Point System Discussion

[Syro]

Instead of changing the amount of points earned dependent on what class is playing what, why not make a generally more detailed ranking system?

While it may be up to subjective classifications, maps could be rated as "technical," "simple," "endurance," and etc. These classifications could act as multipliers on top of preexisting completion points, allowing for the difficulty of a map to be rated beyond just the 6 tiers. You could obviously expand from these classifications quite a bit, and I'm not sure how you would weight things, but I believe that it can be done.

I agree with a lot of the original post. I also believe that Tempus should have a surf style system for rewarding points based on time. Overall good points made all around.

-----------------------------------------

Examples:


Technical:

jump_lanc:

Next to no wallpogo, uses more niche skills like bounces, wallbugs, and technical pogo


Endurance:

jump_storm

Generally consists of long wallpogo, most of which isn't technical.


Simple:

jump_elephant, jump_rush, etc.

Fast, t1 - t3 jumps that require no technical skills.

[VAVLIE]

 

[...] maps could be rated as "technical," "simple," "endurance," and etc.

How would you address the fact that when going for a WR or just tt on a map, it's likely going to change the nature of the map? Like some demo maps with normal jumps turn into mostly airpogo when going for a good time, or a good soldier time on a wallpogo map becomes more technical.

[scotch]

Some good discussion and interesting ideas.

This has been a known issue (and one that we've wanted to address) for longer than I have been around. Towards the end of last year we were drafting a new system for tiering and point distribution, which went through several revisions.

A lot of the ideas in this thread roughly cover what we wanted to do, with some inspiration being from this previous thread.

We had identified the core issues as being:

• No point incentive for improving times outside of the top ten
• Top ten points are ineffectively scaled
• Completion points are poorly balanced in relation to top ten points
• Tiers do not accurately reflect the difficulty or diversity of techniques of the map
• Wallpogo

Most of these ideas are great, and I think we are all on the same page in terms of the flaws of the current system. With that said, we don't want to over-complicate the system so that it is hard for the average player to understand.

We settled with:

• Percentage based group system with top ten and WR bonuses

This was decided on to provide any player with a tangible and realistic goal to reach as well as a point incentive for achieving that goal, while maintaining the iconic top ten positions.

• Increasing the number of tiers to 10 (excluding T0)

Tiers have not progressed with player skill and map difficulty. Tiers need to fully explore the depths of the decimal number system to better represent the difficulty of maps.

Specific technique and length multipliers were toyed with but were eliminated as it complicated things for no real benefit.

This is of course not set in stone and not completely fleshed out, so feedback is definitely welcome. There is a lot of overhead for this rework, so please keep that in mind.

[879m]

Sounds like those will be some good changes. I feel like we need to have a big discussion on what exactly each tier is, so we can tier maps objectively rather than relative to existing maps to stop difficulty creeping above the tiers.

[Syro]

Sounds like those will be some good changes. I feel like we need to have a big discussion on what exactly each tier is.

It's great to see that something might finally change (and that the forum was actually productive).

[MrHappyCamper]

We had identified the core issues as being:

• Wallpogo

Wow very nice thank you.

• Increasing the number of tiers to 10 (excluding T0)

Tiers have not progressed with player skill and map difficulty. Tiers need to fully explore the depths of the decimal number system to better represent the difficulty of maps.

Specific technique and length multipliers were toyed with but were eliminated as it complicated things for no real benefit.

I do not think this will be possible. My first thought is that it will take a ton of effort to organize the maps into almost double the number of tiers, but If your willing to put in the blood and sweat I salute you. Secondly, I don't think it will achieve your desired result. The tiers are in very few numbers because the difficulty of maps is very relative, yes there is a cutoff that causes the upper end of a tier to be noticeably more difficult than the lower end, but many jumpers specialize so some will find sync maps easier and some will find wallpogo maps easier, etc. Having widely spread tiers will let maps be bundled so that the difficulty range in a tier is the same regardless of specialty, reducing the difficulty range of tiers will create situations where having a specialty will make you think the tiering of many maps is wrong. Imagine giving every map its own tier in order of difficulty, virtually everyone will complain about the order of maps whenever they run a new one. You can decide if the amount of tiers satisfies this or think that having 10 tiers will be fine, I think 6 is doing just fine for us.

And no one responded so I'm just going to keep talking, I am totally fine with reducing the importance of completion in rank, In fact I think completion should be removed completely in favor of scaling tt points. But I would appreciate it if we were given a better system for completion percentage. Possibly a way to show it off as a tag in chat and a way to lookup who has the highest completion. I get that you guys want to delete wallpogo but just give us something please.

[Diabolical]

MrHappyCamper is correct by saying that increasing the tiers will have it's own issues. But from my perspective as a demo jumper, increasing the tiers will be a great change. There are about 200 t3 maps for demo and it's pretty funny to me how easy some of the t3 maps are compared to the hardest. For example house_beta and jump_sitood and compared to jump_ring and jump_grimace. Separating the easy t3's to the much harder t3's for demo seems like a good change regardless of what else happens to the point system. t6 maps for both classes can easily be argued should be separated into new tiers too. However at least for demo, any further changes would become less obvious imo and should be taken with care or would cause the problems talked about in the comment above. Either way, I prefer a new system over this obviously flawed one so whatever happens I look forward to it.

[MrHappyCamper]

Separating the easy t3's to the much harder t3's for demo seems like a good change regardless of what else happens to the point system.

This gives me a great idea, thank you. Instead of adding "new" tiers like T7 and beyond, the current tiers can be split into tiers such as T3.0 and T3.5. I don't want to hear any of you nerds complaining about aesthetic because this is the smoothest possible way to achieve what you want. This has many benefits over a complete retiering, it allows for the current tiers to still have value (important for old map posts and lets us keep all the work put into determining the current map tiers) and for the tiers to be split up one at a time so it isn't as much of a work load as changing them all at once.

[Victor]

Separating the easy t3's to the much harder t3's for demo seems like a good change regardless of what else happens to the point system.

This gives me a great idea, thank you. Instead of adding "new" tiers like T7 and beyond, the current tiers can be split into tiers such as T3.0 and T3.5. I don't want to hear any of you nerds complaining about aesthetic because this is the smoothest possible way to achieve what you want. This has many benefits over a complete retiering, it allows for the current tiers to still have value (important for old map posts and lets us keep all the work put into determining the current map tiers) and for the tiers to be split up one at a time so it isn't as much of a work load as changing them all at once.

This is no different than expanding the current number of tiers, just your way of doing it is really stupid.

I would rather just go with expanding the number of tiers we currently have. Maybe it doesn't need to be as extreme like 10, but I think increasing it to 8 would be more than enough to address the issues mentioned here.

[MrHappyCamper]

Separating the easy t3's to the much harder t3's for demo seems like a good change regardless of what else happens to the point system.

This gives me a great idea, thank you.

This is no different than expanding the current number of tiers, just your way of doing it is really stupid.

I would rather just go with expanding the number of tiers we currently have. Maybe it doesn't need to be as extreme like 10, but I think increasing it to 8 would be more than enough to address the issues mentioned here.

That's very rude of you to insult my idea while at the same time expressing that you don't understand it. If there are any new tiers the number should be doubled to 12, that way the current tiers can be mapped onto it by doubling them (then possibly subtracting 1) and the empty tiers can be filled up slowly over time.

[Starkie]

the real important question is what would the final tiers be called

[879m]

its a scale of hardness so i vote for the mohs scale

1:talc
2:gypsum
3:calcite
4:fluorite
5:apatite
6:feldspar
7:quartz
8:topaz
9:corundum
10:diamond

very easy to remember

[Victor]

snip

My apologies for the rudeness, I wrote that in a bit of a rush and didn't clarify what I meant.

The issue I have with splitting the existing tiers into 3.5, etc. is that it only adds to the issue of low/high tier maps within the existing tier, something that should be resolved instead of encouraged. Tiers should be clearly defined, with an obvious difference between tiers. As such, there would need to be a clear definition of what maps fall into a specific tier, and then numbering them alone would be considerably difficult. You say that maps won't have to be re-tiered under this system, but isn't that exactly what you're doing here? You're assigning tiers more narrowly. What makes a map a 3.2, and how is it different from a 3.7? Without a system that can accurately assign maps to a tier that exact, there would never be a consensus on what the proper numbering should be for that map.

The other problem with your system is that it doesn't address the issue of very difficult T6 maps being accruately split from the other T6 maps. (Demo) maps like when and mireal3 are obviously harder than bonus and start_h, and the gap is so huge under the current system that simply organizing them into 6.2, 6.5, 6.9, etc. doesn't address that gap at all. There would be a bunch of maps that are 6.9, which is really no different than what those maps are tiered as in the current system.

The reason why I proposed adding (eight) more tiers because it addresses both problems above. Low/high tier 3 maps for example could be reorganized into tier 2/4 maps since the qualifications of each tier won't be as different, and it addresses the T6 map clump by allowing for those super hard maps to exist in their own tier, which would be a more accurate representation of their difficulty.

[VAVLIE]

But like with that other way you could give each map it's own tier like 3.427 which is easier than the next map at 3.430

[MrHappyCamper]

You guys don't understand me. Half of t3 would go to t3.0 and half to t3.5, these are ranges not singular values (so t3.0->3.5 and t3.5->4). Making it any more specific would be too hard and would cause the issues I said in my earlier post, which if you read also shows that I don't even think this should happen, but this is the most efficient way.

If you want to increase the skill cap on tiers then of course just add t7, there isn't even a discussion there. But what admins have done in the past is just to shift maps down in tier as new maps become harder.