Good idea!But,what if you can collect very small amount of balls?E.g.Flying machine.

I think it would be better if Rating = Total Goos - (Total Time - Total Moves)?

Or in some levels Total Goos - (Total Time - Total moves)!

I'm OK with that. I think it's great idea. Total Time and Total Moves is what we need at leaderboards. here you can see total goos ranking:
http://goofans.com/leaderboard/player/all?sort=desc&order=Balls+Collected

And if someone gets a new badge the old ones should be removed, it will be too many.

some badges are already made like Speed Demon, Strategist, Saviour...
http://goofans.com/world-of-goo/goofans-badges
...but not made live

need davidc for this

Which is why there was an idea about that a while ago...something about like a goo wizard badge or something...

At the screenshots here:
http://goofans.com/download/level/fly-her-moon
you can see Pavke badge!

If you are Pavke, (all-time-level-completer-person-sort-of-thing) then you get special badge! (or if you are as good as pavke and get little or no moves on almost every level!)

Pavke: 'nuff said! XD

LOL! Now THAT'S a badge worth aiming for!

HECK YEA!!!

I think there should be another badge...
the "I have a record that Pavke doesn't!" badge...
Won't need many of them!!

LOL! But that would be hard, since Pavke is like the prince of goo or something.(Davidc is Ultimate KING for making this site!)
EDIT: Well, actually, the kings are people like David, Kyle, and Ron, while the people who are prince are people like Pavke, or thB.

Not to forget Daft as Brush (and Kopa, LTumbleweed, dwerdwerdwer, Jairo, Marius, etc.) .

How about a badge for "Level Devil". If you want to encourage downloading and playing of new levels then the current number available is roughly 150 (including original levels). Set the target at OCD for 140 levels (say).

James: By the way, DaftasBrush is on the 2dBoy forum, and is pretty much the best WOG player in the world.
Daft as Brush: Nice to see you on this forum!

Well, Ukpetd, There was a post a while ago that said "we don't want people to download stuff just for a badge!". (Not that stuff on here is crappy or anything cause it's really good! I'm just saying if people don't want to play a level, then they shouldn't have to.)

Wow! This thread went a long way Off Topic.. and fast!

I don't think there can be any real argument about who the Best player in the world is...
('nuff said!)
What interests me is who's Number 2 and 3 and....
And that's what this ranking system is really all about.

Some of the "Old Guard" (Jairo, Marius, Gil etc...) are still "up there" on the Total Goo table, but if you check their profiles some of them still have 1000+ moves and 2/3/4000+ time since they never played Least move or Least Time.

I've changed my mind on the formula....
Rating = "Max Tower Height" (in cm) + "Total Goos" - "Total Moves" - "Total Time"

It gives a much better measure of all-round "Player Skill" than just Total Goo.
And I think that would really shake things up, because by my quick reckoning Pavke wouldn't be #1 anymore!

Overall this seems like a good idea to me.
But the general problem with the approach of consolidating all possible values in one indicator is that it penalises players with "special interests" or players that are just not that interested in certain aspects of the game.
I for my part never felt the urge to build a high tower. It just bores me.
That's the reason why my highest "tower" ever is under 10m, although 20-25m should be easy for any mediocre player.
Same with going for min time.

If someone comes along now and gets 1476 Goos... we really shouldn't be saying / showing they're better than Pavke if they've got 1000+ moves and took 13mins to complete Flying Machine.

I agree it's quite difficult to assess fairly, but I reckon that "Best" should take account of every aspect of the game, not just Kleptomania.

And when people see who comes out at #1 (I think I know who it is now.. not me btw)... it'll push them to build a bigger tower!

Well, I'm fairly new to WOG forums and such, so I just know that you're the best player I've seen so far...
This is a really good idea for a ranking system, but it doesn't take into account extraneous circumstances; for example:
1. I play WOG with my nondominant hand, because of carpool tunnel. It's a bit slower than my right hand...

That seams to be common these day on goofans. Every topic gets off-topic really fast!
Finally log'd in and saw 28 new post but only 3 where on topic!

Back to the topic.

First, I don't consider my self "best", I just have max goos.

Ok, here is what on my minde.
I support all your work about ranking players and your formula for it, and ides, and everything is great but...
My opinion it's bad for wog community.
Let say you/we/he/someone/... makes a list of 10 best players.

1. mister X
2. person T
3. guy D
4. miss C
.
.
.
.
10 players no. 10

Wouldn't this make some people mad/angry/disappointed/sad because they are on lower place then they think they deserve?

I have much thoughts about this but I'm lazy to tip long posts

IF there is gonna be a special badge I think there should be a list(not in any order) and people should vote if they agree these people should receive that "special page"

In any case, I will support everything you say DaB and help you anyway I can.

Kinda like the "billboards" contest? If that's the case, I'm in!

Yes, that works for me too!

I wasn't really thinking about making a list...
I was thinking it would work like "Max Goo" and the Kleptomaniac badge.

We have a "Total Goo" column on the leaderboards, you can sort by it to find out who's got the most and see where you are in the list. If you are "sad" about your position in the list... you have to go and collect more Goos!
When you get more than 1300 Goo's you get the Kleptomaniac badge.

I'm thinking this would work the same.
A new column on the leaderboards using "the formula"... and a badge if you get a "good" score. Maybe more than one badge (like the Architect ones)
So a Badge if your score is more than X (0?), another if it's more than Y etc

You'd be able to sort by the column to see your score and if you are "sad" about your position.. you can go and save some moves, or time or build a bigger tower (or collect more Goos) to move you up.

As it is, I think the leaderboards do almost exclusively encourage Kleptomania, because you can sort it by "Total Goos" and people are competitive...
My thinking is, if we had the new column people would still be competitive, but it would get them to try more things than just "Max Goo"

I have been wanting to enhance the leaderboards for a long time to also include moves and time, and to equal presentation of all four "categories".
As soon as davidc creates a developer account for me AND I find the time (big problem, unfortunately), I'll start working to fix this exact problem.

My best wishes to you on this idea, thB!
Please make the time stuff not take into account the time on the user-made levels, because I've spent hours and hours on some of those...

Of course not. If this ever becomes reality (I hope so), only official levels will count for leaderboard ranking.

Note: I have tweaked this thread a little, deleted off-topic stuff.

@thB
Did you talk to davidc about leaderboards lately? did he mentioned developer account??

Yeah, first thing we need is Moves column and Time column (columns should exclude player that haven't finished all levels). And we need all tree columns for each level individually.
We can't do anything about this now. We have to wait for davidc or some sort of 'developer account'.

As for the new ranking, I'm up for it. Nice simple points "formula" that takes all tree columns and goo tower hight and makes a new ranking.
I've been thinking about the formula and what do you say about this:

1 point for each centimeter of goo tower.
.Kamal would get 5082 points and so on...

3 points for each goo saved
LTumbleweed would get 4419 and so on...

2 points for each move below 2000 moves
I would get 3662

3 points for each second below 2000 seconds
DaftasBrush will get 3366

*Formula has been made so that it takes all 4 columns by it's "hardness"
Of course, it needs work

Ok, finally here comes my proposal. Have been thinking this through since you started this thread, Daft as Brush, but, as I said earlier, found your approach rather unfair.
Pavke, your approach seems like a step in the right direction to me, but it is not very exact.

I suggest using this formula:

([TowerInCm] * (500 / [TowerMax])) + ([Balls] * (500 / [BallsMax])) + ([Moves] * (500 / ([MovesMin] * -1))) + ([TimeInSec] * (500 / ([TimeMin] * -1)))

Two examples using current overall maximum values (with profile data as of today):

Pavke
(3392 * (500 / 5082)) + (1475 * (500 / 1477)) + (168 * (500 / (166 * -1))) + (861 * (500 / (815 * -1))) = -201,2

Daft as Brush
(3315 * (500 / 5082)) + (1336 * (500 / 1477)) + (328 * (500 / (166 * -1))) + (878 * (500 / (815 * -1))) = -748,18

This formula takes into account the very different possible ranges of the four aspects of the game and treats every value exactly the same (by multiplying it with its respective factor). You do not really want to treat 5082 tower points like 5082 collected balls, do you?

Please note that for actual calculation I strongly suggest using not the "max possible value", but the arithmetic mean of the respective top 10 players in every of the four categories. That would produce far better results as it provides a factor that gives a better idea of what is realistically achievable.
I just didn't take the time to collect the top 10 values for moves and time.
Of course, it'd have to be calculated every time a combined score is generated anyway.

So what do you think?

That wouldn't be that bad for a new leaderboard, but it might be a little overwhelming to just have an overall score, don't you think?

Why would it be overwhelming? You just put the formula in the code somewhere and that's it.