New Ranking idea which should be up on the elite's rank page

[SpiderWaffle]

I call it the MVP rankings; it would be a small aditional table on the rankings page.  It's basically to show how many seconds the elite would lose if it weren't for a certain player's times, done for each player with untieds.  So for each untied you have you get however many seconds it's untied by, and add them all up.  So for example Illu would get 5 seconds for his aztec 00 time, plus all of his other untieds.  This tells us who is contributing the most to the elite's total time, something I think matters more than any other ranking system.  This would also incourage players to try and lower the total time.

So what does everyone think about adding a new a ranking table, the MVP rankings?

[Boss]

Uh no.. anyways there have been attempts in the past to come up with a better ranking system.  It's cool to see this topic come up again though for possible discussion in changing how it works.

From my standpoint, untieds aren't getting enough value.  Take Control 00A for example.  421 is pretty bad compared to 413, yet is only 3 points less.  Ilari doesn't even have to bother with Control as it is now (unless he thinks he can get the WR).  There is no point for him to play the level with the current ranking system.

[SpiderWaffle]

I don't think it's a better ranking system for finding the best player or what not.  I just think it's a good ranking system to complement points and time.

A better ranking system for ranking the overall times of each player might be something like the current one but add 1 extra point of seperation for each second beyond the first the untied is.  So for example a two second united would get 100 points, second best time would get 96 points.

[SamSim]

The other thing is, this would only affect the, what, two dozen people who have world records.

[flukey lukey]

see this is why i don't bother with points. Getting Dam 53 would be worth so much more than 12 points to me. WR rank is the best period.

[DrugAgainstAngst]

Why even focus on points anyway? Just because a system is in place doesnt mean you should make decisions based on it. I think if you dont get self satisfaction from playing the game alone you shouldnt be playing at all. I'd be going for all these times even if a points and rankings system didnt exist. I honestly dont care at all what my rank is and hardly even check.

[SamSim]

Quote:I think if you dont get self satisfaction from playing the game alone you shouldnt be playing at all.

Were that the case, neither the GEE nor the PDE would exist.

[Jimbo]

The people who matter notice the contributions made by untied record and who sets them, a ranking system is not necessary.

[Garretts-007]

Hehe look at some of the ltk rankings for levels like jungle and aztec. The second place time is like 40 secs off the wr but you only get 3 pts less. I guess this is the result of noone else really pushing these levels though.

[alexaxxem]

i dont even look at the point ranking system i just go by the time rankings

[Boss]

Basing it off WRs is a start (certainly should be considered), but then levels you don't have the WR you can just totally suck and never play them while not being penalized at all for sucking at some levels.  Really, the best ranking system has to consider many factors.  The current point system could be a portion of your ranking.  The total time could be another portion of your ranking.  Total WRs, total untieds, total agent WRs etc could be other factors that go into your overall ranking.

[vitor]

^ Totally agreed with Boss here. His example of Control 00A was perfect. 413 is INSANE, and 421 give the same points as 414, which is totally unfair. This system is not totally inaccurate (there's no perfect system, imo), but it could be way better.

[SpiderWaffle]

I don't see what's so wrong about honoring the people who get untieds.  Also, I'd be very intrested to see where those ten or so people rank.  Again this would just be a small aditional table on the ranking page.

[Boss]

It didn't sound like it was another table.

[Troublesome Moral Code]

Yeah. I was gonna post earlier that you guys missed the entire point of this topic and were discussing something different but I got lazy.

[RWG]

...difficulty points for each WR or in some cases PRs.  Something similar to how they score diving or figure skating in the Olympics I think.

[Boss]

And that would require some sort of subjective PR strengths table to determine the points for each PR/WR, kinda like what MK rankings use.

[Your Eliteness]

One possibility is changing the point values. 100 for WR as normal, then 95 or even 90 for second place, etc. That way there's a bigger incentive for people to get the WR.

[DrugAgainstAngst]

we could just like make a vote or something on a table of times and say how much each time should be worth/100. every wr would be 100 obviously, but we could say depot 27 is only good for 30 points or something and that control 4:22 is worth 90 and each time less is worth like 2 points less, i dunno. Itd be complicated. i guess it comes down to whether the person cares or not. I disagree with Sam that this place wouldnt exist at all, because i think some people would still go for world records without a ranking system. I know i would. I spent ages going for bunker 107 even though 108 is worth 95 points. It was worth a hella more than 5 points to me. For me its just about getting the best possible time and perfection. Satisfaction seeing my new time on the screen. And GE is fun as hell anyway. I mean the gameplay is just so amazingly flawless.

[SpiderWaffle]

If we want to discuss a new points scheme that should be another topic.  What do people think about adding a MVP ranking?

[vitor]

YE's idea looks nice and simple.

[SpiderWaffle]

I've found where Illu and Ryan I would be on the MVP ranks:

IP: 12 seconds
RI: 12 seconds

curious to see the rest?

[Wabs]

greg k said :

Quote:^ Totally agreed with Boss here. His example of Control 00A was perfect. 413 is INSANE, and 421 give the same points as 414, which is totally unfair. This system is not totally inaccurate (there's no perfect system, imo), but it could be way better.

I agree with that but...

greg k said :

Quote:YE's idea looks nice and simple

It surely looks simple but it won't change anything greg, 4:21 will still give as many points as 4:14.

[vitor]

 Yeah. A better system would be better, but giving less points to 2nd place and onwards will estimulate people to get WRs. That's already something, and it's much easier to change.

[Ngamer]

The era of "hey guys, this would be a cool idea!  someone make this!  it would be really cool, I swear.  let's debate how cool it would be for days until someone makes it!" are over.  The era of "hey guys, this is a really cool idea!  I made it; take a look!" are here to stay.

That being said, this is a cool idea, so I made it.

speedrunwiki.com/GoldenEye_MVP_Rankings

Let's work together to keep this accurate as new untieds are set, or old untieds get matched.

EDIT - What should we use as a tiebreaker?  Should we do like the WR Rankings, and have 1 00 second be worth more than an SA, which is more than an A?  Still seems fair in this case.

EDIT2 - Ah Boss, so we should reverse the system?  That's a good point, it's much harder to be 1 second (or more) faster on a 20 second level than it is over 2 minutes.  Fine, we'll break it A-SA-00.

[dragondragon18]

Way to actually put it in action, Jon!

[Boss]

Agent untieds should have more value in a tiebreaker since those are harder to get these days.

[Wouter Jansen]

exactly, agent is closest to max in most cases.

[Henning Blom]

frigate 23 should be worth 100 mvp points

[octoinky]

I really like YE's suggestion of a wider point spread at the top.  Think about the likely results:  

If you aren't getting any top 5 times, your nearby ranking opponents probably aren't either, so this wont really change anything at the bottom or middle rankings.  

For those getting toward the top, getting a top 5 time will greatly increase your score and help in points, whereas before it wasn't really worth it to put forth all of that effort for a measly 3 points.  I mean hell, it'd be easier to move onto another level for those 3 points right, whats the point of improving good times at the middle rankings if its about your overall rank.  

For the top 5, this gives a LOT of incentive to keep playing for every position, yadda yadda nothing new to say.


Try something along the lines of 100-95-92-90-89-88 etc, and 100-90-85-82-80-79-78 etc (sorta ridiculous, but nice for those 5th-10th ranked players who score huge times) and see how things shape up.  I think this REALLY helps the top 10 players and their motivation to play for points as well as time, and would validate the system moreso.


Anything more in depth than points or standards (lame for GE) really is getting into the matter of opinion.  If we're going to decide the system so it weights points, standards, time, WRs, WR differential, etc into some value that we are ranked by, its simply putting our opinions into numbers.  Why not just vote every week on the best player, if we boil it to opinion so much.  That is the advantage of a solid, simple point system

[flukey lukey]

cool, if this new point allocation comes into play i will probably go up some ranks

[SpiderWaffle]

What about my idea of adding seperation points for how many seconds your record is better than the next?

Right now you get 3 points seperation between first and second, and 2 for second and third, reguardless of many seconds it's better by.  You could change the seperation to account for how much faster a time is.  For example instead of using 3 and 2 you could use 2+x and 1+x where x is the number of seconds it's better by.  Or maybe I should write it in terms of total points:

r1=100, r2=98-x, r3=r2-1-x=, r4=r3-1, r5=r4-1,...

or something like-

r1=100, r2=97-2x, r3=r2-2-x,r4=r3-x, r5=r4-1, r6=r5-1,...


Or I hope your ready for this idea, wouter should love it-

Take whatever points system you want and then add: For each person that shares a time it becomes worth x points less, where x is a number probably between 0 and 1.

This would give huge incentive to go for times like 25 depot 1:02 caverns 22 runway SA, and greatly reward times like 17, 22, 1:13

[Infected Mind]

I like octos 2nd idea  the 10/5/3/2 kinda thing

say the times for a level are example:


24
25
26
27
28
29
29
29

etc

24 = 100
25 = 90
26 = 85
27 = 82
28 = 80
29 = 79

Dunno how ties would be worked though say 3 wway tie for first it would be

100
90 - 2  = 88 2nd
then 87 - 5 = 82 for 3rd
81 - 3 = 78 4th
78 - 2 = 76 points for 5th
then 75 and down as the times go.

Would be cool to have a rankings like that

[bcks]

I like the ranking system the way it is.

[Boss]

I'm for the new one.  It could just be an alternate rankings or something (more to differentiate the top players).  It would be stupid to ever scrap the current point system, but we could have another one to see how it differentiates players that are close on the normal ranks.

1st 100 pts
2nd 90 pts
3rd 85 pts
4th 82 pts
5th 80 pts
6th 79 and lower

If 5 people had a WR, then 6th would still be worth 79 pts.  If 3 people had the WR, then the next person would still get 82 etc.

[Lovins]

An alternate ranking system would be cool...I mean let's face it, I don't think we would ever have a majority wanting to completely overhaul the current system, which is at LEAST 7 years old (2000 or earlier).

[Infected Mind]

As i said before, I think it would be a great addition to the current ranks, But never replacing it. you should see a massive point differential between the top players, and the good players. which is how it should be, in a way i suppose.

Great work octo!

[flukey lukey]

whats with the WR rank being 00 > SA > A. in the case of a tie i think then it should take into account the points each player has and then separate with that. i know that would motivate me to play more levels and get more points

[Wouter Jansen]

I don't think changing points would matter much, it's all in how much you value a single point.. if you'd change them for say 100000 = max (1st place), 97000 = 2nd place, 95000 = 3rd place etc, all you do is multiply by 1000 obviously, but the gaps get way huge.. but in the end it doesn't matter because you'll still have to play in a samelike manner to get up.. now if you have many sucky times (which you shouldn't anyway..) those will mostly go up and players will become more allround and have their levels more on the same level.
if you change the gaps on the top, much less time will be spent on different levels and would make top players have to play less to gain a lot of points. it surely has some effect, but I don't think it should be like that. also, sure it's fun to have other rankings to look at, but I would look once, and probably no more. it's not like we all don't have our own opinions on who's the best, 2nd-best etc and so on already anyway.

[..]

Why bother keeping the top time at 100 points when it might just be easier to add a value to the top time for the larger untieds?  Example:

Tied WR = 100 points - times worse than WR still fall in point value in the same order as now (97 for 2nd place - 95 for 3rd - 94, 93, 92...).

Untied WR by 1 second = 101 points (or some other value) points - times worse still fall in same order (97 for 2nd place - 95 for 3rd - 94, 93, 92...).

Untied WR by 2 seconds = 103 points - times worse still fall in same order (97 for 2nd place - 95 for 3rd - 94, 93, 92...).

---

Of course, exact point total modifications may be different, though it should increase more when the time is more seconds ahead.  My proposal would be...

1 second ahead = 101 points (100+1)
2 seconds ahead = 103 points (100+2+1)
3 seconds ahead = 106 points (100+3+2+1)
4 seconds ahead = 110 points (100+4+3+2+1)

..and so on.

This makes it so people without WRs right now won't "lose" points from a rankings change, but people with untieds will GAIN points.  This also ruins the 6000 point maximum of the rankings, but who really cares about that?

---

Of course, this is assuming that a change is supported by the majority of the community.  I personally don't see much of a reason to change it right now, though I understand why some people do.

[Light]

^^

I like that idea.

[flukey lukey]

reminds me of those crazy kids in Junior School getting 110% in their maths test from 'bonus marks'. don't dig

[Wouter Jansen]

yeah I've had like a 10.4 for some German test (max here is 10). it doesn't feel that special tho, more like weird.

[Matthijs Triep]

I've had a 10.7 for Greek and some 10.3's for both Latin and Greek. It was pretty cool, because the bonus was added to another test. It wasn't necessary for a while though, since I had three straight 10's.

Keep coming with those idea's, side rankings never hurt, as long as the regular system stays. I particulary like the idea of getting a bonus instead of lowering points for 2nd, 3rd, etc.

[Boss]

It could be a lot simpler.  Just use the current system but add a 5 pt bonus if the record is untied.  The amount that it is untied isn't as important as 2nd place is still losing 8 pts to 1st which is plenty enough.

[flukey lukey]

yeah this system will just end up giving top players a small extra motivation to get untieds and lower players none extra. 8 points is probably heaps for Brayn, but nothing for lower players (me). just go by WR rank, shows where the skill is at

[octoinky]

Thoughts:
- final thoughts on why a particular system will work
- some suggestions and ideas of why a system change can be a reality, not just an idea that will never happen

(note to person who thanked me: it was YE's system not mine, credit where credit is due, just analyzing)


I think the system needs to extend beyond WRs and award top 5-10 ranks with higher weight than they currently do, so that the active, higher ranked members have a lot more to play for.  Changing untied WRs only is too select- We can implement something that rewards the untieds, but this really seperates the top 3 and wont affect anybody else.  We want something that seperates more than that, and gives incentives to all players to continue playing.

So if its about incentive to continue playing, why stop the jumps at 5 or 10?  Well really, beyond the top 10 so many times are improvable that I dont think big jumps are necessary to extend the gaps to sharpen the ranks.  There is so much room for improvement I think the achievement of a top 5 time is where it should really start to have a favorable impact on your ranking.  Any system that awards top 5-10 can still be used in a way such that it specifically targets the top 3 as well, this being the largest gaps are near the WR. Or, as steve suggested..


If untied get bonuses, the change is emphasized in the MVP rankings.  This is exactly how many points each player will get as a bonus at this point.  In comparring a new system with or without untieds, illu and boss will only get a 2 point additional spread.  Not much at all, however provides more incentive - thus I like this idea.  Also note that this will not bring anybodies point total over 6000 right now (and probably never will as long as we have many top players active).  This is for a +1 / second bonus, not a "summation" bonus which would be 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, etc extra seconds (I dont like this!  it awards a 5 second untied by 15 points, but 5 untieds by only 5 points.  How can you really differentiate between a great WR on a level nobody plays, and a great WR on a level everybody plays by such a point difference?  it needs to be just +1 per second)


-------

There will obviously be objections to the system being implemented, however remember MKDD went through an overhaul.  The main idea behind an overhaul is not to CHANGE the rankings we know and love, but to IMPROVE on them.  

I think its time for a test.  See how the rankings would pan out and compare.  We'll see if we like the results.  My guess is that the people in ranks will be very very close to where they were before.  Any differences will be due to a player having a mix between very good and other moderate times, gaining a few points on a very consistent player near them.

The MKDD standard change worked because it didn't flip flop places around.  People were still in the same position, but simply "lost points."  They had more to play for, and it got the top players going again.  Our top players are active, but I think any extra improvement is welcome.  If this has the same effect, please dont notice that you are now an extra 200 points back and disagree with the system - it is all relative and still emphasizes the importance of improving each of your times to your best ability to achieve your ranking.




please lets see a ranking with 100 - 90 - 85 - 82 - 80 - 79 - 78 - 77 - .... - 0, with +1 bonus per each second of untied (this we can do ourselves based on MVP), and see what we think!

[Matthijs Triep]

If any untied just gets +5, then there's no point (pointwise) in further improving. It seems more than reasonable to award every new second that comes off.

[Wouter Jansen]

it all seems wrong to me, since it's obvious that people play for points, not to lower times/max out the game, if this is what we need. if we were really competitive, it shouldn't matter how we're measuring our skills, all that matters is someone's willpower to improve himself. if you can't find it for yourself, I don't think you have the right mindset to do this anyway.

[TheLegendaryPSR]

the points system is screwed up anyway as it doesn't reward consistency.

the best example would be axel a being ahead of axel z despite being 45 places behind in the time rankings. how does that work?