Modification of ranking score

Isn’t fixed amount of points for the winner the only way to to make fair so that any new player can still target the same max points as the previous contenders were in the past contests?

I think so.

Yes, it is, but we don’t need to make any new player can target the same max points as the previous contenders. That is not the point.

The most fair system is to give as many points as coders’ ranking score you defeated on the same contest.

Example:

Leaderboard:
1º A
2º B
3º C
4º D
5º E
6º F

Contest results: (only 4 participants)
1º D, 2º F, 3º G 4º A

A player will get N+2-R points for each player below him, where N = number of players on the leaderboard and R = position on the leaderboard.

In this simple case,
player D will get: 2 + 1 + 7 = 10 points
player F will get: 1 + 7 = 8 points
player G will get: 7 points

i think they the score should be maintained according to the number of the plays

Ranking score = A + B + C + D

A = Points from puzzle games solved
B = Maximum points got in all SOLO contest played
C = Maximum points got in all MULTI contest played
D = Total points got in all TRAINING contest played

I think this is more fair because all TRAINING contest can be played in any time.

I think that make too much emphasys on achievements points, and that make a lot of people higher even whithout doing even one challenge !

Why should there be only one leaderboard ? instead of trying to make this one right, i would start with another approach.

Maybe creating two distincts leaderboard : One with points ( earned through achievements + your rank in points at each multi training ) - And the other only with ranks.

The one with ranks would represent the “all contests leaderboard” with a different ranking rules than the one with points :
For example if B has won over A more times than A has won over B : B should have a better rank than A

Of course it should take in account how many contests the player have done and other stuff but i’m only throwing an idea

This way if someone is really good but don’t have time to do contests he would still have a good rank in the points leaderboard, and if someone is only interested in contests he won’t be beaten by some who are only playing outside contests

1 Like

The problem will still be the same in contests. If past contest earn points you can’t gain afterwards, the ranking is useless since it’ll be a grind ranking, not a skill ranking.

Its idea isn’t point-based…

Anyway, this kind of rules can’t work because of circular case: if A won over B, B won over C and C won over A, who should be first? This is even more critical with thousands of players.

I would say it’s a tie, each of them has 1 victory and one lose. But i see your point .

My idea was to separate the two because i feel like it should but i didn’t though deeply about how the rules would work.

I feel like we focus too much on doing a pool of points with everything and balancing how they are given while we could make things simpler by dividing leaderboard and applying different set of rules, which rules, this i another debate ^^

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but how about multiple ranking systems? One for puzzles and one for contests. I think the contest one should use TrueSkill, while the puzzle one can be just a sum of points. I suspect most good coders will only care about the contest ranking. In contest rankings it shouldn’t be too hard for new comers to catch up to the top (perhaps 2-3 good results).

As we’re also talking about several leaderboards and such, what about showing in the global leaderboard the most used language during contests (or 2 most or even all but it may be a long list for some) and giving the ability to filter by these languages?

I didn’t think long about this so it may be a useless/meaningless idea but I just noticed that though there are often a lot of C/C++ or Java coders in contests top, the global top 10 seems to be mostly crowded with PHP and Python coders and I don’t know if it means these people are simply more diligent or actually have more constant results.

1 Like

That’s a nice idea, perhaps have stats like the following for each contest:

sorry, i was asking a question here - i have found an answer already

leaderboard is counting points from optimization puzzles - that is all

Hi guys, you should read this new post (Click on JeromeC to toggle the post) :slight_smile:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us :smiley:

Regarding the balance it is really difficult to judge but I think that overall your proposition is good.

In my opinion for contests you should consider both types separately.
Maybe we could do BO3 Solo + BO3 Multi ?

A small remark regarding optimizations puzzles : for a given language if 2 players have exactly the same number of caracters they should have the same ranking/score.

That’s all folks !

1 Like

I was writting a post to propose a BO3 Solo/Multi but you already did it <3

Solo and Multi are too different to be merge, I guess.

Moreover, this is also the best way to represent the level of a codingamer.

@mattrero They don’t have the same ranking, because someone find the optimized code before the other.

Percentage / Criterion / Submission Time.

What I meant is that I don’t think time should be considered in optimization puzzles.
For me time and speed should only matter in contests.

Optimization puzzles are meant to be permanent so future players will be at a disadvantage if time matters.

On the same topic I think that players who don’t pass 100% of test cases should have 0 points.
I mean, optimizations are usefull only when the code works, right ? :wink:

1 Like

Optimization puzzle should be permanent, but not the associated puzzles (Thor, Skynet) I guess. It will change when a large number of people will have found the best code … OR NOT :smiley:

Of course, if not I’ll publish this code:

G!