Could someone recapitulate, for those people (like me) who haven't been following the thread closely, what this proposal is and how can you see it in practice? Maybe some specific URL where you can see this proposal in action?
I can see from the posts in this page some mathematical formulas and something about player rankings, but it's not telling me anything.
The proposal was to assign extra user titles for players.
The TASVideos Baxter ranking is as follows:
http://tasvideos.org/forum/rankmaptest.php?x=2.5&y=0.5
It is highly dependent on (active) published movies, and their ratings.
Every player who is not a quiet player, banned user, coder, or site manager is assigned a user title corresponding to specified ranges in which his or her Baxter rank is situated.
The proposal is currently in practice. You need only look at my user title.
For the formula, you will have to read Baxter's post above.
Now if I could just get my "Vested member" title back... :P
This is kind of strange in that it completely seperates the forum/movie ladders. Make a single step onto the movie ladder and you're permanently removed from the forum one.
...
Then again, I'm in a niche anyway (higher-poster who only has one movie that, for some reason, has not yet been obsoleted)
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
I'm not sure what the appropriate topic to post this is, but this looks close enough.
With my Sparkster movie being published, I have been split into two differentplayers on the players list.
Edit: Thanks, Doofy!
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Seeing this thread made me think it would be nice if this page would work again.
I think the main idea of that thread could be easily implemented with this list (the idea of having some sort of something ongoing the entire year). I think that if for instance at a certain time, every day the scores on that list would be saved for every person, and then (eventually) have a graph of the players progression that year, and the overall score progression. It might give some fun statistics.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
I think the readability of the player list could be improved by separating the individual players from the teams.
There would then be 4 separate lists:
1. Players
2. Teams
3. Old players
4. Old teams
There is also some inconsistency with the use of "&" and "and" in the team names. I would change all of them to "&".
Why can users not have multiple, or at least choices from multiple ranks that represents their different contributions as coders, players, forum posters, moderators etc?
EDIT: Oh I didn't see FractalFusion's post.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Excellent information, and very helpful for new members. Will there be a revival of the page which lists the rankings of all members, for comparison's sake?
Excellent information, and very helpful for new members. Will there be a revival of the page which lists the rankings of all members, for comparison's sake?
I have been advocating, and trying to revive this for quite a while. I don't think I can ask for it more than I'm currently doing without it getting annoying ;)
I think it would be very nice indeed though. Like you said, to compare with others, or just to see where you stand yourself. It could be like a list with colored or bolded lines showing where the ranks change.
Another thing that I think would be cool with this information would be if the list was automatically saved at a certain time each day, so that graphs could be made showing each player's progression.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I've been looking at rankings recently, and discovered that "Expert Player" is greatly underused. Even before adelikat and Baxter took on new titles, the category was woefully under-represented, which makes me think that it either needs to be removed entirely, or have the criterion lowered. Currently, the ranking ladder requires an advancement in one level to increase the point total by double, meaning that it takes an increase of 500 points to move from experienced player to skilled player, and 1000 points to move from skilled player to expert player (>2000). Since the site is now being run by a team instead of one person, it's likely that the people who are interested in TASing enough to make ~16-20 movies will also have an interest in helping advance the site in some other capacity, which would (and has) resulted in the loss of any previous title.
So, do we do away with the title expert player? Reduce the necessary points to >1500, instead of the current >2000? Do we give subtitles to the admin staff (i.e. Editor/Player, Site manager/Expert Player)? Or something else?
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
I wouldn't consider the 'Expert Player' rank to be underused. Like the ninja rank before it it loses its meaning if bestowed upon those that don't deserve it and so I'd be against lowering the points to 1500 purely so that more players could have the rank. Looking at the page there seems to be a few players that are a movie or two from the 2000 (Phil, Aqfaq and Cardboard) and others that are regular enough contributors and so it is likely that they could get there in a year or so (klmz. Lord Tom, Aglar, arukAdo and FractalFusion). So...
do we do away with the title expert player?
Not necessarily. I think it is a good descriptive rank showing prowess in TASing of a high calibre, but see below.
Reduce the necessary points to >1500, instead of the current >2000?
Now that you mention it, the jump between a Skilled Player and an Expert Player is huge (equal from never having TASed to Skilled Player). I wouldn't be opposed to reducing Expert Player to 1500 to break up the gap a bit, but I am still definitely of the opinion that there should be a highest rank that only a minority of TASers will have the ability to achieve. Perhaps having Expert be 1500 and having Ninja as 2500 or 3000.
Do we give subtitles to the admin staff (i.e. Editor/Player, Site manager/Expert Player)?
I wouldn't be opposed to multiple ranks, I remember that Bisqwit had three ranks at one point, and the fact that contributing to the site in more than one way will put you in a different ranking system should be chnged. It could make the forums quite messy though as so many users would qualify for them.
Joined: 4/20/2005
Posts: 2161
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Is there a page where you can see how many of these points you (or someone else) has? I've looked around for a way to find out how many points I have, but without any luck. (I'd like to avoid calculating it myself)
I'd be against lowering the points to 1500 purely so that more players could have the rank. […] I wouldn't be opposed to reducing Expert Player to 1500 to break up the gap a bit
:D
Mukki wrote:
I am still definitely of the opinion that there should be a highest rank that only a minority of TASers will have the ability to achieve. Perhaps having Expert be 1500 and having Ninja as 2500 or 3000.
Maintain, not achieve. Achieving them means nothing because it isn't recorded anywhere. Once you lose the rank it's effectively like you never even had achieved it, making the whole idea nearly moot.
Randil wrote:
Is there a page where you can see how many of these points you (or someone else) has? I've looked around for a way to find out how many points I have, but without any luck. (I'd like to avoid calculating it myself)
You can see it here, but the page doesn't work so you actually can't.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
moozooh wrote:
Mukki wrote:
I'd be against lowering the points to 1500 purely so that more players could have the rank. […] I wouldn't be opposed to reducing Expert Player to 1500 to break up the gap a bit
:D
I'll assume that you read this as a contradiction so I'll restate it to avoid others becoming confused.
This was a qualified statement (the qualification is in bold).
Mukki wrote:
I'd be against lowering the points to 1500 purely so that more players could have the rank.
By this I meant that I would be against the standard being lowered where the only aim is to have more users with this rank (that is, the highest rank, rather than that named 'Expert Player' rank specifically).
I then went on to say that:
Mukki wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to reducing Expert Player to 1500 to break up the gap a bit, but I am still definitely of the opinion that there should be a highest rank that only a minority of TASers will have the ability to achieve. Perhaps having Expert be 1500 and having Ninja as 2500 or 3000.
By this I meant that lowering the requirements for Expert Player would cease to be an issue, in my opinion, where it was no longer the highest rank. If there was still a rank higher than Expert Player (I used the Ninja example) that represented a higher mastery over TASing then the ranking system as a whole will not have been devalued. It would instead remedy the issue that I identified in the gap between Skilled Player and Expert Player being too large.
Of course this all depends on whether you think that it is worthwhile to have an almost unassailable rank. I think it is in that it is consistent with the present pyramid-style of player ranks (huge amount of Players, slightly fewer Active Players, 21 Experienced Players, 11 Skilled Players, 1 Expert Player) that shows an ascension of both quality and quantity of work. Once there are ~10 Expert Players there will probably be ~20 Skilled Players and higher rank could be added separating the Experts with 2000 points from those with 3000, but that is my own personal preference and I can imagine how some users may prefer to have fewer ranks or may not care about the ranks much at all.
I don't like the idea of lowering criteria (even though I personally think I should have the skilled player ranking), the ones who definitley should have that rank or better do have it. I'd be more in favour of adding or changing criteria, maybe taking into account effort or commitent taken in specific movies i.e. number of re-records, re-records per movie length, length of movie.
I'd be leery of any "awards" that are even slightly based on rerecord count, given how trivial it is to change.
Granted, I'm not certain how else you'd quantify "amount of effort dedicated to TASing", which seems to be what you're going for here. I guess you could go by total length of published movies, but not all games are equally hard to TAS. Compare a scrolling shmup to a late-era Castlevania, for example; in the shmup much of your rerecords are dedicated to dancing, while in the Castlevania much of your rerecords are dedicated to optimizing very bizarre movement systems and manipulating luck.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Isn't that the point though? Few should have the highest ranking possible.
As far as those people also getting promoted to other duties, the solution there needs to be do have a slash ranking. Judge / Expert Player. Such a system is on the TODO list.
