Atm, I can read this values on the board: (G_Rom will provided you more information asap)
SOLO : 9650
:’( CONTEST : 6000 (1st in 3 contests with 2000 people)
MULTI : 15000 (1st in 6 contests with 2500+ people)
OPTI : 12500 ( 1st in 23 lang, in 2 puzzles with 250+ people + 1000 for Mars Lander)
@SaiksyApo is that your profile? because when i check i got this for you
ACHIEVEMENTS 4045
SOLO CONTESTS 281
MULTI CONTESTS 1752
MULTI GAMES 4330
OPTIMIZATION PUZZLES 2016
And what is your point? Is that what you’ll have with the new score system?
It’s the available amount of CGPoint with the new system, for a ‘perfect’ user.
He is just assuming an example of pontuation based on what G_Rom informed until now.
Using the formula provided, 12500 is the maximum points possible for the optimization puzzles, if you are the first place in all languages and there are more than 250 players in each language. In my opinion, it is still desbalanced .
Maybe a problem cap or a limited number of languages you can submit is an alternative.
I think that for each player, only one language has to be taken into account for points and ranking:
the language that provides the best result.
Without considering mars lander, which is special, one optimization code size puzzle can be valued up to 5750 CG point. And while I agree that we should have point for every language we can, I think one optimization puzzle shouldn’t give that much, because right now there are only two, but when they will be 5, 6, 10, or more, the balance will be blown away. It’s even more considering there are dozens of puzzles to succeed to have a decent score in solo.
My suggestion is that while we keep rewarding for multiple language optimization, the cap should be lower for each language past the best one.
Ex:
I’m first in Java with 250+ person so I got 250 point, but I’m also third in C++ but as the cap for second best language is at 200 so I only get 197 more points.
Something among those line to prevent abuse. I know that I can paste my C code into C++ easily, and into Java with not much more problem. Moreover, the optimization puzzle are quite easy right now, so even if i’m not fluent in say, ocaml, I can learn enough to golf a decent code to earn even more point without difficulty.
I agree and I’d like to add that if we add new languages, the maximum amount of points will grow. So could we limit the amount of CP obtained for an optimization code size puzzle by only considering 3 or 5 languages ?
Like a best of 4 languages, so that the cap will be the same as the mars landers, which is 1000 CP, and that’s enough I think because it’s still twice the level of a very hard puzzle
I totally agree, the most important point is quality, non quantity.
We have done a simulation on actual state of CodinGame. For now, due to low submissions on some languages, the best player in optimization will have about 1000 CP (with the new system, all puzzles merged) versus 11000 CP (actual points).
For that reason, I think we could give a try to the new system without limiting to 4 languages (for now !)
A best solution is to cap the puzzle. For example, 1000 CP max. If the player is first in 4 languages, then he reaches the limit, else he can reach it by being mid rank in 10 languages (given 10 * 100CP). This is more flexible and a guy who are not first can also beat the cap by playing in more languages.
But, again, actually this is not necessary due to the total submissions in some languages (and so it can be improved later).
In my opinion, you should not be able to earn more points by being mid rank in several languages than being first in one language. So only the score for your best language should be used in the global ranking.
Yes to that, the cap of 1000 CP that we can reach with 23 language seems a bit off. I just have to do a mediocre code in every language and pouf done, i don’t have to play optimization puzzle anymore.
Whereas my best of 4 with a max score per language at 250 still set the cap at 1000CP, but only for those who can achieve being first in 4 different languages, which is considerably harder and encourage people to compete more.
Yes Optimisation should grant let say 80 points each… and event that…it’s too much since it’s really language oriented.
People cheat using C# to call bash code for example. Which make language wise ladders irrelevant too.
Is there a plan to reset/recalculate the many thousands of CP earned by some members while solving these optimization puzzles?
read above
WTF ??? Is there someone at Codingame who is smart enough to see that there is a big problem with these f****** optimization problems?
Why the first guy in the leaderboard is someone that has more than half of these CP in optimization puzzles???
Why Gangrene who was first before is now 4th???
It’s been weeks that this has been said that the optimization puzzles are weighted way too much!!!
For what it’s worth, I completely agree. And honestly, getting to top 50 a while ago felt more like an achievement than becoming 1st with these optimization scores.
Totally agree with lechium06_
I think the real challenge (and satisfaction!) is in the (very) hard puzzles.
I would give even more points to it than proposed above.
Say 400 for hard and 800 for very hard.
It’s ongoing, don’t forget that the team is currently preparing the next contest
The unfair ranking system has put me in first place in the global leaderboard, so I feel obligated to take part in this discussion.
Before the optimization challenges were a part of this site, I was placed around the top 50, which took me about six months to achieve.
The last month was a period of fascinating self-improvement, because I have never had anything to do with code-golfing before.
When it comes to the scoring system, I think that one simple constraint – one player - best solution – is enough.
Some languages are just better suited for this task than others, and they definitely should be used.
The current system of keeping multiple solutions from a single player can be kept, so one could see how his solution is placed globally, but the only ranked and scored solution should be the best one for the player.
The interface, next to the current “All” and “Following” tabs, could be extended with “All-best”, and “Following-best”.
Players who have the same score should take the same place in the ranking, which would encourage new players to participate.
I think the “language-discrimination” issue, and methods of forcing them into optimization challenges are completely unfounded. If the task is to write the shortest code, let it be what it is. Two weeks ago, I had never written a single line of code in Ruby, Javascript and Perl. I knew only C, C++ and a little bit of Python. The challenge is to search for tools, that will achieve the best result for the task defined, and not sticking to what is known and comfortable.
Scoring the best solutions in multiple languages is unfair, because usually, a good idea for a solution can be easily multiplied into different languages. A single good idea, which took days to find and develop, can be easily duplicated into many somewhat similar languages, like Ruby, Perl, Python, Javascript.
For Thor and Paranoid optimization I’ve collectively spent more time than a “very hard” task. The maximum amount of points for an optimization task should be greater than a very hard puzzle reward, because there is always incentive to look for a solution that is just a byte shorter, whereas you never come back to a very hard puzzle after you complete it.
I also suggest adding a “Translator” category - as an extension of the “Translator” achievement - where players would be ranked by the amount of languages they used to solve a task.