Timeline for Fair scoring system for multiple levels and multiple players
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2023 at 0:58 | comment | added | Peter Jewicz | One thing I might consider is adding a qualifying period of N tries before a score is counted. This gives players some practice tries on a level where it won't affect their score and gives them a bit of safety if they take a few attempts to score well. The only downside is then a player might get a satisfactory score before N attempts is reached. You could built a way in to disable this per level depending on how big of an issue that is. | |
| Feb 11, 2023 at 16:29 | comment | added | anon | This is something the speedrunning community has thought about for an extremely long time. Have you done any research into the solutions they've adopted? Spoken to any speedrunners about their experiences with leaderboards -- things they like and things they're frustrated by? | |
| Feb 11, 2023 at 14:42 | comment | added | Zizy Archer | @NotThatGuy I believe it is safer to score both equally. Points in many sports are only for ranking, also differences won't be all that large in most cases. And, most important, if op makes a mistake and has a bug in a level allowing you to complete it in 10 seconds instead of 50, ranking doesn't change but giving points based on time makes playing such levels absolutely needed to compete for the top spots. And if the bug is tedious to exploit it might push off many people that would otherwise compete in N-1 levels but now see no point as the top players are required to exploit that level. | |
| Feb 10, 2023 at 10:26 | comment | added | NotThatGuy |
Considering 2 possible sets of player times for the same level: 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 100 and 5, 25, 45, 65, 85. Do you want those to be scored equally? If not, you might want to score (primarily/exclusively) based on time, rather than position. Although large gaps probably wouldn't exist for too long in a competitive position-based scoring system, as that provides a specific strong incentive for other players to land in that gap.
|
|
| Feb 10, 2023 at 5:04 | comment | added | Daniel Wagner | Taking a player's maximum level score as their score deals with the "playing a new level" issue, but it loses a lot of discriminatory power. Taking the sum of a player's scores gives good discriminatory power but rewards completionists unduly. Now here's the cool bit: sum is the L1 norm, max is the L infinity norm, and there's a completely smooth continuum between them. Pick any number to get closer to one or the other of those properties. For the Ln norm, add the n'th powers of all the scores, then take the n'th root. You might recognize the L2 norm as the distance formula we learn in school. | |
| Feb 9, 2023 at 22:28 | comment | added | Johan | Have you thought about adjusting your exponential curve? Because its sounds like a good idea that should precisely reward very good performances on only some games. By just tweaking the exponent parameter, you should be able to reach the desired hierarchy between isolated high performances and constant average performance. | |
| Feb 9, 2023 at 17:02 | answer | added | Zizy Archer | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 9, 2023 at 14:23 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Feb 9, 2023 at 11:14 | answer | added | Philipp | timeline score: 23 | |
| Feb 9, 2023 at 8:54 | answer | added | Zibelas | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 9, 2023 at 2:22 | comment | added | user122973 | If you find a viable solution, please purpose it to SE meta. | |
| Feb 8, 2023 at 23:15 | history | edited | DMGregory♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typos
|
| S Feb 8, 2023 at 22:06 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 9, 2023 at 11:16 | |||||
| S Feb 8, 2023 at 22:06 | history | asked | Liberty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |