Modification of ranking score

@NewboO
Isn’t the case in all the game/MMO ladder ? It’s like a race, if you start later, you need a lot of time to compete with the top, right ?

I understand the problem but it’s not something that bother me.

1 Like

For me the new ranking system is far better than the previous one.

  • Good ancient players are more gratified
  • Good new players can be close to top 50 before starting live contests
  • Very good new players can now climb the ladder among top 50 (it was close to impossible before)

Maybe the top 10 will be difficult to reach even for the best new players.
But that doesn’t bother me. The best of best will still be able to climb.

Anyway thanks for implementing this codingame team.
Keep up the good work ! :slight_smile:

1 Like

You’re exaggerating a bit.
The first contest I ever participated in was Poker Chip Race, in september 2014, 7 months and 6 contests later, I am ranked 14th in the global leaderboard (I was ranked 33rd before the modification).
Even though I did solved quite a few solo puzzles, it is far from impossible to reach the global top 30 within a few months.

3 Likes

@SaiksyApo: you can’t compare with a race. A contest is a race (especially the solo ones) but the global leaderboard is more like a championship. But in sports, and even now in some games, it works with seasons: so if you arrive in the competition during season 3, you probably won’t be able to rank well for this season but from the next one nothing is preventing you to reach the top. Lots of games are using either ELO or TrueSkill or variations of it, which both avoid having unreachable players. Or, to have an example of a continuous ranking, have a look at how ATP is working. If it were like Codingame, Federer would still be 1st by a very large difference.

By the way, what if this logic were applied to a single multiplayer contest on CodinGame? Won’t you be bothered that the ones who push first could earn more points to such an extent that maybe people with a way better AI won’t be able to catch up?


@Neumann: Yes, you’re 14th, but you are 5600 points away from the first, this is almost the double of what you have now. And as the 3rd of this leaderboard, I don’t see how I could be pushed away from the top 10 before years thanks to the 2700 points gap… Even the 4th has 800 points less than me so I’m kind of locked at this place as long as I do every contest, which is a bit sad for both me and anyone who deserves this place more than me.

3 Likes

A valid ranking can not include points that can not be obtained anymore. Until it’s the case, this ranking means nothing. Since it’s more an “xp grind” than a skill contest. I thought about a system to fix this. If you don’t like it, it’s fine with me. Find another one but fix this current non sense.

Also I’d like the live multiplayer AI battles to have a fair share of points attribution for the global ranking.

PS : I got from 305 to 127 with the modification but I’m still thinking previous ranking was unfair but less unfair than this one. Since it’s just a way to push away in the global ranking people that finished 2nd or worse down in the rankings. I actually participated in 0 contest.

1 Like

I totaly agree with Enygma

1 Like

As always. :slight_smile:

I already posted my opinion here in french:


So in english:
To reduce the impact of points from old challenges that can’t be won by the new subscribers, I think it would be nice to only keep points from the {n} best challenges results of the last {x} months.
With n = 3, x = 18 for multi, and n = 8, x = 18 for solo contests for example it would be nice.

  • This would prevent old codingamers to forever stay in the top 10,
  • This would prevent people that miss one challenge to lost ranks forever
3 Likes

Good ideas DorianWilde, I’ll add more options (all being with 2 pools of points, one for solo contests and one for multi constests :
A- an average of all challenges
B- an average of X best challenges (X=3 or whatever)
C- A or B + points of the very last challenge (set to 0 if you didn’t participate)

Option C is the best IMO since it forces players who want to stay at the top to participate in the new challenges and ensuring they stay at the top if they keep up participating and very good performing. If they start to perform bad, others will raise their averages while setting their “last challenge” amount of points to a good value to raise in the ranking.

Still the more challenges you do, the better you can ameliorate your ranking setting up a better “best of X” average. And if you just rank 1st 3 times for example and stop participating, you will lose the last challenge points making other able to overcome you in the ranking.

I really like your best of X average idea to complement mine since in mine poor old performances impact the current average too much while “best of X” encourages to participate more.

SaiksyApo said “we just have to be first in the contest”

easy!!

In your example, two coders A and B ranked 93º and 99º respectively in the same contest.
They will get 1 CG point Is it fair?
If this situation occurs more times in the future, Coder A will never have better ranking than coder B.

It is not difficult to see that a ranking system must give different points to different positions.

I would like someone tell me why my formula is worse than actual.

My formula:

Score = P + N ^ (P / N)

Where P = (N - C + 1)

Actual formula:

Score = N ^ (P / N)

Where P = (N - C + 1)

Thanks for reading!

@scrauler Did they deserve to climb the ladder quite fast if they finish 9X/100?

It’s a real question, I don’t want to be rude.

Here at Codingame, the opinion is splitted.

All the formulas are here. (an image is much better than words)

quite fast? No, but they deserve to climb at different speed based on their position.

By other side, if the formula gives more points, there will be more people interested in participate on contest and that is good for all because it will get points for top positions higher.

But why did I lose the points from previous contests? This should not be worth from now on?

@SaiksyApo No they don’t deserve to raise faster. They deserve to raise at the same speed. Why would the high ranks raise that faster? Is codingame only caring for top contenders?

Anyway all this talk is useless until the points sum is revamped to a fair system based on points that anyone can win anytime.

On a side note I was thinking about fancy icons such as crowns, one per category of points for the ranked 1st person.

This should be the opposite. If the climbing speed is different based on your current global ranking, it should be faster to climb if you are low ranked. The same way ELO works. If you beat the #1, you gain more points if you’re #100 than if you’re #10.

Actually this would be the most fair solution. The points you gain in a contest should be based on your ranking, and the rankings of the people you beat.

3 Likes

I like neumann idea :smiley: and I have to agee with @Enygma, top contenders will never move of their spot if we keep it the way it is right now. If @NewboO which is ranked 3rd is criticizing it too, it may be wise to take a look at it :wink:

Nobody made remarks to my previous post:

to associate a counter to the challenge,
let’s say CC=1 for the first, (2 for the following, etc.)
and to add to the current scoring system 100*CC points for those having a non null score to the challenge number CC.
in other terms, that means that each new challenge can give 100 more points than the previous.
(1000 more points after 10 challenges ~1 year)
old challenges will have a relative weight decreasing at each new challenge.

does it make sense?

@CvxFous also consider giving points for the past multiplayers games that are available for everyone to compete :slight_smile:

I was surprized to upgrade so much my rank.
I first thought that a few people solved some hard solo problems…

@pk_fr no it doesn’t make sense since if you didn’t do previous challenges, you can still never got those points to compete fairly.