Well, thanks for that.
Of course, the combined score would only be an addition to the four existing scores, not a replacement. But perhaps a good foundation for a new badge or set of badges, for display of the actual score with the other badges (maybe nicer than just some negative value), or a neat thing to have on one's profile page.
It's so that MORE Time means LESS score.... (same with Moves)
Although it is a substantial flaw in the formula.... (same with mine) ... you get big minus points even if you get Min Time or Min Moves
OK you get minus "More" for having more time or moves... but it seems "harsh"
In fact the Absolute Maximum All-Time Possible Score Ever! with thb's formula is 0... not very satisfying!
I do like Pavke's approach... where there's some threshold below / above which you score 0... and everyone gets a + score (everyone's a winner* eh?)
And I like thb's idea of equal weighting... but looking at the scores for some of the "intermediate" players... that formula's REALLY harsh on time... and also scores can fall if someone beats a record... which people won't like!
I've taken a look at some "middle of the pack" players...people who've got 1000-1100 Goos, most (or all) of the OCD's and a couple of days playing time.
They're coming out with ~1500 moves and about ~6000s time
Per Pavke's idea... I think we should set a level for each of the numbers where scoring starts..
You can build a very simple pyramid tower and get to about 20.00m, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
If you finish all the levels at exactly Goal you'll have 443 Goos, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
My new formula suggestion
Rating = 1 * (Tower cm over 20.00m) + 3 * (Goos over 443) + 2 * (Moves less than 1700) + 1 * (Time less than 4000)
This doesn't rank each thing exactly the same but the max score for each is category is about 3100.
Tower Max 3082 Goo Max 3102 Move Max 3068 Time Max 3185
We could "fudge" the thresholds to make them all 3000 ... but I don't see the need.
Max Possible Score is currently 12437
2 players have scores 10000+
We could award badges at 2500,5000,7500,10000 (or just 5000 and 10000)
Scores are only ever + and can only ever go up
and plus point from a server load point of view... It's Fixed Calculation and it wouldn't need to calculate the scores everytime someone upload a profile that changed the goalposts.
and Pavke isn't #1 - which he's fine with (apparently)
I agree this should be an Additional column on the leaderboards... not the only thing there... and I'd ditch the playing time column to make some room.
OK you get minus "More" for having more time or moves... but it seems "harsh"
Thought about that being harsh at first, too. But fact is that you can theoretically have an infinite number of moves and seconds and therewith score infinitely bad in these two categories. Imo an accurate, fair and equally-weighting score has to represent this.
Daft as Brush wrote:
In fact the Absolute Maximum All-Time Possible Score Ever! with thb's formula is 0... not very satisfying!
No, a score of 0 would represent a perfectly average top 10 player. As I said, I would use the arithmetic mean of the respective top 10 players. Pavke would have a positive score, for example.
Daft as Brush wrote:
I do like Pavke's approach... where there's some threshold below / above which you score 0... and everyone gets a + score (everyone's a winner* eh?)
Ditto, I also like positive scores. That can easily be fixed, but I don't have the time right now to come up with a formula extension to do this.
Daft as Brush wrote:
... and also scores can fall if someone beats a record... which people won't like!
It's the same when someone uploads a profile better than yours (no matter what category). You go down one place on the leaderboards. That's how it is.
Daft as Brush wrote:
You can build a very simple pyramid tower and get to about 20.00m, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
If you finish all the levels at exactly Goal you'll have 443 Goos, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
That would mean that players who haven't yet built a 20m tower or haven't completed the game don't get a score. And they wouldn't, it would be impossible. Of course, with my formula, they'd get a really bad score if they hadn't even completed the game, but no score at all? That doesn't seem right to me.
Regarding your new approach: I see the same problem as with Pavke's. The idea itself isn't bad, but it is not accurate and with the values you used, the four categories are again not equally weighted. (Not to speak of the "minimum limits" you put up earlier.)
Daft as Brush wrote:
and plus point from a server load point of view... It's Fixed Calculation and it wouldn't need to calculate the scores everytime someone upload a profile that changed the goalposts.
Don't worry, davidc wouldn't even notice the extra load produced by the server calculating scores my way. That's definitely not a problem.
Daft as Brush wrote:
... and I'd ditch the playing time column to make some room.
Room is a bit of a problem there, that's right... But getting rid of the column? Dunno...
... and also scores can fall if someone beats a record... which people won't like!
It's the same when someone uploads a profile better than yours (no matter what category). You go down one place on the leaderboards. That's how it is.
Not quite.. sure if someone improves their score and gets above you on the leaderboard that's just "how it is"... what I think will cause "aggrevation" is if someone improves their score, and everyone elses score (not placing) drops because of that.
thb wrote:
That would mean that players who haven't yet built a 20m tower ... don't get a score.
No.. if they haven't built a 20m tower they just get 0pts for their tower.
But re: completed all the levels...
With any of the formulas presented so far, we need to make it so it only gives a score to people who have completed every level... because of moves and time.
If I've only done the first few levels... i won't have many goos or a big tower, but I'll get a big "bonus" for having made only 30 moves and taken 100seconds...
Then as I play more levels my score will drop (fast!) because I'll be racking up moves and time faster than goos... that'll be "weird" and annoying.
Hence I think we should only give a score once you've completed all the standard levels.
thb wrote:
but it is not accurate and with the values you used, the four categories are again not equally weighted.
Maybe not _exactly_... but does that really matter?
They're pretty bloomin' close, within a few %, and could be dead-on if we tweaked the thresholds.
Maybe the final number could be multiplied by a fraction in order to get rid of the problem of too few moves/time. Example:
Final displayed number = (Really long complicated calculation) times (number of levels done / number of total levels)
Of course, some of the earlier levels are really easy to beat in few moves and time, but this would be offset by the player not being able to have a tall tower.
Maybe the final number could be multiplied by a fraction in order to get rid of the problem of too few moves/time. Example:
Final displayed number = (Really long complicated calculation) times (number of levels done / number of total levels)
Of course, some of the earlier levels are really easy to beat in few moves and time, but this would be offset by the player not being able to have a tall tower.
Like someone (I forgot who) said, when you get max of everything (or almost everything...or something), you get a score of zero. THAT doesn't really work in a multiplication factor...
I said overwhelming for an overall score to take place...
I wasn't talking about that wonderful formula...
Well, thanks for that.
Of course, the combined score would only be an addition to the four existing scores, not a replacement. But perhaps a good foundation for a new badge or set of badges, for display of the actual score with the other badges (maybe nicer than just some negative value), or a neat thing to have on one's profile page.
my gooey profile | my video channel | author of Hazardous Environment
Oh, well in that case, sure! That would be pretty interesting to have, actually!
The formula is great, much better them my one second think formula. just one question. Why is there "-1" after MinTime?
My Gooish profile | Videos on YouTube | My WOG Mods
It's so that MORE Time means LESS score.... (same with Moves)
Although it is a substantial flaw in the formula.... (same with mine) ... you get big minus points even if you get Min Time or Min Moves
OK you get minus "More" for having more time or moves... but it seems "harsh"
In fact the Absolute Maximum All-Time Possible Score Ever! with thb's formula is 0... not very satisfying!
I do like Pavke's approach... where there's some threshold below / above which you score 0... and everyone gets a + score (everyone's a winner* eh?)
And I like thb's idea of equal weighting... but looking at the scores for some of the "intermediate" players... that formula's REALLY harsh on time... and also scores can fall if someone beats a record... which people won't like!
I've taken a look at some "middle of the pack" players...people who've got 1000-1100 Goos, most (or all) of the OCD's and a couple of days playing time.
They're coming out with ~1500 moves and about ~6000s time
Per Pavke's idea... I think we should set a level for each of the numbers where scoring starts..
You can build a very simple pyramid tower and get to about 20.00m, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
If you finish all the levels at exactly Goal you'll have 443 Goos, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
My new formula suggestion
Rating = 1 * (Tower cm over 20.00m) + 3 * (Goos over 443) + 2 * (Moves less than 1700) + 1 * (Time less than 4000)
This doesn't rank each thing exactly the same but the max score for each is category is about 3100.
Tower Max 3082 Goo Max 3102 Move Max 3068 Time Max 3185
We could "fudge" the thresholds to make them all 3000 ... but I don't see the need.
Max Possible Score is currently 12437
2 players have scores 10000+
We could award badges at 2500,5000,7500,10000 (or just 5000 and 10000)
Scores are only ever + and can only ever go up
and plus point from a server load point of view... It's Fixed Calculation and it wouldn't need to calculate the scores everytime someone upload a profile that changed the goalposts.
and Pavke isn't #1 - which he's fine with (apparently)
I agree this should be an Additional column on the leaderboards... not the only thing there... and I'd ditch the playing time column to make some room.
Anyway... Thoughts?
Thought about that being harsh at first, too. But fact is that you can theoretically have an infinite number of moves and seconds and therewith score infinitely bad in these two categories. Imo an accurate, fair and equally-weighting score has to represent this.
No, a score of 0 would represent a perfectly average top 10 player. As I said, I would use the arithmetic mean of the respective top 10 players. Pavke would have a positive score, for example.
Ditto, I also like positive scores. That can easily be fixed, but I don't have the time right now to come up with a formula extension to do this.
It's the same when someone uploads a profile better than yours (no matter what category). You go down one place on the leaderboards. That's how it is.
If you finish all the levels at exactly Goal you'll have 443 Goos, so should we really be awarding lots of points for that?
That would mean that players who haven't yet built a 20m tower or haven't completed the game don't get a score. And they wouldn't, it would be impossible. Of course, with my formula, they'd get a really bad score if they hadn't even completed the game, but no score at all? That doesn't seem right to me.
Regarding your new approach: I see the same problem as with Pavke's. The idea itself isn't bad, but it is not accurate and with the values you used, the four categories are again not equally weighted. (Not to speak of the "minimum limits" you put up earlier.)
Don't worry, davidc wouldn't even notice the extra load produced by the server calculating scores my way.
Room is a bit of a problem there, that's right... But getting rid of the column? Dunno...
my gooey profile | my video channel | author of Hazardous Environment
Not quite.. sure if someone improves their score and gets above you on the leaderboard that's just "how it is"... what I think will cause "aggrevation" is if someone improves their score, and everyone elses score (not placing) drops because of that.
No.. if they haven't built a 20m tower they just get 0pts for their tower.
But re: completed all the levels...
With any of the formulas presented so far, we need to make it so it only gives a score to people who have completed every level... because of moves and time.
If I've only done the first few levels... i won't have many goos or a big tower, but I'll get a big "bonus" for having made only 30 moves and taken 100seconds...
Then as I play more levels my score will drop (fast!) because I'll be racking up moves and time faster than goos... that'll be "weird" and annoying.
Hence I think we should only give a score once you've completed all the standard levels.
Maybe not _exactly_... but does that really matter?
They're pretty bloomin' close, within a few %, and could be dead-on if we tweaked the thresholds.
Maybe the final number could be multiplied by a fraction in order to get rid of the problem of too few moves/time. Example:
Final displayed number = (Really long complicated calculation) times (number of levels done / number of total levels)
Of course, some of the earlier levels are really easy to beat in few moves and time, but this would be offset by the player not being able to have a tall tower.
IRC | Chapter Tutorial | Reference Guide
Final displayed number = (Really long complicated calculation) times (number of levels done / number of total levels)
Of course, some of the earlier levels are really easy to beat in few moves and time, but this would be offset by the player not being able to have a tall tower.
Like someone (I forgot who) said, when you get max of everything (or almost everything...or something), you get a score of zero. THAT doesn't really work in a multiplication factor...