re: lordcrumb and using current ranking system

making use of the current ranking system or tweaking it some was a consideration i held in reserve as i felt i was putting a lot out there already.

my thoughts on it were that it would have to be checked for abuse (good or bad) in some way and would need a minimum number of votes to be fair.

in regards to the paying or receiving Gp for how many stars above or below 5, i would say we are looking for good maps not ok maps to break even so maybe 6 or 7 to break even. perhaps the swing should be -1,000 to +1,000 with the 1k paid up front as a "flat fee" that i mentioned. i also think that the number of players/entries should still be part of the calculation though. if an average map has 15 players with 35 entries and someone makes a map that three people say suck, but 30 people play it with 200 entries and are too lazy to vote, then it probably wasn't so bad after all.

perhaps if this becomes a consideration, then certain players who establish a history of fair and consistent voting (purely up to sparticus' judgement) could have their votes weighted a little more in the background to help prevent some of the abuse. on the opposite side of the equation, players who tend to vote all 1s or all 10s would have their vote hold less weight.

all of this starts to get complicated and biased so that is probably why i went with the non-subjective number of players and number of replays.

making use of the curren rating system is another idea for sparticus to take, leave, or tweak though.

i agree with the minimum of votes
a algorithm for the combination with total plays or playes per geek would need to be discussed.
i often make maps you have to play several times to get through. surprising waves could get problematic. many geeks don't have the time to solve this riddle, which leads to 4 geeks scoring high and 20 geeks leaving after dying in the 1st round even if the map has certain qualities... i'll give this a deeper thought later.


first without the counting of plays per player in mind:
it sounds ok for me to need 6 or 7 stars to get even.
a solution needs to be found for the payment of bad maps if the amount of currently holding gps is lower than the amount to be payed. this could be prevented with different solutions:
- pay depth in xp (principally all or hybrid-style only the missing gps)
- generally xp based reward/cost system
- possibility to get under 0 (so you'd have to score in free ones first again - not That bad, 'cause there'll be more free ones if the map payment system changed)
...

here i try a example in numbers for a pure xp based system:
get even with average of 7 stars, average of ten means 75xp fwd, average of 1 star means 150xp backwards.

i think a pure xp system could work, no one will make as many bad tournaments to get below 0xp. a minimum level of 2 for map creation could be required to exclude that possibility.

landronn says: "if they have to pay a flat fee, then make it reasonably easy to earn their flat fee back if the tourney reached the "good tourney" requirements and reward them with diminishing returns for exceeding the requirement to break even."

I think a flat is a good idea, because i've three tournaments nearly complete tournaments, that I would't start if they are ready, because i havn't enough GP.

yeah... i actually thought about your maps needing a lot more entries than normal maps - lol. in regards to giving your maps some "deeper thought later" don't let that lead you to stopping the creation of "lordcrumb maps" as they are very unique on the site and add variety :)

in regards to "a solution needs to be found for the payment of bad maps if the amount of currently holding gps is lower than the amount to be payed" i was saying that they had to pay the Gp "up front" when they made the map to avoid that. the idea would be in my -1k to +1k example that they pay a 1k "flat fee" to start the tourney and then could earn up to 2k for a 1k profit. the first 1k is earned by getting the 1 to 6/7 stars. also remember that my 1k is just an easy number for an example as a good number is probably closer to half of that.

does that make sense or were you combining that idea with the free to make idea which means they could owe more than they have when done?

my idea if free was to only reward them if they got above the 6/7 stars. perhaps in a free system the penalty would be in the form of the map maker lvl which determines how often they can make maps. i didn't get to elaborate on it much but the basic concept is the good map makers can do so a little more often and the bad a little less often. kinda like a previous suggestion that higher rated maps come up in the rotation a little more often than the lower rated maps ;)

Thank you all for the thoughtful input on this topic - there are lots of things to think about

I don't want to re-hash the whole thread - but a few thoughts -

'the rich get richer' = perhaps I should say 'the experienced get more experience?'
or - 'the grinders get more grind?' :)

I am not a bad tower defence player (i think?) - and I do a lot of game balancing in other walks of life. My key point here would be - if I spend a whole load of my GP to adjust my profile for a high score on a certain map - e.g. Devils bucket where you max out harder creep for a good score I soon waste GP - and am I a better player because I could do harder creeps?

Why am I getting penalised because I do not have time to grind my XP to afford faster towers AND more damage AND harder creeps AND extra time - if my XP was high enough - I think I might be able to compete with the 'best' players on here with a level playing field. Unfortunately not - it is not possible for me to compete fairly until I have levelled up my XP. This is a reason why I would like a bit more visual clarity on what is enabled or disabled in a tournament - and would hope that we get a few tournaments in the official rotation that have all profile buffs turned off.
If I max out all my profile buffs and still come last I better spend more time playing mario :)

This is actually why I think profile buffs should work in REVERSE - think of them like a golf or 10 pin handicap - if I am a GOOD player and walk up to a tournament - I need to REMOVE buffs so that the players who are less experienced than me can still compete in the same game.
So we would have 'Scratch' tournaments with all bufss off and totally level playing field. A Handicap tournament would mean as a player I have to choose which areas I LOSE buffs in my profile. You get the idea. I won't mention ELO (sorry .. just did -- oops)

Tournaments:
The upside of having a barrier to entry is reduction of SPAM (think splitter 2) ...
The downside to having a barrier to entry is I might make a nice little map - that people in the top 10 liked to play - but can never run it again as I have no GP. So I think a 'donate GP to map creator' would be the very quick excellent way to implement nice way to fix that. No need to muck about with flat fee's and scaling rewards etc. If you have a good map - and the players with lots of GP like it - you will be rewarded.

All other suggestions for spending GP are all good stuff - Trophies / Icons / etc. etc. as long as it doesn't spoil the overall look and feel of the site I think it is a great idea. (Why oh Why could I never buy a Gold DA Battleship ?? .. anyway)

lordcrumb also raises an interesting point about 'puzzle' style maps - this is another area where I waste thousands of GP - constantly grinding the same map until I get it 'right'
This however raises a barrier to entry for new players coming to the site. Similar to my discussion above about profile points - as a casual new player who can maybe spend 2 hours max per week on the site - how am I getting on? Would I bother coming back? Is there any satisfaction seeing the same 10 guys in the top spots and I am 34th? Just something to think about.

Perhaps as a homework exercise we should all go create a new account - and use the site as a newbie for 2 weeks and see how we get on.

I second a lot of landronn's comments (particularly from his Part 1 of 2), and especially second alchemist's most recent posts.

As a fairly experienced player, a lot of the maps are becoming a bit boring; the only reason I keep playing them is to grind xp. But as alchemist notes, that just winds up harming noobs who can't place above me (and the others in the 20s and 30s and above who keep playing), or who don't have the time to play more often.

One idea on mopping up g.p. -- multiply the tournament price by a player's rank (maybe divided by 2 or 5 or 10) -- so a tournament that costs a level 1 player 5 g.p. would cost a level 10 player 50 g.p. (or at least 25 or 10), etc. The more experience players, who are winning more games and getting more g.p., would be having to pay more g.p. to play. [math edited!]

Another idea -- back when the customizations (buffs) were first rolled out, I'd suggested that the cost per point increase - the first of a given type (fire rate, damage, etc.) might be only 25 g.p., but the next would be 50, then 100, etc. The more experienced players, who probably have more g.p., would have to cough up more g.p. to keep customizing. That would drain g.p. pretty well.

(And while that wouldn't result in the golf-style handicap that alchemist mentions, it would at least make it more difficult for the better players to keep whomping the noobs and the middle class. Alchemist is right; if you go create a new account and play, I bet you'll be turned off BTG big-time because you keep coming in last. Despite what kept being said when the customizations were rolled out, they *do* make a difference in outcomes, and hence in doling out the rewards of xp, g.p. and GT.)

I'm not clear on the "trophy" concept. Not opposed, just not clear. I'm not sure that it solves the "rich get richer" problem, because if they can purchase a trophy that means one of two things: it helps them over players who don't have the trophy (so they do better, get richer, get more xp, etc.), *or* if it's something they can sell, then they sell it and convert their g.p. to xp or GT (or whatever a trophy is sold for) and thereby get richer.

As a newbie, I'm still trying to work out the point of gp at all. I can only see 3 sensible uses for them:

1) to make viewing others' game history private: yup, I'd watch everything and nick everyone else's hard won experience if I could! I approve of making me pay to learn

2) as a competitive marker - (on the 'I'm richer than you' lines) except that the community really doesn't seem to take much notice of it (I also havn't worked out how to see how many I have yet, let alone anyone else) (but I havn't tried...)

3) as a means of generating actual money for Sparticus. Implement some sort of tax so that, at x gp, you have to convert y% into a real money donation. Until you have done that, you can't go on. (This would also make the donation thing less personal - I really hate the idea of seeing my name in the latest donation box on the forum. Good excuse for not separating me from my dosh?). This should be a small amount, so as not to prevent the less fortunate among us from being able to do it; but at the same time, it would surely be good for Sparticus!

Otherwise, forcing use of gp doesn't seem to me to bring anything to the community. Creating more maps and tournaments seems to me like a good idea; why make the creator pay?

Nor do I think it is necessary for tournament entry: that can already be controlled by player level, and you can't reach a high level without playing a lot, so you have to be an active community member. What is the point of paying entry?

I must be missing something.

OK, OK... go to profile, buy points. Carry out research before opening mouth and putting foot in it.

I still think tax is a good idea and don't see why you should pay to make a map/tournament :)

Mungolina - I don't think your missing anything which is the point

quick reminder for those suggesting how new players have no chance that there are tourneys for only new players in standard rotation now (you do not see them when "show only eligible" is checked.)

i like the idea of having more "no upgrade" tourneys with two notes. they need to be very clearly identified and they need to be in the standard rotation as a lot of players will avoid them and not help reimburse the creator. this usually happens to very limited tower maps too instead of being appreciated for the challenge.

some answers for mungolina:

competitive marker - click on community button at top. additional buttons for more info there too.

why pay entry - the entry has nothing to do with restricting level and everything to do with players getting back the Gp they spent making the tourney. if a player spends 500Gp to create a map then charges 20Gp to play it, then if 25 people play the map, they will get their 500Gp back so they can make another one. unfortunately despite charging Gp, map creators are almost always losing Gp creating tourneys and thus the original motivation for this thread.

sierrajeff:

trophy - not meant to stop the rich from getting richer directly, meant to get the excessive amount of Gp out of rotation that sparticus reflected causes it's devalue. indirectly they could be used to make more fair playing field tourneys by using number of trophies as a restriction in addition to lvl.

alchemist:

i'm a big supporter of ELO but was waiting to see what sparticus had in mind for multiplayer before i brought it up as i think it is more fitting there. :)

for those wondering what we are talking about it is a rating system that moves you up and down based on an expected result. that means if a stronger player is playing a weaker player, then the stronger play is expected to win more often. this results in small increases in ranking when the stronger player wins and larger rewards in ranking when the weaker player wins. inversely if the stronger player loses they lose a lot and if they weaker player loses they only lose a little.

i believe that the current lvl system is supposed to be more of an RPG element to the site with associated aspects.

sorry, this post is not VERY utile^^

but can i say taht the trophie were my idea ?^^

i am wanting to input like 50 trophie whit some cool look(like a metal slime)

all whit giant price, (some at 100gp for the begginner, and maybe one at 250k, for willem :p)

the trophie could all give some "Fame" rating

and we could use the fame to do some other thing on the website

my apologies carlnini, i did not mean to offend you if i did. i also gave you credit in my post that my trophy idea was "similar to carlnini's idea."

we have two different ideas for trophies and i do not know which one sierrajeff was asking about so i could only answer what i meant and now he knows what you meant :)

yes the lower entry level tournament - I could play all day and all night and get to level 6000 but still only be able to beat the easy map that only level 5 people see.

I think I am saying that ... grinding does not equal your quality as a player it just rates your 'experience' as a player so it is not really correct to limit levels by experience but rather by your ability which is a separate metric which is not measured yet.You could measure it simply by number of 'wins' or ELO or number of golden tickets - the number of golden tickets earned would be a better representation of skill - but of course if you play all day it also becomes a grind metric.

experience does not equal ability

trophies and rankings - this is simply to feed your ego - or mark yourself in the crowd- in the same way that when I played space invaders in the arcade I wanted to get the best high score. It is a tangible representation of the effort you have put into playing the game and your skill at playing the game.

Without wanting to grate on what apparently is a sensitive topic, I'll just say that if a trophy is merely eye candy, something to look nice and indicate excellence or perseverence, then that already exists (in a way) on the community pages. There's a ton of information there about who has the most g.p., who is most highly ranked, who's been online the most, etc.

Speaking just for myself, obviously, the only way I'd be interested in spending money on a trophy is if it did something besides serve as a self-promotion. If it opened new towers, or new creeps, or gave new abilities, that might be more interesting (to me).

not to forget, when the geek meter ranking is implemented, some of the complaints about unfairness are obsolete. as it is a fine measurment of scoring high (wich has also to to with how much you play due to customising points) there will be a limit of many geeks at the top as they'll somewhen will stop to play this game this often and gain more and more advantage. new ones will come and level up und beat all the noobs and geeks. like in every game there are many players levelling up unstoppable. big competition

there is no big problem as it is built right now.
just little tweakings like ones that support more and better custom maps and perhaps a donate gp to map makers (or only for certain maps) button would be good for the site, i hope you all agree.

if there are some collecting masses of gp and never creating a map, i really don't care. as long as new towers and power up features will appear now and then i have great fun on this site. keep your way spartacus!
thanks again!