The Sonic Center
Sonic Central => Leaderboard Disputes => Rules Revisions => Topic started by: yse on June 15, 2008, 11:43:22 pm
-
An idea I've been sitting on for some time is to compose a committee who would discuss rules issues, initially to rework the existing rules to make them consistent, but also to discuss new rulings as they should appear. Such a committee would have to have representatives from all kinds of games, so between the members there would be an understanding of everything that TSC covers.
I've thought about it for a while, and here are the five members I want on such a committee: SM, Stefan, Thorn, Douglas, and myself. Should some of the above not accept their positions, I have reserves in mind.
Any such decisions said committee makes will be posted in this topic. However, this forum should still be used to bring things to our attention.
-
Why not add GS or Rolken?
-
Rolken is a bser and GS is a furry, just look at his name.
-
Wait, so you want yourself on this committee?
<_<
Well, besides the fact that probably half of us would put you there too....
-
Yeah sure you'd put yourself on it >____>
/me shot
-
Which reminds me, RPG would make a good boardmember too. Also, SJ would be a good board member.
-
don't know if I'm such a good choice shadowfan >_>
-
I... accept?
I'll be on vacation without Internet access Wednesday-Saturday though, so nothing will get done right away. >_>
-
Errr what? Me? You mean like be . . . responsible and stuff? Are you sure that's a good idea?
But srsly, I'm up for that :) And my first decree is score spamming in adv2 is banned!
/me shot
-
Time to bring up the first thing for the rules commitee, though I think this is more of an oversight. The rule regarding double speed shoes is up in the SA2 rules but not in SA. Is this an oversight or is double speed shoes legal again in SA?
-
magnum: can we wait until it's actually established :p But srsly, we should have a procedure so that all decisions can be shown publicly, free of clutter and with accountability.
Which brings me to my second point: given the discussion around recent bannings, I propose a similar solution for that. We should have a group who handle the decision, and a forum where all bannings are listed with the reasons for the bannings so that if people come back and/or contest them it's easier to refer back. It could be the same as the rules committee, or separate, but either way I think we should have a super-visible procedure that's easy to refer back to. We could also list ban lengths, although that's a contentious point obviously (a Banhammering is for life, not just for n00bmas). This is for submissions bannings rather than forum bannings; I think the latter probably doesn't need them.
</desperate power grab> >______________>
-
I agree with douglas.
also there is somehting that has been bothering me with the rules and competition in general...but I'm going to rethink this through before I come off as a bigger idiot >_>
-
And my first decree is score spamming in adv2 is banned!
/me shot
TBH, when I brought up the issue at first, I wasn't sure what the final ruling should be. My first inclination was just to use Time Over, but that was really just a quick fix. And then people became more effective at spring-spamming than I was, and then I got lazy, and... yeah.
Probably something that should be explored. Assuming a topic is made you can expect my expert opinion.
...Why is everyone glaring at me!?
-
And my first decree is score spamming in adv2 is banned!
/me shot
TBH, when I brought up the issue at first, I wasn't sure what the final ruling should be. My first inclination was just to use Time Over, but that was really just a quick fix. And then people became more effective at spring-spamming than I was, and then I got lazy, and... yeah.
Probably something that should be explored. Assuming a topic is made you can expect my expert opinion.
...Why is everyone glaring at me!?
Personal feelings aside, using Time Over is the sane and sensible thing to do.
-
For what my two pence are worth, I agree with doug too.
And not just because I am a rockstar at spring spamming <_<
-
OK, I'm calling the first Rules Committee meeting. I'd like everyone to meet at 11pm GMT on Wednesday (that's 8am for me, 6pm for Thorn/SM, 4pm for Stefan).
If you can't make it, post and I'll get a replacement in.
Items on the agenda include achieving consensus on the rules rewrite, and a possible increase in proof standards.
-
11pm for doug too? >_>
-
Can't make it, I have to work. I won't be home until a good 4.5 hours after that time.
-
OK, I'm calling the first Rules Committee meeting. I'd like everyone to meet at 11pm GMT on Wednesday (that's 8am for me, 6pm for Thorn/SM, 4pm for Stefan).
If you can't make it, post and I'll get a replacement in.
Items on the agenda include achieving consensus on the rules rewrite, and a possible increase in proof standards.
I'll be there, although you haven't yet said where "there" is - new irc channel? I can has ops? *shot*. Actually in all seriousness a channel only we have voice but anyone can join and listen is probably a good plan.
Also I take it you're chairing? Also also can we add discussion of a procedure (and guidelines, hopefully) for banning/unbanning (I think with the KS8 situation in particular this should be prominent)?
-
That actually is a good idea. I just registered #tscrules, consider that the channel for such discussion. I really didn't want to make another channel, but the idea of setting +m sold me.
Technically speaking, I suppose I am chairing - but with five members there shouldn't be any need for me to exercise any tiebreaking power. What else would I have to do? >_>
Also, RPG's sitting in for Thorn if he agrees to it.
-
That actually is a good idea. I just registered #tscrules, consider that the channel for such discussion. I really didn't want to make another channel, but the idea of setting +m sold me.
Technically speaking, I suppose I am chairing - but with five members there shouldn't be any need for me to exercise any tiebreaking power. What else would I have to do? >_>
Also, RPG's sitting in for Thorn if he agrees to it.
I wasn't thinking tiebreaking or anything (I'd be disappointed if we didn't reach consensus on things as well), more just from an organisational standpoint - who keeps us on the agenda, who calls time when we're done, that sort of thing. Maybe set the topic to be the agenda item we're discussing? iono, just mind dumping here.
-
I have to work at 4pm and won't be home til at least an hour and a half after. :(
-
<Rolken> also I am skeptical that live meetings across multiple continents can succeed in the long term :(
that's all really :(
but hey if you make it work good job :)
-
Im sitting in for stefan actually but still >_>
-
Well, those of us that were around met and got through a reasonable amount in an hour and a half. The main points:
-S+T allowed, including on Sonic Advance
-charts removed: TP-S rings, LW-S rings (SADX)
-creation of a subforum for records of previous bannings to be kept as a reference
-creation of another subforum for the mods to be aware of current situations
And that's about it. I'm not going to make either of the two changes effective immediately because some discussion from the top ranked players of the games it affects should also be invited. But give it a few days and I'll make the changes.
-
-S+T allowed, including on Sonic Advance
What exactly does that this mean?
-
You can play as Sonic and Tails
-
Soo on sonic 2?
-
On every game its possible, providing Tails is controlled by the AI the whole time.
-
Why hasnt anyone gotten that record for chemical plant yet? Id do it if I had the chance :D.
-
Because the rule hasnt been enacted yet
-
Also curiously, when S+T is enacted, does this call for some ban revisions (I'm thinking no *insert explanation here* but, am just curious)>_>?
-
Alright, another meeting this week. Discuss availability here.
The first thing that we'll do is go over the previous meeting's decisions and, if no other points are brought up, implement those decisions. Then I've still got a bunch of things I want to address, and a few issues we didn't close from the last meeting.
Thursday morning (or Wednesday night for the rest of you) is no good for me, but I'm available every other morning this week.
-
I can work it around whatever; I'd rather it not be between 0900-1900GMT on weekdays but if needs must I can manage.
-
Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday morning/afternoon are no good for me, but I'm available most every other time, assuming I'm not hanging with real-life friends. Yeah, they're more important, sorry; hate me if you must.
-
We had an impromptu meeting today, where I opened the floor for an hour and only RR took it seriously. >_>
Anyway, decisions:
-R101/280 backtracking allowed
-IC1: Tails and Knuckles can’t fly over the miniboss, chart to be reinstated
-HC2/SD discussed, no ruling made
-Chaotix charts discussed, no ruling made
And last meeting's decisions are being implemented now.
-
...any chance for another open floor session?
-
Sorry I wasnt much use in the meeting, I was tired and I ended up falling asleep heh
-
ITT another highly productive meeting, with over two hours of discussions.
Rulings:
-HC2/SD discussed, both banned
-Chaotix charts discussed, ring charts to be made, no TBG; no ruling on scores. Relevantly, TBG disallowed for all teams bar Chaotix.
-Sonic R ruled to leave as-is, Balloon Park in limbo
-Doublespeed Duration tentatively banned, without any impact on Rush scores or any other pre-level modification.
Relatedly, the following issues which will impact the above unresolved rulings are still up for debate:
-What constitutes a level completion? There's so many criteria that might signify a completion that I wouldn't know where to begin. (Currently eliminated as defining criteria: Time stops, level completion screen appears)
-At what point does competition become degenerate? Balloon Park is simply one spindash but according to Sonic R precedent it should be reinstated to the "real" chart.
-Where does the line get drawn on pre-level modification? I'm talking about things like building up the trick bonus on previous lives in Rush, or bringing a shield into a S3K act 2. Does Doublespeed Duration (or alter egos) fit this category? Is there a difference due to it being unintentional?
Post your thoughts. They'll all be taken into consideration.
-
A point I feel needs mention here:
not all pre-level modification is the same.
super sonic can be considered pre-level modification in that you spend time, before the level, getting yoru emeralds, for a speed boost advantage to be used in the level. I think everyone agrees it's ridiculous to put super sonic in the regular sonic 2 time charts, hence the reason SSS (or DD) is tentatively banned.
-
Regarding Hydrocity 2's trick, my two sense is that it's not legal. Of course, mike said my opinion was too late and didn't count at the meeting, so I present my reasons here. :P
Consider RPG's Chemical Plant 1 Knuckles video. It is considered an illegal strat because he does not reach Chemical Plant 2. Where logic gets fuzzy is that although the Hydrocity 2 trick doesn't move you to Marble Garden 1, you can exit the game and reload a save to appear there.
Now, the flag that tells the game to load a level in Sonic 1 and 2 is 0xFFFFFE10 in RAM. Not that the location matters, but knowing that a similar flag exists in Sonic 3 is key. Had RPG thrown this flag, his stat would be valid. The same goes for Hydrocity 2: the flag thrown to move the save data to Marble Garden 1 is not the same. It lacks the same requirement RPG's video does, and therefore is not valid.
Discuss.
-
-Chaotix charts discussed, ring charts to be made, no TBG; no ruling on scores. Relevantly, TBG disallowed for all teams bar Chaotix.
with this are you just reinstating that TBG is allowed only for any Chaotix ring charts, or that its also banned for the new Chaotix extra ring charts?
On chaotix extra scores, what is the wait?
-
No, that TBG isnt legal on any charts besides untimed Chaotix Rings
-
-What constitutes a level completion? There's so many criteria that might signify a completion that I wouldn't know where to begin. (Currently eliminated as defining criteria: Time stops, level completion screen appears)
If times get saved on a trial-like table, it shouldn't count if the game didn't register the new record (see Sky Deck, SA).
-Where does the line get drawn on pre-level modification? I'm talking about things like building up the trick bonus on previous lives in Rush, or bringing a shield into a S3K act 2. Does Doublespeed Duration (or alter egos) fit this category? Is there a difference due to it being unintentional?
Somewhat relatedly, I think I remember some people ignoring the cheating devices rule outside of levels because "it doesn't affect your speed throughout the level itself." It should probably be more explicit that save states to save time in between attempts, as well as instantly raising your life counter to 99 is not OK as it saves time whereas an honest player could not take advantage of it.
-
-What constitutes a level completion? There's so many criteria that might signify a completion that I wouldn't know where to begin. (Currently eliminated as defining criteria: Time stops, level completion screen appears)
If times get saved on a trial-like table, it shouldn't count if the game didn't register the new record (see Sky Deck, SA).
-Where does the line get drawn on pre-level modification? I'm talking about things like building up the trick bonus on previous lives in Rush, or bringing a shield into a S3K act 2. Does Doublespeed Duration (or alter egos) fit this category? Is there a difference due to it being unintentional?
Somewhat relatedly, I think I remember some people ignoring the cheating devices rule outside of levels because "it doesn't affect your speed throughout the level itself." It should probably be more explicit that save states to save time in between attempts, as well as instantly raising your life counter to 99 is not OK as it saves time whereas an honest player could not take advantage of it.
I thought save states between levels were OK? If not, then what is this topic (http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=1725.0) for?
-
-Sonic R ruled to leave as-is, Balloon Park in limbo
D: D: D:
Fine. Enjoy your dead game nobody plays.
-
I thought save states between levels were OK? If not, then what is this topic (http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=1725.0) for?
Those seem to act like normal saves (having a mode already unlocked and whatnot, then you don't need to load from the save state anymore). I was more talking about stuff like, as a weak example, skipping the "Retry" menu in Sonic Advance between time attack attempts.
EDIT: further inspection seems to show states that are meant to replace traditional level selects. I don't approve.
-
I don't see a problem at all with between level savestates; its not as though the emulators and roms aren't readily available.
If you choose not to use them because you're "honest" then you're accepting its going to take you forever to TA properly.
Plus if you want that banned, I think it would be safe to say that a lot of people would no longer be arsed with competing in the Mega Drive/Game Gear games.
-
I thought save states between levels were OK? If not, then what is this topic (http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=1725.0) for?
Those seem to act like normal saves (having a mode already unlocked and whatnot, then you don't need to load from the save state anymore). I was more talking about stuff like, as a weak example, skipping the "Retry" menu in Sonic Advance between time attack attempts.both
EDIT: further inspection seems to show states that are meant to replace traditional level selects. I don't approve.
What is the difference between having a mode unlocked, having the right Emerald states for S3 ring attacks, haxx0ring 99 lives and skipping entering a level select code? All about saving time, and all give a (non-competitive) advantage over console players; it would be hard enough to draw a line, let alone enforce a ruling.
I have been skipping the retry menu in adv2 for as long as I can remember when I play on PC (obviously not on the console >_>), and I asked if it was allowed first (I also have states for level select codes, emerald states, etc - and I've proved that I'll nuke all stats for any infringements, see S2). It does give a slight benefit in that I find it easier to stay in "the zone" when the turnaround time is less. I seem to remember Taco being against the idea, but the consensus was that it was fine. I also use TAS techniques to work out which routes are the fastest and what I need to do to execute them. These are things you can't do on a console and that save preparation time - but you still have to play the level and execute the strat. If you banned them, I'd argue that for consistency you'd have to ban anything that isn't in the vanilla console game - that includes using dumped maps or watching TAS runs in planning, for instance.
It's worth nothing that I'm plenty willing to share the fruits of my planning labour with people, so I probably end up spending more net time preparing than the people I'm competing against because of these tools (maybe I should stop doing that, I might stand a chance in adv2 then >_>).
Actually, reading this back it seems a little defensive; hopefully you see what I'm getting at and this doesn't come across like I'm a total arse :)
-
A clear definition of what constitutes a finished run is certainly interesting. Maybe crossing the finish line (or killing the boss) defines a completion. Maybe defining a level completion as "the clock stopping solely as the result of a completed objective" is the best temporary solution until a better one can be derived in you doods next meeting. With bosses I'd say this is easier. Using the example above, the objective would be defined as killing the boss (unless the battle objective says otherwise I.E. Sonic Heroes Team Battles).
-
For the record, here's my current working solution:
• Statistics are taken from when the level is completed. The level is completed when:
o If the game saves your statistics, those statistics must be saved for the level to be completed.
Example: In Sky Deck/Sonic, if you fall off the capsule and your time is not saved to the game, it does not count. (Link to demonstration video)
o If the game does not save your statistics, then you must progress to the next level (or to the credits in the event of it being the last level in the game).
Example: In Wing Fortress, the time is taken from the screen fade-out, not the defeat of the boss.
Note that both can apply to the same game. SA2 tracks level times but not boss times, so the second rule would apply to bosses.
EDIT: Next meeting at 4pm GMT Saturday. Be there!
-
You forgot your link.
*Minus brick'd
This is open for other users? I may be free then. I don't have any immediate issues (other than the need to remove SSR scores in their entirety), but I can add to the discussion. Intelligently, I promise.
-
The current set up is that you can listen but only committee members can speak. You might get voice if you've got input on a particular topic (say expertise in a game none of the committee members play regularly), but hopefully the idea is that all the evidence is in place beforehand and the committee makes rulings, kinda like a jury deliberation (only in public).
-
OK, then here's three things I want considered:
1. Scores in SSR to be removed. I doubt this will go anywhere, but at least a little discussion would be nice.
2. Send major version differences to freestyle. I'm looking primarily at Final Egg and Casinopolis for this one, but it exists for others - those are just the two I've actually tried doing and failed. At least do the major ones now; minor stuff like "in aquatic mine, you can do spiral uppercut outside the door and grab the emerald, saving 0.17 seconds" can wait.
3. Probably my biggest one - either change or clarify this:
Destroying more than 20 cars for points in City Escape, or more than 20 light darts in Eternal Engine, voids your score.
The fact is, I reek at the street boarding, and have yet to be able to beat City Escape with this rule. Mostly because it really means hitting fewer than four cars, thanks to the chain reactions that take place. Eternal Engine isn't so bad for me, but I do have to be careful. I suggest either putting a time limit to available stats, increasing the number, or specifying that it means hitting 20 cars directly.
Thanks!
-
Here's a simple rule.
- If a ring count or score count can become limitless in a stage, the ring and score submissions for that stage aren't permitted
That should cover all of the cheap maneuvers people'll do.
-
Anti:
1.) There is no reason to remove the cores when no techniques to break them have been found. Ii'm orry if you feel that it hasn't been discussed enough, but it's a pretty simple solution. You don't delete charts because you have a feeling that some day, they might get broken.
2.) there are a couple things.
a.) casinopolis sonic is hardly a version difference anymore, gamecube can get an extremely low time too.
b.) just becuase you failed to accomplish something does -not- mean it should be grounds for removal.
c.) you can't pick and choose version differences to allow, especially in the realm of the same game. the idea of the rules committee is to provide fair and consistent rulings; saying that the small timesavers don't matter but the big ones do is hardly fair -or- consistent.
d.) gamecube also has version advantages.
3.)I agree here. The rulings are awkward. I don't see what's wrong with instating a time limit instead.
-
Meeting held at 3pm GMT (stfu douglas).
Rulings:
-PAL/NTSC discussed, SMW charts will probably allow both. No ruling made
-Forums for ban reference/monitoring set up
-Time limits for CE/EE proposed, possibly at the time bonus cap (9:20)? CW the source of scalping is banned instead
-No ruling made on Launch Base 1 scores
-Super divisions thrown out, remain in Freestyle for now
-
Anti:
2.) there are a couple things.
a.) casinopolis sonic is hardly a version difference anymore, gamecube can get an extremely low time too.
b.) just becuase you failed to accomplish something does -not- mean it should be grounds for removal.
c.) you can't pick and choose version differences to allow, especially in the realm of the same game. the idea of the rules committee is to provide fair and consistent rulings; saying that the small timesavers don't matter but the big ones do is hardly fair -or- consistent.
d.) gamecube also has version advantages.
You neglected Final Egg, which has a very clear disparity between the two systems. I.E., for the Dreamcast, there's a second capsule suddenly appearing at the beginning of the level. That's not something I failed to accomplish on PC, but something others have told me I CAN'T accomplish. Impossible.
I would, however, like to see the DX version of Casinopolis. I didn't know there was a similarly quick way of beating it.
As for fairness ... I only said that to (1) keep my post short and (2) encourage a start to the discussion. If you try to consider everything, that would be one LONG meeting.
-
You neglected Final Egg, which has a very clear disparity between the two systems. I.E., for the Dreamcast, there's a second capsule suddenly appearing at the beginning of the level. That's not something I failed to accomplish on PC, but something others have told me I CAN'T accomplish. Impossible.
Then you Sir, are suffering from whats commonly known as "Version Disadvantage Syndrome". Like probably most of the site. Suck it up and deal with it, its not getting banned just because its only possible on Dreamcast.
-
Before this devolves into internet drama, let me propose a bill to the Rules Commitee.
"Spliting the Game Cube and Dream Cast versions of SA and SA2." Version differences should NOT be banned. I'm personally in favor of the more moderate solution of merely seperating the charts based on version. In order to present the case in the best way (and to judge is the split is warrented), a copy of the version differences guides of SA and SA2 should definately be present at the next meeting since both systems have some sort of advantage in certain stages.
-
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.
-
Isn't that similar to what I said here (http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3425.0)?
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Not to be a "tough cheezer" Anti but I doubt you could pull off the DC FE-S strat anyway >__>
-
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?!?!
-
Nope, just that its a ridiculously tricky strat and this (http://www.soniccenter.org/members/antiporcupine) >_____>
-
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?
-
I like that system a lot more; it no longer punishes players when an advantage is found.
-
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.
-
i've explained to miek that a 1:00 a time isn't better than a :15 a time and all is good~
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Aha, thanks for clearing that up :o
-
Actually, I was a bit mistaken. The timer does not reset, but if you're doing a timed mission, the time remaining resets.
-
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 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7KKy0n1M8fU)), 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 (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_adventure_dx/times/final_egg/sonic), 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. >_>
-
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. >_>