00   50.00
Caverns   50.00   25.00   100.00
Cradle   16.67   50.00   20.00
Aztec   100.00   100.00   33.33
Egypt   33.33   33.33   33.33



RI   DC   MR   HB   BB
2.94   2.94   202.94   2.94   2.94
250.00   50.00   0.00   0.00   0.00
5.26   5.26   5.26   5.26   105.26
95.83   45.83   95.83   12.50   33.33
53.23   153.23   3.23   3.23   3.23
100.00   100.00   66.67   0.00   0.00
16.67   116.67   16.67   16.67   16.67
41.67   141.67   0.00   41.67   16.67
5.56   255.56   55.56   5.56   5.56
20.00   0.00   0.00   20.00   120.00
33.58   33.58   33.58   33.58   33.58
20.20   20.20   120.20   20.20   20.20
20.00   20.00   0.00   153.33   20.00
0.00   0.00   500.00   0.00   0.00
300.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00
233.33   83.33   83.33   0.00   0.00
25.00   175.00   75.00   25.00   0.00
86.67   86.67   0.00   36.67   36.67
133.33   33.33   133.33   0.00   0.00
100.00   100.00   100.00   0.00   0.00
1543.27   1423.27   1491.61   376.61   414.11

Any way you do it, the top 3 are all very close in ranking. With the other 2 parts of the composite in mind, Marc would likely end up 3rd though even if he is 2nd on this portion of the rankings.

[..]

Nah I don't have any access...guess you could even just manually copy and prcoess them if you didn't want to wait on YE.

Turns out I was able to snag a copy of the current times....here's what the site would look like if points went to 200 with 197 for 2nd, 195 for 3rd:

http://rankings.snorge.com/goldeneye

Scratch that, I switched it over to the system I proposed earlier.

http://rankings.snorge.com/goldeneye

Now instead of 100 points the score is out of 1000, and if you're tied you share at the median score of your tie-group.  This boosts the value of untieds, and seems to make more sense in general.  So now if someone ties an untied it's a pretty good boost usually....or if the 2nd and 3rd places are untied as well there's only a small difference.  That could be fine-tuned I suppose (like giving an untied at least 3 points over 2nd, or w/e)

Most of the leaderboard seems to be in the same order I guess.  I see Fanny lost a spot (narrowly) to Cervone, as one upset.

Not saying this should necessarily be more 'official' than the old 100 points system but I'd at least push for it to appear on the real site.  If the community tends to value untied WRs more than tied ones, then some form of this system should probably be incorporated into the main rankings

The main issue I see with these is that N/A times get awarded points which should never happen in any sort of scoring system.  It also just looks weird that a "sweep" on a level (all 3 WRs, whether tied or not) aren't a round number.

[RWG]

This is the ULTIMATE discussion on "fixing something that isn't broken" much like we had when the lazy admin merged the PR and PR discussion threads.

[AZ]

some pretty neats stats there Thingy and Boss

[50]

100 points is classic, looks much cleaner on the ranks. I don't see any need for changing the rankings...

[Softman25]

Just had a look at the "new" rankings suggestion - the only thing that really disconcerts me is two primary things.

1) 1000 points is just...bloody huge. It's hard to manage, whereas 100 is nice and clean. I can see something like 200-250 or even 500 being more reasonable and manageable then 1000. I just think the addition of that 4th digit...
2) N/A's being worth points - and 600+ at that! That means in theory that by doing nothing, I am in the top 40% of players? It's insanity! (Although that's just an observation - not a criticism of something which is clearly in early stages of development)

I do seriously like that if I put up a time, I get some points. Maybe not a lot in comparison to if I put up a good time, but I can see where I am in comparison with everyone. (And not just good players)

It's my opinion that the current rankings are accurate for everyone who has pointed times, and bloody inaccurate totally for anyone not - simply because of getting no points for times that aren't good enough, and getting points only for two possible times on some levels! Dam is a good example, you only get points for 53 or 54. Anyone who isn't good enough/hasn't put enough time into it - nope - ignored. Totally ignored. I see no reason why I am the only one who's annoyed by this is any way. I mean I don't really care, I play GE for fun, but if I'm going to put myself on the rankings, I may as well be ranked accurately, instead of grouped together essentially, where I am in the "group" who has Dam 54, Runway 23 and Bunker 1 18. That's my group - and the rest of my (crappy) times - nope, they just don't matter.

[Soft-Hedwig]

This is the ULTIMATE discussion on "fixing something that isn't broken" much like we had when the lazy admin merged the PR and PR discussion threads.

[TheFlash]

The main issue I see with these is that N/A times get awarded points which should never happen in any sort of scoring system.

Cool, didn't even think about it earlier. Now those are worth 0.

[Softman25]

Looking at the rankings with a closer eye...this is the greatest damn thing ever.

I lost 200 places - from ~150 > 350.

THIS IS GOOD

The only times that I have that are good are three "pointed" times in the other system, that's all the decent times, the rest I have up are god awful. So why should I be 150th? I'm clearly not!

One thing to note is that a player like Luke Szklarz actually goes down to #95. That I don't understand. . .I'm trying to understand it, maybe it's because of WRs being worth "less"? Almost every single time he has up is worth >900 points. So yeah...I think the formula might need some tweaking, cause I dunno what's going on there. As an example, his Facility times on the "old" system are worth 84/72/60. With the "new" system, they are worth 981/971/958. I'd assume that's alot? Or a little? I'm so confused...

I think that for this system to work with that many points being "circulated", we'd need at least 20-30 more active players, to really keep it all "flowing" so to speak.

[flukey lukey]

each iteration of this new ranking system has me losing more ranks than the last lol... wtf

[flukey lukey]

I hate this new system. I just had a look at my timespage a
d everything is 9xx - some obscure high number that I can't relate to (so don't know whether to improve it or not) and then having N/As is a whole lot worse be because you miss out on a potential 1000pts rather than 0pts. this is bad because it motivates a
 attitude of simply playing all the levels no matter how shit the time is, rather than focusing on getting a good time and then moving on to the next level.

Goldeneye is a PROCESS.

with this system players like Lockwood and myself will be at the bottom of the rankings for years while we actually should be up the top somewhere.

the current system isn't by any means perfect but it has these cool features.

1. WR's should Always be a maximum number of points (100)
2. keep numbers at an understandable scale, so we can look over a ranking page and immediately get a feel / understanding for what is good, what is bad.
3. It promotes attention to detail for players getting into the game, where they have to fight for points. take suprioten for example... I've been watching him start to climb some ranks lately and how he's been moving from level to level... in the new system he would be better off getting worse times on every level. the current system is amazing because there is a good progression to it, like it creates a narrative for the player.

ps: I wrote this in bed while waking up so I hope it is at least half articulate.

[RWG]

So to sum up this topic;

- the good players see no point in any change

- the bad players and non-players want change

makes tons of sense

[RWG]

The top players suggest a new moderation system and we get booed out of the forum.

The moderators suggest a new players system and they get lauded like they're fucking Nikola Tesla.

Someone kill me.

[Softman25]

So to sum up this topic;

- the good players see no point in any change

- the bad players and non-players want change

makes tons of sense

Yes, because you are fucking ranked.

I'm barely fucking ranked! Myself and anyone in my skill band are just mashed together in this 0 point miasma. It's crap and you know it.

What you're saying is that to be ranked, you have to be good enough to actually get points. I don't disagree that there is a certain amount of attention to detail, but that's not a true ranking of skill. That's a true ranking of how good the top ~100, no one else.

I'm not saying this new system is any good in regards to the precise details...but it's an idea for now, not the final product!

And yes this is my opinion, but I'm not responding to anything else you say Goose unless you actually say something, unlike your usual bullshit that you spurt.


EDIT: Also - read this thread again - http://elite.speedrunwiki.com/forum/index.php?topic=18610.0  - I haven't read it in full - but I don't think anyone attempts to boo you off the forum. Yeah they discuss the issue in depth, but no one says "Wow Goose you're a real dickhead for suggesting this lolololol". (That being real people of course) Everyone pretty much says "Yeah, I think XX mod would be good"

[RWG]

Let's just have 2 rankings then.  One for the good players, and a separate rankings for the bad players.

Most sports leagues around the world have this.  There is a major league, the top pro league.  Then there are separate minor leagues.  To make it to the big leagues you have to win your own league first.  Then the bottom people from the upper leagues get relegated.

This system would be great for GE imo.  Just separate every 50 players into separate rankings.

[Softman25]

I would not object to a splitting.

My main "complaint" is that the only way to be accurately ranked is to be good - until then you're just in limbo. Not about how it's counted or anything of the sort. Just the fact that if you can't play really well - you just don't exist.

That's not right, this is supposed to be a global ranking right?

[TheFlash]

As an example, his Facility times on the "old" system are worth 84/72/60. With the "new" system, they are worth 981/971/958. I'd assume that's alot? Or a little? I'm so confused...

Just add 900 to what you thought before.

So 981 would be just 81, 971 is 71, etc.  The reason they don't match completely is ties lower scores slightly. Not too tricky.

2. keep numbers at an understandable scale, so we can look over a ranking page and immediately get a feel / understanding for what is good, what is bad.
3. It promotes attention to detail for players getting into the game, where they have to fight for points. take suprioten for example... I've been watching him start to climb some ranks lately and how he's been moving from level to level... in the new system he would be better off getting worse times on every level.

(2) -> This is just like having a goal of 100, but now you shoot for 1000.  If you have any times over 900 that's what would have been 'points' in the standard system.  It's pretty easy to understand I think?  The benefits to this are experienced in Softman's post.

(3) -> All you have to do is submit ANY TIME on the other levels and your overall rank will be much more accurately represented. I don't understand why you wouldn't have some time submitted? That seems pretty odd.  How can you even compare yourself in Total Time without having every time submitted? It shouldn't take more than an hour or so to beat these levels if you never have.

You do notice you're ranked in the 200s in Total Time on the normal site, right? I guess so far you have only been going for one goal and that is points.  It doesn't take much effort to shift your goal slightly. Just playing those N/A levels one time will put you back in the same position you are already in.  A one-try time on your N/A levels will get you about 800 points a piece, and put you in 29th or 30th position.

Keep in mind you can look at the ranks sorted just by Agent, in that spot you're top 15 on the alternate version!  Would you claim to be top 30 on the whole game even if you had only played Agent?

Let's just have 2 rankings then.  One for the good players, and a separate rankings for the bad players.

This incorporates both of those ideas into one ranking. If you only want to see the good players ranking just look at the top 100

My main "complaint" is that the only way to be accurately ranked is to be good - until then you're just in limbo. Not about how it's counted or anything of the sort. Just the fact that if you can't play really well - you just don't exist.

That's not right, this is supposed to be a global ranking right?

This is exactly what Youse's original point was that started this whole thing.  If there were only 114 players, then top 100 getting points is great.  If there are 400 players, there's an issue.

[Soft-Hedwig]

EDIT: Also - read this thread again - http://elite.speedrunwiki.com/forum/index.php?topic=18610.0  - I haven't read it in full - but I don't think anyone attempts to boo you off the forum. Yeah they discuss the issue in depth, but no one says "Wow Goose you're a real dickhead for suggesting this lolololol". (That being real people of course) Everyone pretty much says "Yeah, I think XX mod would be good"

Is that the topic where loads of people support Karl for moderator and then Jon made up some bullshit reason to block him?

[flukey lukey]

How hard is it to get Streets Agent 1:15

[flukey lukey]

Aztec Secret Agent:

300   Paul George   16:06/701
301   Adrian Axelsson   N/A/0

This Is A Problem

[Softman25]

Is that the topic where loads of people support Karl for moderator and then Jon made up some bullshit reason to block him?

Yeah, good times.

Aztec Secret Agent:

300   Paul George   16:06/701
301   Adrian Axelsson   N/A/0

This Is A Problem

Agreed, I think there needs to be heavier scaling regarding points after a certain time.

If 16 minutes is worth 700 points...how horrible do you have to be to get <500 points?

Yeah I see what's happening, derp. But still, stricter scaling after maybe - 50 places? (Like, 2-3 points per rank instead of one) Overall though, this is still good! I think we'll be tweaking it forever though before we can agree on one thing though.

[RWG]

I'm retiring, or at least taking another extended hiatus of 1+ year from the elite.  I'll make a topic about this when I get home tonight.

[flukey lukey]

I'm retiring, or at least taking another extended hiatus of 1+ year from the elite.  I'll make a topic about this when I get home tonight.