The Sonic Center

Welcome Center => News and Updates => Topic started by: Rolken on September 15, 2008, 08:59:35 pm

Title: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Rolken on September 15, 2008, 08:59:35 pm
Wide-ranging actions are under consideration! Entire cities will fall into ruin in the ensuing chaos as the fabric of human societies tear apart at the seams! Inquire within.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Miles9999 on September 15, 2008, 09:01:26 pm
WTF?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Selphos on September 15, 2008, 09:02:49 pm
Is this for srs, or are you just testing us?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: MK on September 15, 2008, 09:03:17 pm
I prefer arbitrary decisions based on the current state of that submission. I don't think removing them all is the best personally, but I'll have to see what others think heh.

Like, Heroes scores were a clear example of something that absolutely needed to be done. There are a few other isolated cases that come to mind, but those fall under arbitrary.

*Mr. Burns hands* Perhaps Rings and Scores should be a freestyle thing, with a medal system rewarding you for doing certain ones. And removing all the broken ones.

Edit: This is for srs.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Parax on September 15, 2008, 09:15:41 pm
wtf don't remove rings/scores
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Mo on September 15, 2008, 10:34:53 pm
The only game I actually hate to score attack is Secret Rings because getting highscores on half the stages involve insane strageties that i don't know how to do,but every other games scores attack and rings are pretty good.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Combo on September 15, 2008, 10:38:01 pm
Take Sadv2 scores out so I can get my championship back.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: magnum12 on September 15, 2008, 10:48:40 pm
Bad idea. I'd rather just ban the exploit that causes the competition to be broken than take out the competition. To be honest, this approach is like killing the paitient to destroy the tumor rather than the other way around.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Auriman1 on September 15, 2008, 11:09:46 pm
Meh, I never liked rings and scores, and would likely compete more if they just disappeared, but at the same time, I believe there's a strong religious following for these categories amongst the ranks, and the likely rebellion from these cultist groups of followers upon the removal of their staple of life could possibly collapse the world as we know it from the inside out.

Given a large sum of the rings and scores throughout the games have a definite cap, though, and a large quantity of luck is involved in many accounts (most notably in newer additions to the franchise), I don't see the validity or purpose of rings and scores in most games after the Genesis collection. They should definitely stay for the older games, though (Sonic 1-3, S&K, etc.), to appeal to RA and SA fans, if nothing else.

My final opinion on the matter: Scores and rings for newer games should either be removed or moved to freestyle, but there's no reason to tamper with the older games.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: bertin on September 15, 2008, 11:22:01 pm
BAD IDEA
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Jawzunx on September 16, 2008, 12:27:35 am
Am I the only one who would like this idea?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Selphos on September 16, 2008, 12:32:06 am
Okay, who chose the first one? <_<
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: yse on September 16, 2008, 12:35:16 am
RR, obviously.

My perspective is that removing rings and scores would offer a more focused competition offering, and should be the course of action. I mean when you first come here you submit your best times, right?

Also, for the unaware, we voted to remove rings in 2004 but never acted on it, so precedent exists for such action.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Magnezone on September 16, 2008, 12:39:37 am
do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Selphos on September 16, 2008, 12:42:40 am
I guess you're the second one for Option #1.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: The T on September 16, 2008, 12:56:56 am
Why not just have RA and SA have less weight in the points than TA does?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: MK on September 16, 2008, 01:08:55 am
Also, for the unaware, we voted to remove rings in 2004 but never acted on it, so precedent exists for such action.

I am slowly starting to agree with this, even if precedent is moot. Rings should at the very least be weighed less.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: F-Man on September 16, 2008, 01:09:50 am
As I was saying in chat I do not get the idea of removing stuff or not including them from the beginning for that matter (whole games in the rankings). My game.com has gathered dust ever since I noticed Rolken wasn't adding the lone Sonic game on it to the rankings (was supposed to if I actually bought it, with money). Getting rings in that was equally as fun as tricking the physics to get better and better times, but now all those stats are wasted in an useless excel file.

I've also had numerous hours of fun getting rings in SA not to mention the scores. It's not the fact that this time would have been a waste that'd bother me (it was fun!), but the fact that we couldn't do it anymore? When we used to be able to??

Why?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Rolken on September 16, 2008, 02:39:17 am
At this point the voting is too skewed for wiping the categories completely to be a reasonable option. As noted in chat, my favored option is to give rings/score half credit on overall rankings and leave full credit to times. Are there any substantive disagreements or alternate suggestions?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Shadow Jacky on September 16, 2008, 02:52:07 am
I opt for half credit with the assumption that this will help put more focus on times as well.  I'm not the only one that feels that rings/scores get too much attention, but I only play heroes lol

oddly enough, scores was the reason I even came back here >_>
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Aitamen on September 16, 2008, 05:08:06 am
SKIP TO THE BOTTOM UNLESS YOU FEEL LIKE READING MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS



I'm sorry, but there's a note of dedication for scores/rings that may be ignored in times...

Not only that, but Moral boosts abound for getting top rings in any game.  Granted, it's doable by all, without TOO much effort, but still...

All effort in the game should be rewarded equally.  If you're not willing to RA/SA the game to take a championship (Judgement, I'm looking at you) then you don't deserve said championship.  Even if it's boring and repetitive, so are a LOT of TAs.  GH1, for example, is just waiting the BILLION tries it takes to get it right... you're always just a few frames off, and doing the same thing over and over...

Rings aside, let's talk about SAing.

DISCLAIMER:  All I know of SAing the 3D games comes from conversations with other people and from watching videos.  As such, I hope I offend no one.

SAing S2K and S3K is mostly collecting all the rings, destroying all the enemies (with highest chain possible), and, where feasible, doing so quickly enough to net that extra bunch of points at the end of the level.  S1, along with the 3D games, can be said to be heavily based on speeding through a level at top speed, killing as much crap and nabbing as many rings as you can in a mad dash for the finish line.

S2K and S3K require patience and concentration to get all the rings/scores, while the others take a great deal of route planning and the like.  SAdva requires much practice at spamming, and while personally, I think it's bizarre, you'd have to look at HTK to say much about it.

Since TAing requires much more dedication, in many cases, than RA/SAing, then what's the problem with asking you time-holding superstars to complete the RA/SA goals?  (eg. after you spent 6 hours trying to net that elusive :24, what's another 30 minutes to get the 225 rings in that level?)

It's a show of dedication to all aspects of the game, and as such, should be left in as they are (or perhaps halved, because rings/scores nearly correlate, and as such, should not be worth 2/3 (theory) of the point totals, because while, to me, it's worth more than times (because times are repetitive), I know many don't feel this way, and I pride myself on my fairness to my fellow gamers)


HERE'S THE JIST:

If you take them down, I'll stop competing all together, and while I'd prefer them to stay where they are, I think that if they are halved, while I'll drop tons and tons in the rankings, I would only drive that much harder on RA/SA to perfect any game I pick up since fewer people will be working on such things...
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Bilan on September 16, 2008, 06:18:19 am
DO NOT WANT

By which I mean do not want them deleted, not do not want scores/rings.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Bilan on September 16, 2008, 06:21:59 am
eg. after you spent 6 hours trying to net that elusive :24, what's another 30 minutes to get the 225 rings in that level?

Bad example is bad

What about spending 20 minutes getting sub 15 SB3 then spending days trying to get max rings?

Also Star Light zone, and thats not even mentioning some of the S3K RA's
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: douglas on September 16, 2008, 06:37:50 am
I am strongly anti rings and scores being removed.  In a lot of cases there's as much if not more strategy and skillful gameplay involved in RA/SAing.  Sure, it can be time consuming and frustrating, but as has been said so is TAing on occasion.  Championships are a measure of who is all-around best at a game, not who is the best TAer.  That's what Time Leaderships are for.  The only change I'd be in favour of is more prominence of Time/Boss leaderships - that happens anyway, because more people TA than RA/SA.

In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway.

Also don't take my scores kplz, adv2 is mine >_>
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Zeupar on September 16, 2008, 07:11:42 am
In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway.

Douglas wins the topic again. So let it the way it is.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: EngiNerd on September 16, 2008, 08:08:34 am
I can honestly say that if you remove all rings/scores, I will likely never compete here again.  I'll still stick around (you won't be getting rid of me that easily) but I won't compete.  I enjoy RAs far more than TAs, and I'm better at them.  PLEASE just remove the charts that we don't need.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Azure on September 16, 2008, 10:19:28 am
Don't mind what I said before. Count them for half, because they generally require less skill in the game. Justification for what I said:
I have 40 or so score records in Rush Adventure but I struggle to acheive yellow times. Essentially, my scores aren't worth much because I SUCK.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Jawzunx on September 16, 2008, 10:21:34 am
Oh, then ignore my ':)' thing of before. :(
I'd really like there would only be times charts
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Azure on September 16, 2008, 10:25:01 am
Would bosses remain the same value on the charts though? I suppose it's time-attacking, but I hate them and it's my worst area in SA. What say you guys?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Crowbar on September 16, 2008, 10:59:49 am
I don't compete in any 3D games and it seems they are the primary focus of this issue, so I only feel half-qualified to give my views, but I am in favour of keeping RA/SA.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: douglas on September 16, 2008, 11:01:09 am
Would bosses remain the same value on the charts though? I suppose it's time-attacking, but I hate them and it's my worst area in SA. What say you guys?
Again I shall say that arbitrarily assigning values is not the answer.  The more people compete in a chart, the more benefit to being at the top and the more damage from being at the bottom - that's the way to determine the value of the charts, not "I don't like RAing so make it worth half".

If many people are RA/SAing, it's competitive and deserves to be recognised as such.  If not, no problem.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: magnum12 on September 16, 2008, 11:05:59 am
I am strongly anti rings and scores being removed.  In a lot of cases there's as much if not more strategy and skillful gameplay involved in RA/SAing.  Sure, it can be time consuming and frustrating, but as has been said so is TAing on occasion.  Championships are a measure of who is all-around best at a game, not who is the best TAer.  That's what Time Leaderships are for.  The only change I'd be in favour of is more prominence of Time/Boss leaderships - that happens anyway, because more people TA than RA/SA.

In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway.

Also don't take my scores kplz, adv2 is mine >_>

Douglas wins yet another topic. If you want to give time more weight, why not just add a new division to the time charts called the Natural Division? Basically, this special class of TAing does not allow you to use glitches, thus challenging players to not rely on them to get fast times. Obviously only applies to stages in which a glitch is used to get the best time. Comes with the "Nature Boy" award to the division leader.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Crowbar on September 16, 2008, 11:11:17 am
Good luck defining "glitch". And actually enforcing that rule.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Shadow Jacky on September 16, 2008, 01:30:31 pm
Good luck defining "glitch". And actually enforcing that rule.

concur'd
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: douglas on September 16, 2008, 01:56:13 pm
Douglas wins the topic again.
Douglas wins yet another topic.
I have won every topic; some of them just aren't aware of it yet.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Waxwings on September 16, 2008, 03:42:22 pm
"In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway."

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total)

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic)

This is an old point, but there's at least some merit to it.

Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Spinballwizard on September 16, 2008, 03:48:30 pm
I am personally against scores/rings.

More rings than scores. Rings have a defined maximum (though some, i.e. SA2, require skill to attain and aren't blatantly obvious) that in most cases is relatively easy to achieve (late levels and character altitude limitations aside). Scores, on the other hand, can have some variance; enemy chains, presence of score gimmicks or lack thereof, or timing on your jump off a ramp (the bane of my few Shitty Escape SA's). Even then, though, once a trick is found stuff can be broken (take, for example, my discovery of near-infinite scores possible just by tricking repeatedly off a spring in Advance 2).

But I remember a day when only times counted towards your overall ranking. Those days pwned. I was a top 5 player in Adv2. And I wouldn't mind those times again. >_>

But keep rings/scores as a novelty I guess without weight. Or lessen the weight. I don't care.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Parax on September 16, 2008, 03:49:13 pm
"In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway."

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total)

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic)

This is an old point, but there's at least some merit to it.



Ring totals display everyone who has submitted to even one chart while time totals only display people with a full times chart.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Waxwings on September 16, 2008, 03:58:56 pm
Even so, there's quite a disparity. S3D rings have come up quite a lot before on this account.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: P.P.A. on September 16, 2008, 04:15:41 pm
As I never get around to SA and RA in Sonic CD I would really support it. It would cause damage in SC though, where my only redeeming quality at the moment is my perfect ring stats.
That, and I found RAing Sonic CD also rather relaxing, it gave you a chance to explore the levels more...
I'm not sure about RA yet, but if score attacking was gone I'd openly welcome it (except for games like Sonic Battle or PINBALL PARTY where it's the whole point of course >_>). I never found it interesting, it's annoying and also feels so pointless.

tl;dr fuck scores but rings can stay.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: bertin on September 16, 2008, 04:19:55 pm
As I never get around to SA and RA in Sonic CD I would really support it. It would cause damage in SC though, where my only redeeming quality at the moment is my perfect ring stats.
That, and I found RAing Sonic CD also rather relaxing, it gave you a chance to explore the levels more...
I'm not sure about RA yet, but if score attacking was gone I'd openly welcome it (except for games like Sonic Battle or PINBALL PARTY where it's the whole point of course >_>). I never found it interesting, it's annoying and also feels so pointless.

tl;dr fuck scores but rings can stay.

Yeah I almost forgot...Sonic Battle is all scores!
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Aitamen on September 16, 2008, 04:54:54 pm
As usual (as much as I hate to admit it), Doug put more of my ideas into words.

To Jawzun: Why don't you like RA/SA?  I'm curious. You hold a fair amount of the records in said areas...

To RPG: Before the new trick was found it took be about 30 runs to get max rings on SB1, and the new trick didn't seem that hard for me to pull off, personally, so I could see netting them all if fewer than 100 runs, even on a bad day...

compare that to the 634 runs it took me to get :24 GH1 (and the previous 1k+ to get :25) or the 10k+ runs to get :18 EH1S, or the omgwtfbbq runs to get my 24'45 NGH1S in SAdva.

Now as I've said, I am fairly ignorant concerning SA rings/scores, but if it's just because people aren't good at them, or are too lazy to do them, then it's a BS reason to weight the charts differently.  S3DB, as noted above, requires you to max rings before really bothering to compete, lest you start out with a ton of points before you even really start trying to beat those awesome times.

)I will, at some point soon, run RAs of Sonic Adventure, once I finish getting over the whole "damn I hate 3D games" thing, and once I find a way to snapshot or record my recs off my TV, if for no other reason than to understand why everyone hates these rankings so much...)
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: douglas on September 16, 2008, 04:58:24 pm
"In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway."

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/total)

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/times/total/sonic)

This is an old point, but there's at least some merit to it.


The reason so many have done S3D rings is that it's easy to 100% them.  There is an incentive to play things that can be perfected; so little in life is perfect, that which is is satisfying.  My point remains: if we are to allow a democratic system for weighting rankings, there isn't a better one that the one we have currently, where the popularity of a stat directly impacts its importance to the championship.  Anything else is going to be contentious and subjective, and that's not good in my book.

Having all the charts count doesn't impact anybody's ability to only play what they enjoy playing.  "Ah, but if I want to be champ I need them all", I hear you say.  Why such a weighting on the championship if there are elements of it you don't value?  That's what Leaderships are for.  Either be a completionist, suck it up and set stats for each chart, or play what you enjoy and only complete there.  I enjoy playing Leaf Forest 1, Hot Crater 2 and Ice Paradise 2 in adv2, and I don't particularly like the Music Plant or Techno Base stages - as such, I play them more and have tended to set better stats (not just times) in them.  Should I be demanding those are the only ones that should count?  In general, people like to play the earlier stages as Sonic, so those are more competitive.  Should we only count those?  No, that would be ridiculous.  Asking for RAing and SAing to be banned where there is valid competition might not be that silly, but it's not far off when the reasoning is that you just don't like them.

tl;dr: if you only care about times, compete for Times leaderships, stop bitching and have fun.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Waxwings on September 16, 2008, 05:06:02 pm
As usual (as much as I hate to admit it), Doug put more of my ideas into words.

To Jawzun: Why don't you like RA/SA?  I'm curious. You hold a fair amount of the records in said areas...

To RPG: Before the new trick was found it took be about 30 runs to get max rings on SB1, and the new trick didn't seem that hard for me to pull off, personally, so I could see netting them all if fewer than 100 runs, even on a bad day...

compare that to the 634 runs it took me to get :24 GH1 (and the previous 1k+ to get :25) or the 10k+ runs to get :18 EH1S, or the omgwtfbbq runs to get my 24'45 NGH1S in SAdva.

Now as I've said, I am fairly ignorant concerning SA rings/scores, but if it's just because people aren't good at them, or are too lazy to do them, then it's a BS reason to weight the charts differently.  S3DB, as noted above, requires you to max rings before really bothering to compete, lest you start out with a ton of points before you even really start trying to beat those awesome times.

)I will, at some point soon, run RAs of Sonic Adventure, once I finish getting over the whole "damn I hate 3D games" thing, and once I find a way to snapshot or record my recs off my TV, if for no other reason than to understand why everyone hates these rankings so much...)


Well the original issue (and one that should probably be brought up here, too) is over sitewide. <_<
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: douglas on September 16, 2008, 05:07:54 pm
As usual (as much as I hate to admit it), Doug put more of my ideas into words.

To Jawzun: Why don't you like RA/SA?  I'm curious. You hold a fair amount of the records in said areas...

To RPG: Before the new trick was found it took be about 30 runs to get max rings on SB1, and the new trick didn't seem that hard for me to pull off, personally, so I could see netting them all if fewer than 100 runs, even on a bad day...

compare that to the 634 runs it took me to get :24 GH1 (and the previous 1k+ to get :25) or the 10k+ runs to get :18 EH1S, or the omgwtfbbq runs to get my 24'45 NGH1S in SAdva.

Now as I've said, I am fairly ignorant concerning SA rings/scores, but if it's just because people aren't good at them, or are too lazy to do them, then it's a BS reason to weight the charts differently.  S3DB, as noted above, requires you to max rings before really bothering to compete, lest you start out with a ton of points before you even really start trying to beat those awesome times.

)I will, at some point soon, run RAs of Sonic Adventure, once I finish getting over the whole "damn I hate 3D games" thing, and once I find a way to snapshot or record my recs off my TV, if for no other reason than to understand why everyone hates these rankings so much...)


Well the original issue (and one that should probably be brought up here, too) is over sitewide. <_<
In that case, how about sitewide Times (including Bosses?), Rings (inc Special Stages?), Scores and Other (Special Stages/Bosses?) charts to accompany the main Sitewide rankings may be in order - yesno?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Stefan on September 16, 2008, 05:09:30 pm
Magnum, that may have been one of the most terrible suggestions I've ever heard. The problem at hand is that scores and rings detract from the more real competitions. Adding a new, arbitrary time division (which is entirely undefinable, by the way) is adding more pointless charts we don't need. If we are arguing scores and rings are unnecessary, what possibly makes you think we want more charts?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Magnezone on September 16, 2008, 05:41:23 pm
I think the real problem with the site is the amount of redundant rankings plaguing all of the games. There are too many stats on the site that can be easily maxed by barely trying. If we're going to conclude the discussion of completely axing scores/rings because they are all broken in some way, then lets move on to wondering why s (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_rush_adventure/rings/hidden_island_1/sonic)t (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_and_the_secret_rings/times/lost_prologue/mission_17)a (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_and_the_secret_rings/ring_chains/dinosaur_jungle/mission_12)t (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_rush/scores/dead_line_boss/sonic)s (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_rush/special/special_stage_1/sonic) l (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_rush_adventure/rings/deep_typhoon_2/sonic)i (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_the_hedgehog/rings/mission_1/shadow)k (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_3d_blast/rings/overall)e (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_adventure_dx/rings/emerald_coast/big) t (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/knuckles_chaotix/rings/botanic_base_1/levels)h (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/knuckles_chaotix/rings/isolated_island_3/levels)e (http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=rtFotf7NEWg)s (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_2/rings/sky_chase/sonic)e (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_1/times/final_zone/sonic) are obtainable records, like I originally posted about a million internet years ago in the beef forum.

I don't know about you, but the basic fundamental of a competition site is competition, and when competition is dumbed down to a scenario where everyone is simply striving to tie each other instead of overcome each others challenges/set new precedents, it isn't exactly exciting. It's depressing to look around the site and see so many lines of silvers leading into yellows/greens/blues, completely skipping red/orange stats, and in most cases, have a number of players that is more than most that aren't the described scenario. And don't tell me that the thirteen links I provided are the only cases. I estimate 300-450 stats on the site like this, and they are spread into almost all games.

Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Stefan on September 16, 2008, 06:09:16 pm
I plan on evaluating your estimation, Skyl, but I must make some points.

Often, in a difficult ring attack, the only people who submit are those who managed to get the max. As such, a hard ring attack often skips over red and orange entirely, as in here:

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_1/rings/scrap_brain_1

Second, I think there has to be a distinction between -competed- in statistics that have no red/orange, and statistics that have no red orange because nobody plays them. When the issue at hand is that of easy records distracting competition, I think records that aren't competed in in the first place should be immune from the distinction of 'Degenerative, redundant' statistics.

in other words, http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_the_hedgehog/rings/boss_attack/shadow

is not

http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_and_the_secret_rings/times/lost_prologue/mission_11
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: flying fox on September 16, 2008, 06:13:46 pm
Please don't remove the rings and scores, I love RAing and SAing its so much fun. I'm not much of a TAer. Do whatever you want to them I don't care just please don't remove them :(

EDIT: If something is going to change can't you just change the weight/value of them. i'll be happy with that, just please keep them. 
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Magnezone on September 16, 2008, 06:36:20 pm
Your second point first, I agree. The rankings only get accurately color coordinated when a certain number of stats have been submitted. I tend to think of that number as somewhere from 8-10.

Your first point is more complicated because we have no real definition as to what "easy" is defined as when used to describe TSC's competition. Personally, having experienced S&K ring attacking, I find S1 rings very easy... Scrap Brain 1 only required an hour or two of practice for me to get originally :( All it required of me was that I felt like figuring out the route on how to do it.

Also, concerning Scrap Brain 1, might I note that 9 people were originally on the Scrap Brain 1 ring chart before i put my video up in February? There's 15 people there now :( It seems as if my videos for Sonic 1's Rings division made most Sonic 1 rings redundant, degenerative, noob fodder, ect. The point - plotting the strategies + recording them + providing them has destroyed Sonic 1 Rings exclusivity.

Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Shadow Jacky on September 16, 2008, 07:48:16 pm
except hiding strats is lame >_>
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Auriman1 on September 16, 2008, 07:54:07 pm
Your second point first, I agree. The rankings only get accurately color coordinated when a certain number of stats have been submitted. I tend to think of that number as somewhere from 8-10.

Your first point is more complicated because we have no real definition as to what "easy" is defined as when used to describe TSC's competition. Personally, having experienced S&K ring attacking, I find S1 rings very easy... Scrap Brain 1 only required an hour or two of practice for me to get originally :( All it required of me was that I felt like figuring out the route on how to do it.

Also, concerning Scrap Brain 1, might I note that 9 people were originally on the Scrap Brain 1 ring chart before i put my video up in February? There's 15 people there now :( It seems as if my videos for Sonic 1's Rings division made most Sonic 1 rings redundant, degenerative, noob fodder, ect. The point - plotting the strategies + recording them + providing them has destroyed Sonic 1 Rings exclusivity.

I agree with this. Rings and scores are only challenging when you aren't provided the information of how to get them. If you've got that, there's not much to it, except maybe patience where ? ring containers are involved. Are people really proving anything by following the crowd for a few generic stats, or investing countless hours in hopes of getting the better result by complete chance? Tying into what Shadow Jacky pointed out, does it make sense for people to only have an edge because they might know something someone else doesn't, especially when they'll quickly lose this edge upon the information's discovery? I do not see the relevance.

Times are a different story. People can be shown the exact route the best time has taken, and still struggle to get even remotely close to it. Also, assuming you can duplicate your movements exactly, there's no random factors, just skill. You can improve upon yourself by perfecting techniques and devising new strategies, maybe even developing routes of your own. That's more the concept of what competition should be in my mind.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Stefan on September 16, 2008, 08:29:41 pm
Tying into what Shadow Jacky pointed out, does it make sense for people to only have an edge because they might know something someone else doesn't, especially when they'll quickly lose this edge upon the information's discovery?

Welcome to competition?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: flying fox on September 17, 2008, 02:53:21 pm
At this point the voting is too skewed for wiping the categories completely to be a reasonable option. As noted in chat, my favored option is to give rings/score half credit on overall rankings and leave full credit to times. Are there any substantive disagreements or alternate suggestions?

I would be very happy with this, so please do this. As I said before please don't wipe them out.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: FuzZerd on September 17, 2008, 05:06:33 pm
I think 1/2 is a little bit low I think 3/4 or a littler bit higher would be best.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Cutiefox on September 17, 2008, 05:13:44 pm
If they're removed, competing in Sonic Heroes will be no fun. :(
Besides, scores and rings usually decide your rank. Why keep a bunch of shitty ranks on your file just because you didn't want to get more points/rings?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Rolken on September 17, 2008, 05:19:07 pm
Secrets don't make competition. It shouldn't matter if information is public, it should be how people can use it that matters.
Your competition ideal is not the same as the one TSC operates on. If competitors were beholden to reveal all their new routes to everyone else, there would be little point to figuring out new routes, which is silly; plus it's obviously nonenforceable.

In short, given the points system the problem is self-correcting - more people TA because it's fun, meaning good TAing is more important for championships anyway.
This is a key point (and one I now remember making myself before I forgot everything about this competition stuff <_<). Looking over the rankings, in almost all games rings and scores are already weighted below 50% compared to times, and none come close to parity. So I suppose the only remaining question is whether they are unsufficiently skillful to justify even that, which is a tough case to make.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Stefan on September 17, 2008, 06:19:21 pm
In some games, however, the little effort put into scores in rings often overpowers that put into times. Though in most games times dictate competition, there are a few exceptions which may need looking at.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Shadowfan on September 17, 2008, 06:19:41 pm
Removing scores and ring charts is a pathetic idea. Even changing the game weights for ring and score attacks is a pathetic idea. If you remove them or make them weighed less just because less people compete in them, then you shouldn't include games that hardly anybody competes in(i.e. Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity, Sonic Rivals 1 & 2, Sonic The Fighters and Sonic Jam). I could see valuing them less if like 10 people competed in scores/rings while like 70 people competed in times, but it isn't like that. Besides, in some games, ring attacking is way harder than time attacking. In Shadow, for example, ring attacking various levels is even harder then time attacking them. Also, just because things like rings and scores have less competitors, isn't a legitamate excuse to remove them. It means that members just don't compete in them because they might not know how to or be able to figure out how to do something or they're simply too lazy to compete, which is punishing more skilled, clever or ambitious players for being more skilled, clever or ambitious.    
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Magnezone on September 17, 2008, 06:22:59 pm
HELLO I AM SOMEONE AND I THINK I WILL IGNORE READING THE TOPIC BECAUSE IT IS TOO LONG FOR ME AND JUST MAKE A POST BASED ON THE FIRST POST IN THE TOPIC REGARDLESS OF ANY DISCUSSION CURRENTLY OCCURING OR WHETHER OR NOT MY POINT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Shadow Jacky on September 17, 2008, 06:38:40 pm
can you really blame him SkyLights?  I admit I do this sometimes >_>
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Magnezone on September 17, 2008, 06:42:50 pm
i can and i have <_<

also might i note that there is a difference between using my last post on Flying Fox and using it on Shadowfan
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: flying fox on September 17, 2008, 07:08:23 pm
i can and i have <_<

also might i note that there is a difference between using my last post on Flying Fox and using it on Shadowfan

Sorry  SkyLights but I can't tell if your making fun of me or not, because of my aspergers (autism) I can misunderstand what people say. Due to the autism I don't post in forums as much as other people do because I have a tendancy to make a complete idiot of myself which is what I probably have done now looking back at my posts :(
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Rolken on September 17, 2008, 07:25:29 pm
HELLO I AM SOMEONE AND I THINK I WILL IGNORE READING THE TOPIC BECAUSE IT IS TOO LONG FOR ME AND JUST MAKE A POST BASED ON THE FIRST POST IN THE TOPIC REGARDLESS OF ANY DISCUSSION CURRENTLY OCCURING OR WHETHER OR NOT MY POINT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE
On a semi-related note, I doubled the posts per page from 15 to 30.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Magnezone on September 17, 2008, 07:56:51 pm
Quote
Sorry  SkyLights but I can't tell if your making fun of me or not, because of my aspergers (autism) I can misunderstand what people say. Due to the autism I don't post in forums as much as other people do because I have a tendancy to make a complete idiot of myself which is what I probably have done now looking back at my posts :(

Which is why I didn't ridicule you directly before when you posted after we reached the conclusion that we weren't going to remove score/ring charts completely :(
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Aitamen on September 17, 2008, 08:17:32 pm
Rolken, I find your point on secrets in competition odd.

I can't think of many people who wouldn't share strats if they were asked, and this goes double for high-level players.

And on another note, yes, Rings are maxable, in many games, without too much effort and a ton of patience (much more patience for 3D games).  But if you aren't willing to put the time into nabbing all the rings, then what gives you the right to call yourself "master" of any game?

If you can't get a good score in GH1, no matter how hard you try, but you can get :24, are you then better or worse than someone who can get that max score but can never get :24?

And if you're so terrible that you can't net the 225 rings, then it's kinda terrible that you can get :24...

Also, before people go ranting about "max and tying" on records, how about 1:13? or 5'50?  You can't expect to beat those, yet it's a ton of points on you if you don't get them...

So we should nuke every level that has a defined max?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Stefan on September 17, 2008, 08:32:47 pm
I'm not sure what points you were trying to make there. Really, I'm not.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: flying fox on September 18, 2008, 04:32:20 am
Quote
Sorry  SkyLights but I can't tell if your making fun of me or not, because of my aspergers (autism) I can misunderstand what people say. Due to the autism I don't post in forums as much as other people do because I have a tendancy to make a complete idiot of myself which is what I probably have done now looking back at my posts :(

Which is why I didn't ridicule you directly before when you posted after we reached the conclusion that we weren't going to remove score/ring charts completely :(

Ok then sometimes I have been known to get the wrong idea so just ignore me :D
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Thorn on September 18, 2008, 12:15:36 pm
I'm finally going to stick my two sense in. I'll receive bets on how much against the public opinion I am later.

It seems to me that everybody's agreed that in most games the sheer participation in the Times category makes it so that even if Rings and Scores are piss-easy, their weight in the overall game is minimal, serving only to provide a boost in Sitewide Points via a leadership. The exceptions to this are Sonic 3D Blast, and most 3D games because they track Ring submissions and lead to massive filler stat submissions. The problem comes in that there's no common difficulty across divisions e.g. attaining a max score in Sonic Rush Adventure -- go fast, get rings, mash buttons for points and to stay near invincible -- is a lot simpler than a max score in Genesis Sonic games -- get most all rings without getting hit, combo enemies, learn the location of hidden caves in the level, and chain all of that as fast as possible.

So, since game championships differ in value Sitewide, would anybody disagree with giving different weights to divisions in different games, instead of trying to create one standard system like "Rings/Scores have 25% weight, Times 50%"? As far as I can tell from setting up TUSC rankings it's not hard to implement; we'd just need some notice as to the weights on the game's rankings pages. Since the Rules Committee hasn't had anything to do but mope about Heroes Scores, I think they'd (or "we'd", if I still have any say after having no opinion on the last umpteen points of discussion) have no problem sitting down, trying to obtain various stats for this game and seeing if it was difficult or just required patience. If we reviewed a game every two days we'd be done within two months, which is as long as this topic could possibly roll on for, and in actuality we already know which games don't need review, so it'd be done much quicker.

So, I'm heading off to university for a class now, and I'll see if I get shot down, ignored, argued, agreed with, etc. upon return.~
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: douglas on September 18, 2008, 12:34:50 pm
I'm finally going to stick my two sense in. I'll receive bets on how much against the public opinion I am later.

It seems to me that everybody's agreed that in most games the sheer participation in the Times category makes it so that even if Rings and Scores are piss-easy, their weight in the overall game is minimal, serving only to provide a boost in Sitewide Points via a leadership. The exceptions to this are Sonic 3D Blast, and most 3D games because they track Ring submissions and lead to massive filler stat submissions. The problem comes in that there's no common difficulty across divisions e.g. attaining a max score in Sonic Rush Adventure -- go fast, get rings, mash buttons for points and to stay near invincible -- is a lot simpler than a max score in Genesis Sonic games -- get most all rings without getting hit, combo enemies, learn the location of hidden caves in the level, and chain all of that as fast as possible.

So, since game championships differ in value Sitewide, would anybody disagree with giving different weights to divisions in different games, instead of trying to create one standard system like "Rings/Scores have 25% weight, Times 50%"? As far as I can tell from setting up TUSC rankings it's not hard to implement; we'd just need some notice as to the weights on the game's rankings pages. Since the Rules Committee hasn't had anything to do but mope about Heroes Scores, I think they'd (or "we'd", if I still have any say after having no opinion on the last umpteen points of discussion) have no problem sitting down, trying to obtain various stats for this game and seeing if it was difficult or just required patience. If we reviewed a game every two days we'd be done within two months, which is as long as this topic could possibly roll on for, and in actuality we already know which games don't need review, so it'd be done much quicker.

So, I'm heading off to university for a class now, and I'll see if I get shot down, ignored, argued, agreed with, etc. upon return.~
Difficulty is dictated by what others have been able to achieve, which is better than some few deciding what stats are appropriately difficult on some arbitrary and subjective scale.  Once again, it's a self-correcting problem (or in fact not really a problem at all).
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: X-5 on September 19, 2008, 01:29:43 am
I like thorn's idea

On SA2B, most rings are maxable and just take patience, I think those should count less, it is eight million times easier to get 482/470 rings on CE than it is to beat my time because the time can always go lower. and I spent a whole heckuva lotta effort getting it lower than anybody expected, cause I have unlimited free time and I love that level. The rings should be worth less than my time because you can max the rings in an hour if you explore for the first time, but it will take you at least 200-1500 hours of practice to beat my time depending on how good you are. Really the ONLY thing rings have going for them is some are very hard to find, I would have never found many that everybody knows.. but I still doubt that is enough reason.

Scores on the other hand, for SA2B, should be worth as much as times. Ryo beat everybody on CE1 with 30k, and the thing is his run is very improvable, I see 31 or 32k but both of those are extremely hard to get. Getting it as close to perfect as possible would take as much effort as going for a fast time, since you can always improve, whether it be from not missing some trick points or just doing everything faster and more efficiently. If you ask me the score will always be less maxed than the time, so scores definitely deserve to give as many points as times, for SA2 anyway.

that is just one game, but I really like your idea. For SA2B my opinion is make times and scores the same value, with rings being less. That is if this idea is seriously being considered, I thought it was a joke poll?
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Bilan on September 19, 2008, 06:33:03 am
On SA2B, most rings are maxable and just take patience, I think those should count less, it is eight million times easier to get 482/470 rings on CE than it is to beat my time because the time can always go lower.

Thats almost the same as the example Aita gave in his first, so Ill address it in the same way.

That might be true for CE, but this (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_adventure_2_b/rings/final_chase/mission_4) is harder than this this. (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_adventure_2_b/times/final_chase/mission_1)
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Aitamen on September 19, 2008, 11:51:46 am
Sorry about that last post... I was very very tired when I wrote it...

:24, 1:13, 5'50, :08...  I'm sure I'm not the only person who considers these the max stats for these levels, yet they are records, and while they vary in difficulty, they're maxed, and in at least one case, they CANNOT BE BEATEN. 

So should any level that maxes also be lessened in the rankings?

No.  If there's a defined max and you can't obtain it, then try harder until you can, then show you're better than those people by doing awesome elsewhere.

Now granted, because of the level of abilities of sonic given to him in different games, I will wholeheartedly agree that I can't see having people tying 57'46 on EC anytime soon (if that is indeed the max), because there's a separation of talent and skill (and multi-tap) among humans, but that doesn't mean that these levels are to be the only ones we compete in.

Otherwise, we might as well take the online "how fast can you press a button" test and post our rankings instead of our sitewides... >_>
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Alondite on September 24, 2008, 05:11:28 pm
The poll seems to be a bit skewed.  It's pretty obvious that RAing and SAing are easier than TAing, and people like easy records, or getting high ranks easily. 

TAing is pushed very far, and it requires a lot more time to place high in the standings because the strats are so well developed and require such a degree of skill.  Of COURSE RAers and SAers would want to keep those charts, that's all they have, they don't want to devote the time to TAing, whereas most TAers it seems, want to ditch the other charts because it's easy, or it's not worth bothering with other than for a better ranking, and in that case, the rankings get skewed to because you get a lot of great players who just TA ranking low because they don't care to submit in other charts.

 Yeah yeah..I know all about the whole "each group only wants to do their thing, so by your (my) logic that means we should remove TAing for the SA/RAers." I got that, you don't even need to say it.  However, Mike has pointed out that RA/SA charts were already voted to be removes however long ago it was (I don't know if I was here or not), and now it's come up again.

 I personally don't think SA/RAing needs to be tracked. For one, RAing can easily be maxed (and at least one game gives you a huge score bonus for perfect rings, so there is a Score submission too, a 2 for 1).  SAing I don't have as much of a problem with, because you need to be fast, collect a lot of rings, and destroy enemies for a good score, but it's still far easier than being competitive in TAing.  If people are here to compete, doesn't that mean that they should want a challenge?  I mean isn't that the whole point of being competitive? 

I don't know, it seems to me like most people don't care whether or not they are removed, but there seems to be more people who want these charts to stay than there are those who want them to be removed.  But who are these people? The TAers for one, seem to be more TSC regulars, the people who've been around longer and done more, and shouldn't we cater to those people before every other person who comes in here and just does RA/SAing because it's easy ranking points? And this is something I'm unsure of, because I wasn't here in the beginning, but wasn't TSC strictly TAing at one point (I honestly don't know, so if I'm wrong then ignore that)?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.  I know what I say doesn't mean a whole lot, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who feels this way.
Title: Re: Poll: The Rankings And You!
Post by: Aitamen on September 24, 2008, 05:31:57 pm
I think that the difficulty of TAing vs RA and SA is what's different here...

Yes, RAing isn't that hard, and requires only dedication (and perhaps route planning, if nessecary)
TAing, as it's more entertaining to most, is where the greatest challenge is, indeed.
SAing, depending on game, can be either rediculously easy or rediculously hard.  you go beat/tie EH2K time and EH2K score and tell me which is harder...
Or AR2K
but we're not here for just competition, otherwise we'd track very different things... here at TSC we track mastery of sonic, not just fastest sonic.

In a more recent example, let's take "Test Zone"
Grab knuckles and go run my TAS/TA path (videos available on my Youtube)
Not too bad... a little tricky, at times, and there's two bind drops, but sub-20 should be attainable with little or no HL skill.
Now, switch to sonic and get all 325 rings in the level...
the former took me 34 tries to vid, once I had the TA (non-TAS) route down and started recording...
the latter took me 236 tries (after the couple hundred where I didn't think it was possible, and then found it via luck)

So if we were to rank TA/SA/RA by difficulty, it varies from level to level.
And while generally TA is hardest, and RA is generally easiest, this isn't always the case.
As such, marking them by difficulty based on what your tracking isn't fair.

This is the case I was trying to make.

I love all three, honestly, with SAing being the hardest in my mind, for most games.

If we're just measuring who has the fastest sonic, then this site isn't half of what I wanted, and I'll only pay attention to the great people here.
But to me, TSC tests mastery of sonic, and as such, rings and scores must be included.