The Ranked-Points System Thread: Page 5

The Ranked-Points System Thread

MichaelViera

Okay. About dealing the rate at which maps are added and "base competitiveness"

As I said look at the average number of completions for each map tier pool. The average number of completions for a map should not fall for any of the tier pools, but preferably increase until the right level is found I guess. You shouldn't look at the average number of completions per map CROSS TIERS! Only inside tiers.

New edit: Base competitiveness can be described by the average number of completions per map in the t1 map pool because it includes the whole population.

Edit2: I want to connect the 10 tiers to 10 point groups. But I don't have more time to think about the rank system for now. So I'm taking a break ...

MichaelViera

Bonuses should be treated as maps in this regard. They are like the main maps, super tracks (except that the main map can also have sub-tracks [stages])

So look at the average number of completions per super track inside each super track tier pool.

What about the stages? I don't know man. There are many things that make them complex to consider.
But yeah, whenever you add a stage map, it deserves a bit more time to mature than linear. I guess any stage map should be treated as a double map. I don't know man. I can't comprehend it for now 😃 I don't think it matters so much. I guess.

hex

MichaelViera again do keep in mind the standards for what an average bonus looks like is very different between different gamemodes. lots of surf bonuses are basically just another map (30-60s long even). in modes like jump this type of bonus is an outlier, most are very short and getting a bonus record just involves grinding a single trick until you save a couple ticks on the previous record. this is a video that collects bonus records for rj and sj and uploads them to youtube for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDYmhe__ow

e: this was most of the reason why we talked about having to differentiate between bonuses that will give you points for setting a pr (most surf bonuses) and ones that will not (most rj/sj bonuses).

MichaelViera

hex
I remember your message and got a little worried.

I assume what you mean is that you are going to treat some bonuses as maps and then others as WRCP's ish (the short bonuses)?
Or are you saying that short bonuses will not give you rank points at all?

MichaelViera

O. I think I wasn't clear enough here. I didn't mean that bonuses should be treated as maps for rank points. Only for controlling the rate at which maps are added.

I just want to give some context. It's the average completions per super track inside each tier that's in question. Whenever you add a new super track, it will fall a bit for the tier in question, and it will take some time before it gets back to normal. But the super track itself does not have to reach the average, because other maps beside will gather completions as well meanwhile.

hex

MichaelViera some bonuses are going to be ranked (give you points for completing & more points for improving your times, obviously less than a full map would), others will be unranked (not give you points for those reasons). the reason to do this is exactly what aart said. it is again a gamemode issue because the vast majority of surf bonuses are played the same way maps are (do good strafes, find a route, optimize units, etc) so they're fun to grind and improve. on the other hand the vast majority of rj and sj bonuses are not like this, instead it's just grinding to hit the same tick perfect strat until you get 5 more u/s than the previous wr holder. there are jump bonuses that are worth ranking (e.g. https://youtu.be/_b8BujPOhuc?t=100) just like there are ones that are not worth ranking (https://youtu.be/_b8BujPOhuc?t=94). the way you decide which is which is going to be subjective but i'm very confident that 99.9% of bonuses will be very obvious and non-contentious.

MichaelViera I don't know rockjump/stickyjump, but I looked at rocketjump, and it seems like strafing is very limited?

and yeah this is accurate. the way you optimize times in rj/sj is very rarely with strafing since the modes both have 10aa. instead you use your explosives, go faster, shoot earlier, and so on. on shorter bonuses this often means you just do a big sync at the start and go in a straight line to the end (https://youtu.be/_b8BujPOhuc?t=456) which does not leave much room for interesting ways to find improvement or optimization.

Aart

It's not neccesary about the length of the bonus but more on the competitiveness of them, bonusses like surf_strafe b1 for example are not going to be ranked. Since it is just a drop and there isnt anyway to save time on it. Some other stupid shit like surf_sinsane b2 will probably not be zoned either. Surf is lucky that within surf 10 seconds stages/bonusses can be competitive. however in rocket/stickyjump ahop etc the time you can gain is pretty limited. So ranking a 10 second jump isnt that usefull. Surf is the only gamemode that has a good bonusses culture so all the surf bonusses will be zoned as seperate tracks. You can expect to see all the bonusses that are on ksf to also be on momentum, bonusses that are not going to be ranked are still zoned and perfectly playable. You will just not get any points for completing them

MichaelViera

I agree on that a track that is heavily plagued by sections where you can't differentiate yourself skill-wise (e.g. max vel surf) has issues in relation to encourage healthy competition. That's fair enough.

I don't know rockjump/stickyjump, but I looked at rocketjump, and it seems like strafing is very limited? I can understand that can make short tracks problematic on such games because without strafing, you can't "continuously manifest" your skill

MichaelViera

Well obv. they turn in air. So strafe is a thing. But if the strafing options are not good enough, and the players have very limited options to do better than the other player PER TIME, then it can be a problem. It becomes a problem when a lot of people land on the same tick. But if the tick is divided into sub ticks, then that can reduce the problem.

e: But then landing on the same tick was a problem in 10sec long bonuses, then it may become a problem in 3sec long bonuses if the tick is divided further. So the problem will constantly be pushed down to shorter and shorter tracks as you divide the ticks more and more.
But yeah only as so far landing on the same tick tendencies are seen, it is problematic. And it is problematic as so far as you don't want players to contest short tracks (of subjective reasions)

But length itself does not hinder competition. Rather it is the very opposite. The only problem are units and ticks (when they are not small enough)

MichaelViera

Btw, when I say average completions per super track inside each tier should find a good balance, yeah, then it shouldn't include the unranked bonuses because if you have unranked properly, then you have unranked those that are not interesting for competitive players which these kinds of tracks with little room for optimization (per time, but if the per time room for optimization is overall little in a game, then short tracks meet the tick barrier problem quickly) are not supposed to be. Well, they can be to some extent. But by unranking them, I hope that the authority of Momentum will enforce that further so the competition is at a minimal level spread out on those tracks.

Stages are extremely difficult to deal with because they assist the main track, so they don't spread the competition out in a classic way. You may even argue that they can help the competition on the main track because of replay information, whilst long linear map replays don't have the same information level (because stage runs are tighter than the main map run always obv.).
e: also if you have learned a stage map run, you have also kinda learned to run the stages and vice versa.
But they should spread out the competition.

I would say keep an eye on how many stage maps or just stages fill the map pool per ranked super track. I'm not exactly sure what's best, hmmmm. But when I say that, I don't mean you should keep stage maps at a minimum! The survey showed that most players prefer stage maps. But maybe be careful of releasing maps as surf_mash-up in rows xd

Ideally, KEEPING NUMBER OF TRACKS EQUAL, you want to put as many tracks as possible under stage maps because of their assisting nature. So 1 half-hour long map with 100 stages would be preferable. Haha, maybe not exactly, ideally speaking just.

But bonuses are the ones that deteriorate the competition the most. As I said, the stages and main map will assist each other to some extent. Bonuses will only serve themself.

Further about the rate at which you add maps. It's most important that the completion among the top players is high per track. Or the playtime among the top players is high per track (which should be adjusted for track length etc.). If a Momentum top10 and WR is going to become a meme on KSF, it would be really bad. But whether you can get rank100 more easily on Momentum than on KSF is ... not so important xd

MichaelViera

More thoughts about keeping competitiveness high (eyes on surf)

Stage map runs do though have that problem that speed is not carried forward into next stage really (like the problem of max vel)
Drops into next into stages instead of fixed drops can sliiiiightly ease that up.

But ideally all stage transitions should look like how you enter rands s1 (well not necessarily speaking of the face XD). But yeah, so you are immediately boosted into the stage, so the "pit stop" time is reduced the most. Well doing the pit stop fast can also require skills (except in the drop). Maybe not those skills we consider the main skills of surf. Maybe drop is enough, AND the drop point should obv. not be placed too far away from the the stage zone becausw there is not much room for optimization in walking in a straight line.

e: Or immidiately put you on ground would ofc. be better than drop.

e2: Ideally the rands s1 way, especially because that would make wrcps and stage map runs comparable (and the replays etc.)

hex

MichaelViera e: Or immidiately put you on ground would ofc. be better than drop.

yeah, and this is made easier with momentum because you can just set a flag on the trigger to stop all player velocity on hitting it, meaning you can spawn players straight on the ground without the need for a drop, it's just up to the mapper to opt into adding that feature and removing their drops. see "teleport mode" on this page https://docs.momentum-mod.org/entity/trigger_teleport/

MichaelViera e2: Ideally the rands s1 way, especially because that would make wrcps and stage map runs comparable (and the replays etc.)

this is also made easier with momentum because we have catapults that give you a set speed on hitting them ( https://docs.momentum-mod.org/entity/trigger_momentum_catapult/ ) rather than only supporting push triggers which can have their own issues like being able to hit them multiple times. again, up to mappers to add these things to their maps if they like them better than the css alternatives.

MichaelViera

I'm really glad to hear about these opportunities! "thrown into the map starts" either by a consistent boost or simply a consistent fall could improve the competition markable 😃

I wanna add as well that the rands teleport s1 way will not only decrease the "pit stop" time for map runs, but especially for stage runs where you have to prepare a prestrafe everytime. And yeah, the perfect stage run/map run comparability is absolutely fantastic for comparebility (replays etc.) and which prob. later in time can be used for more accurate statistics.

This is great, I looooowkey and in all humility hope that mappers will look into that.

(e: We ought to demolish anything from the surface of Earth that denies competition so we can breed the Momentum Man)

MichaelViera

Problems about using number of completions for measuring popularity.

There is a big problem in relation to stage maps. Stage maps' difficulty are per definitiob defined by its hardest stage in general (on KZ with very lenghty maps it can get confusing because of the 10h limit)

Difficulty don't "add" up or multiplies up or w/e. Only when sections are connected like in a linear map. So a t1 map with 5 stages is not like 0.2t+0.2t+0.2t+0.2+0.2t.

So a t1 map's difficulty is defined by its most difficult stage, often the last one in a classic stage map where difficulty progresses - in such map the stages before the last stage are sub 1 tier.

So beating a linear t1 map requires the same effort as beating the last stage of a t1 map. LAST stage only.

If the t1 stage map is not a classic progression stage map, but with stages of t1+t1+t1, etc. Then it requires even more effort!

So in all instances, even keeping tier the same, linear maps should get more completions. Progression stage maps may get close to the number of linear maps. But non-progression stage maps not at all!!!

So yeah, I think number of completions have too many problem and biases in relation to determining competitiveness (also after adjusting for tier). If only linear maps existed I think they would be fairly accurate

At least non-progression stage maps should be banned then!

e: So to create the best possible comparability cross linear and stage maps, ideally speaking, all stages should be infinitely easy except the most difficult ones that defines the tier inside each map

MichaelViera

We either need to use flat point system or something like KSF ... If we use the top10 time distribution (how close the top10 times are) then you have to adjust for low carry forwardness which has to do with

conditions for strafe sync (e.g. harsh turns with high speed give low carry forwardness)
max vel (locks your speed which gives low carry forwardness, but if the max vel is removed, you may on the other hand head into problem 1, but problem 1 is prob. preferable)
stage entrances (stop all your speed which gives no carry forwardness)
other stuff I don't know how to categorize xd

Low carry forwardness gives closer times without it being due to increased competition.
I'm convinced a statistician could figure out to adjust for these things ...

Until we don't, I would suggest a flat point system.

If every newly released map goes through a tournament then we assure every map lives up to a minimum competitiveness standard at least.

MichaelViera

Yeah, you are right that time is not continious, zero1k.
So to correct myself. Continuious compounding should not be used for what I talked about before, but compounding per tick.

Also two player's relative marginal don't follow each other as they equally increase the amount of time put into a track as I initially said. They will also move further and further apart like the absolute marginal. Just like when you look at two exponential functions with different rates (with the same compound periods; in this instance the ticks) and watch how they move apart. Only two linear lines moving away from each other keep the same relative marginal I think.

But because of low carry forwardness, they will sometimes stop moving apart, e.g., max vel. This will piss off the pro's. And the conditions for strafe sync and more things complicate it.

e: So yeah, this means that 100tick is actually better for competition. Yeah, ideally speaking, as many ticks as possible in som sense.

MichaelViera

Introduction to the fundamentals of a rank system based on number of completions (full rank system model! very close at least)

Also I expect this to be my last post for a very long time on this subject lol.

(for surf only and maybe bhop as well. in other games stuff can get confusing because of the skill set requirement is more varied [and then you have to adjust for skill set popularity i guess and all kind of werid shit], but these concepts are still essential for all # completion based rank systems)

First of all, I don't necessarily support this type of rank system.
I believe Momentum is the best alternative among other surf platforms and offering a proper rank system is important because at least 1/3 of all players are playing for points.
Maybe I rather want an inaccurate total flat point system (because it is inaccurate in an ordered way and we maybe can't make a rank system that is accurate enough yet and that is guarded against psychopaths and manipulators, e.g., alt accounting), but Momentum has chosen this, so I will comment on this.
I'm not obsessed with tier either! I use tier because Momentum talks about # completion based rank system where tier is inherently connected. If it was time distribution rank system etc., tier wouldn't matter. In general, tier doesn't make maps more competitive or less competitive, that's what the current rank system asserts sadly!

Your competitive rank is your percentile, and to calculate the amount of points you get for a rank, percentile will be used as an indepedent variable in some function. Your absolute rank is not. So if you're rank50 out of 100, you are in top50%, if you're rank500 out of 1000 as well (same competitive value).
The competitive value for a rank can be described as this 1/percentile for example. e.g. 1/1%=100 points. You don't necessarily need this function, you just need a function that takes the percentile as an independent variable.

Problem is that we don't know the true percentiles on high tier maps because they exclude the part of the population with a highest tier achieved lower than the tier in quesiton.
So we have to estimate the size of the top100% on high tier maps.

In the simple version (more later about the advanced!), you do that by looking at the average number of completions on a t1 map.
You apply this top100% directly on maps of a higher tier map with an average number of completions according to the tier it belongs (maybe sounds confusing)

For example.

If the average number of completions on a t3 map is 500. And if the average number of completions on a t1 map is 1k, then rank500 on an averagely completed t3 map is top50% (so the last rank lays in top50%!)
If the number of completions on a t3 map is below the t3 average, then you adjust the top100% accordingly. Maybe there is only 400 completions on that t3 map.
Then you do this.

(400/500)*1000=800. So the the unknown top100% is estimated to be a size of 800 in that case.

If the number of completions on a t3 map is above the t3 average, for example 600. Then you do this.
(600/500)*1000=1200. So the unknown top100% is estimated to be a size of 1200 in that case.

This is all good.

But we have an issue that I described in the posts above. Let's look at t3 stage map. It consists of 10 stages. To clearly illustrate this issue, we will say it is a non-progression stage map.
All stages are equally hard (so the last stage is just as hard all the other stages).

The surfers with a highest tier achieved of t3 will have to grind his limit performance 10 times in a row! So obv. this stage map is not going to get so many number of completions.
But this will not be due to lack of popularity - but what you could call "horizontal tier". Just like you have to adjust for tier (vertical tier) in a # completions based rank system, you also have to adjust for horizontal tier.
If all maps were linear (starting from the very beginning whenever you fail in surf), horizontal tier wouldn't be a problem. Progression stage maps make this problem less severe.
Non-progression stage maps should be banned!!!

Because of horizontal tier, these maps get less number of completions from the group of people whose highest tier achieved is t3 especially, otherwise they don't affect it so much (length obv. affects number of completions but that will correlate with lower competition so that's no problem).
It is a complicated issue.

But my solution is like this, it's too simple tbh. But it's well, ok lol.

To estimate the top100% on tier n map I said that you start with the average number of completions on a t1 map. And then you look at the average number of completions on the tier n map.
But we will change this a bit.

To estimate the top100% on the tier n map, you take the average number of completions on a t1 map EXCLUDING the number of completions from the people whose highest tier achieved is t1. And then you look at the average number of completions on the tier n map EXCLUDING the number of completions from the people whose highest tier achieved is tier n.

What about t10? Good question for now lol.

Everything I have said here can directly be used to make a point system. It just lacks groups. The groups can be based on the same principles of tier.
I can't comprehend for now how horizontal tier could affect it or if it affects it all, so I will just use the simple model for now.

E.g., I said a t3 map with an average number of completion has 500 completions. t1 1k completions. So to join the t3 group, you need to be in top50% on any map (which is merely completing a t3 map).
So as you go up in tier, the low tier groups would dissapear. So no, you can't have all groups in all maps cross tier as the current rank system wants it. It's impossibru!

The horizontal tier complicates shit. You can also make a system that goes more in depth and looks a how many players from each group of highest tier achieved have beaten a map.
But I believe such a system is more vulnerable to manipulation etc. E.g., if all t10 players choose to beat a map which are very few, they can very easily boost the competitive value of the top ranks of a map.

e: It was not so fleshed out my adjustment for horizontal tier shit. That's because I don't understand it properly. We can maybe use the info from the linear maps to adjust for this (because linear maps don't have horizontal tier IN SURF ... e.g., in KZ linearity works differently ...). I think progression stage maps can get noobs hooked into a map, so appropriate horizontal tier can also attract noobs weirdly. So maybe progression stage maps can be ignored? I don't know. It's very complicated ... On KZ it's a bloody mess. A linear KZ climb map is not really a linear map, but a weird mix between stage and linear. A stage climb KZ map is some weird mix between stage and just what I said inside each stage lol (sub stages and sub linearity). And then there are all sort of KZ categories ...

I think my comment introduces the basic issues of # completions rank system. An estimated percentile is used as independent variable which is put into some arbitrary function that reward points for a map rank, that, that was the new thing in this post, summed up with everything else. Other people must do the remaining work now ...

MichaelViera

It's just so problematic. I make it sound too simple. I introduce some new concepts here again.
Numbers of completions say something about popularity, but in which way it drives competition is immensely complex.

Let's look at something.

For example, completionists play any map. And dedicated surfers in general play any map. It might be argued that the most interesting completions are actually from that part of the population that is least dedicated to surf or who spent the least time on surf because they will naturally be most picky with their time; economize their time and spend it on the actual most popular maps.

But this will fuck up the simplicity that I assumed actually. For simplicity, for the example (obv. this is not how it exactly works in the real world lol, but you need to understand the concepts), let's assume, that dedicated surfers complete any map they can afford because they are no-lifers (xd); that will mean that inside each tier map pool, all maps have the same number of completions among dedicated surfers. If we now include the non-dedicated surfers, the number of completions will start to vary (especially depending on how long the time map has been out ofc)

Let's say the population consists of 80 % dedicated surfers, and 20 % non-dedicated surfers (in reality surfers will be dedicated and non-dedicated to different degree ofc.)

So an average t3 map may have 500 completions, 400 completions from dedicated surfers, 100 from non-dedicated.
A t3 map with 600 completions will then also have 400 completions from the dedicated! (because the dedicated surfers complete whatever they can as I assumed!), so it is the non-dedicated surfers that get it to 600. And their population increase x2!!! So the popularity has increased x2???

I don't know. What does popularity even mean for competition, etc., it's very confusing. This also shows how using the number of completions to measure competitivity will be vary depending on the mix of dedicated and non-dedicated surfers in the population (well, if you were nerds, you could try to compensate for that lol)

I personally believe (though with my very shallow knowledge) that the statistical knowledge required in order to use number of completions accurately and without biases (biases we prob. won't even understand, etc.) is absolutely immensely!!! I think you should look at how close times are in the top10. Yeah, like KSF. But KSF's model had some problems which I have pointed out as well.

e: I'm not sure if this is relevant or not, but in case someone puts up a counter-argument that somehow exploits it and refuse to look at the large picture which I'm trying ... then I just mention: All the completions from the dedicated players that complete whatever they can afford, do not imply competition (like that they will equally contest all the maps they can afford to beat, obv. that's bullshit). They will in general contest what is most popular which will be suggested by the non-dedicated players as they will mainly drive the differences in numbers of completions cross maps (among other factors).

I now try to list up everything that will affect number of completions.

vertical tier
horizontal tier
the time limit (a tight time limit with a lenghty map will make the lenght and horizontal tier add to the vertical tier)
rng difficulty (fake tier)
length
complexity (information load, e.g., bhop maps with many bhop blocks. length and complexity have a connection ofc.)
the proportion of completionists and non-completionists in the population
time map has been out
popularity.

as you see, it is immensely complex!!!

e2:
You could also say. You can indeed look at dedicated surfer's completions as well. Just at the dedicated surfers that don't have completions everywhere, but have been picky. I mean you can be a dedicated surfer and be picky but then grind the few maps you have picked.

So maybe. It is rather just the "completionists" that blur the pictures, and it is the non-completionists that suggest the popularity. But some non-completionists can actually be dedicated as well. So maybe that's a better way to word it. I'm not sure.

e3: I hope that's my last message on this subject for a while ..................................

e4: In KZ there is a lot of rng difficulty. When I say RNG, I don't mean RNG in its most strict sense.
But, e.g., when you have to get the perfect offset from a block for a LJ. This kind of difficulty is partly related to low competition because you just have to be accurate "for one point" which everyone can be if they just consume enough time (so it's inappropriate as means for the pro's to differentiate them from those who are worse). Continuous accuracy is great. "one point accuracy" is ok for competition IN TOURNAMENTS; for infinite time running ... It's bad. I believe RNG difficulty is a bigger factor in many other games than surf. So perhaps that's why many people are not as outrageous as me.

But well, this isn't an argument for my opponents case (HAHA, you apply your narrow-minded surf knowledge to all other games! xD). No, this just shows how biased this stupid # completion is; it depends on so many factors and even depends on the specific game in question which wasn't even added to my list xD top10 time distributions are far more neutral.

e5: It's also funny because I have heard many times you guys speaking good of surfers playing a big variety of maps. Especially you have the XP system that encourages this and through which you can earn coins etc. to buy cosmetics. You have plans about making a tournament for every new map! (which I isolatively think is a good idea) How more you are going to encourage completionist tendencies, how smaller become the sample of non-completionist tendencies - how higher inaccuracy (even if you knew how to adjust for all these things!) ... This is not well-concieved ...............

MichaelViera

TL;DR (rant about the purpose of eternal competition)

It is the adding of map PR's that I strongly dislike, and I think it's impossible due to many reasons (because players can set "for fun pr's" "non-dedicated pr's", unless we wanna force them to be very stressed about their playtime, it isn't an eternal tournament, and using playtime measures, etc., etc. have huge issues cuz map length, different map styles, etc., etc.; all this also ties into why an ELO rank system is completely impossible for eternal competition).

But putting all map PR's on an ordinal scale, I believe IS possible, and it will be achieved by future generations. I think the goal of the big map pool and the eternal rank system should be to give players the opportunity to set the best time ever. You might believe that a forever expanding map pool is incompatible with this, because it will encourage players to grind maps (the illusion of PR's can be added together and create more points). Well. NO. It isn't. And who would have thought that should have come from me! Forever expanding map pool is perfect for that, we just need to go away from the illusion I just mentioned (so people don't waste their time on fulfilling idiotic illusions), and then understand the real purpose and use of giant map pools.

The real purpose is to maximize the opportunity of specializing. TO FIND OUR ULTIMATE DESTINY. ULTIMATE PURPOSE. ULTIMATE OCCUPATION. TO COMPLEMENT THE WORLD AND FIND GOD. (capslock is 4fun). How larger map pool, how better will this purpose be served. It ties into the modern world actually. You know in old days, we had to follow our parents, but now we got all these opportunities. The world wasn't more competitive when we only could be farmers. I want to maximize people's possibilities of expressing their talents. Infinite large map pools are infinitely great for that actually.

To support our fellows in FINDING and STRIVING after their ultimate occupation aka their ultimate competitive map rank in an ordinal that puts all map ranks together on an ordinal scale (from surf_classics rank1000 to rank10 surf_aircontrol, and whatever comes before rank1000 surf_classics, whatever is inbetween, and whatever comes after rank10 aircontrol) is the the purpose of an eternal rank system.

And as time goes and as map pool becomes very big, and as disparity in competition arises cross maps, some map rank100s are gonna be higher on that ordinal scale than map rank1s. As that time time goes. Topwr, topwrcp, topwrb, HAH, they are gonna be useless jokes (and PLS, don't bring point rank system up, that's gonna be a joke so TERRIBLE that I wanna throw myself in Skjern River), because DISPARITY yields a huuuge pool of low-hanging fruits. I talked about keeping average competitiveness high. But I tell you I'M A FUCKING IDIOT. High average competition doesn't mean low standard deviation, there will be high-hanging fruits and low-hanging fruits (and I PRAISE THAT because high-hanging fruits are the ones that are going to create cultural significance, not thousand of maps that are levelled equally XDDD, but yeah, that's gonna make the rank stats that tries to add map ranks together accurate, but rather CULTURAL SIGNIFCANCE> accurac of a fucking rank system)

ANd no, no, no, no ... Don't get me wrong. Actually, I don't want to favor any maps or discriminate any maps. Because competitiveness can be tied to a map rank ISOLATIVELY. It is about his ability to match the perfect run adjusted for length (where time #1 run on the ULTIMATE ORDINAL SCALE will be used as base actually, the META RUN, THE KING OF THE KINGS, THE GAMER OF THE GAMERS) and adjusted for other ocmplex things we don't understand yet. THIS HAS NO CONNECTION to the other map ranks. If you want, you can spend all your time getting close to the perfect run on a very new map, on surf_classics, on surf_exxak, on ANY MAP. You can get close to the adjusted perfect run anywhere. Getting a competitive rank has no connection to setting a map rank that is dominated by competitive map ranks. But because we aren't so smart, that's how we measure competitiveness now. So today we are forced to play maps that are competitive to prove our competitiveness sadly (WHICH ARE THE REAL POINTS).

But in the future, this will take an end, and people would be SET FREE TO express their talents to the world and to strive to the top of the ULTIMATE ORDINAL SCALE, and maybe some gamers will have the courage to strive for the META WR

The future generations ARE GOING TO BE LUCKY, and they are going to have an advantage. They are going to have so many possible occupations, so many ways to figure out their ideal way to complement the world. Ofc., a sad side-effect of this is anxiety. And ofc., they are going to demolish this destructive illusion of adding PR's together that encourage procrastination and cultural decay.

So the the rank system should be replaced with the ultimate ordinal scale. It will be achieved in the future. Then some of the needs that the rank systems servs will be put into the XP system probably.

fingerprince

Not quite sure what you mean by "ordinal scale", do you mean varying the points for completing each map based on some metric like "competitiveness"? Because I'm struggling to understand what you're suggesting without that notion being made explicit (apologies if I missed somewhere).

In general it's hard to anticipate how the ranked system is gonna pan out given how many different modes and player bases, but especially so for expanding map pools. This is going to be something we actively work on post-1.0 as more and more maps get added, carefully monitoring how much playtime different maps get and potentially adjusting the system if undesirable stuff gets incentivised. These issues are def worth thinking about a bit now, but I doubt it's going to actually motivate a change in the system pre-1.0

« Previous Page