Skill surf points adjustment

[haydenn]

So right now the point system is completely messed up and pretty inequitable considering the tiers.

Tier 1's give way too many points for little effort, while t2,3 and 4 give low points if you compare the skill and effort required to complete them. 

Surf_ebony(t2) Wr gives ~ 200 points whilst ~1500 points for surf_pantheon(t1) for group 1, surf_calamity(t4)  wr giving ~500 points. (aircontrol literally gives 2600 points for g1 and 10k points for wr)

It goes without saying this makes no sense. If you are good enough to get wrs/top 10s on maps, getting group 1s on tier1 maps literally take 1 attempt. This makes it way less motivating to get times on these tiers.

Right now points given are calculated by a constant dependent on tier and a multiplier based on completes. Though the multiplier only starts applying at a certain amount of map completes. (Note: this is literally just my speculation, I might be completely wrong but it makes sense if you compare how points scale on tier1s.)

T2 - 6 are significantly harder than t1s and will need lowered multiplier number.  

For tier 2  >500.

tier 3: >100

tier 4: >50

tier 5: >25

tier 6: >10 

This is just where I believe the multiplier should start taking into effect for these tiers but you should ask other people. 

This doesn't have to be the only method, using KSF's method of calculating might be smarter but this seems more practical because it keeps the current system without a drastic change.

Plenty of people would agree with this change!

 

44

Edited September 29, 2021 by haydenn

[soggyblunt]

4 minutes ago, haydenn said:

So right now the point system is completely messed up and pretty inequitable considering the tiers.

Tier 1's give way too many points for little effort, while t2,3 and 4 give no points.

Surf_ebony(t2) Wr gives ~ 200 points whilst ~1500 points for surf_pantheon(t1) for group 1, surf_calamity(t4)  wr giving ~500 points. (aircontrol literally gives 2600 points for g1 and 10k points for wr)

It goes without saying this makes no sense. If you are good enough to get wrs/top 10s on maps, getting group 1s on tier1 maps literally take 1 attempt. This makes it way less motivating to get times on these tiers and it just dumb.

Right now points gives are calculated by a constant dependent on tier and a multiplier based on completes. Though the multiplier only starts applying at a certain amount of map completes. (Note: this is literally just my speculation, I might be completely wrong but it makes sense if you compare how points scale on tier1s.)

T2 - 6 are significantly harder than t1s and will need lowered multiplier number.  

For tier 2  >500.

tier 3: >100

tier 4: >50

tier 5: >25

tier 6: >10 

This just where I believe the multiplier should start taking into effect for these tiers but you should ask other people. 

This doesn't have to be the only method, using KSF's method of calculating might be smarter but this seems more practical because it keeps

 

 

IM INDIGNANT THAT I DID NOT FIND THIS POST EARLIER. IT WAS QUITE SERENDIPIDOUS THAT I FOUND THIS POST BECAUSE I WAS THINKING IT.

[JDee]

I agree this is something that should be looked at, higher tier map completes should always be rewarded, and encourage people to get better and move on to more difficult maps.

I'll leave this up for a little bit to get an idea what the community wants and then I'll forward this suggestion on.

Thanks for the feedback!

[yerf]

good idea i wholeheartedly agree

[daichi]

+rep Exquisite idea, I believe this would provide a great improvement to the server and the ranking system, and would love to see this put in place.

[cornrow]

This is a great idea! Feel like this would really encourage people to play more difficult maps like JD mentioned.

[Tigger Pulls the Trigger]

Make the multiplier work inversely to the number of completions a map have, rather than correlate with completions. I.e. the more completions a map has, the LESS points you get from groups.

Lower completions indicate that a map should be more difficult relative to another and surfers should be rewarded for completing them. Getting rank 700 on surf_leet is not that same as completing 4 tier 6s. For maps like leet, getting a group 1 should give like 100 points MAX since it isn't very difficult for any surfer who has a little bit of experience. Conversely, getting top 10 on a map like leet should reward surfers heavily. With reference to OP, surf_ebony is a relatively difficult tier 2 map with a low amount of completions in comparison to other tier 2s, hence its low completion count. Completing this map should give a larger amount of points in comparison to other tier 2s.

 

[Skoll]

It would be great to see some adjustment with this. It would be easier to know how to tweak things if we had some more information on the existing method of assigning points. Skill surf is quite different to most major sports which have a lot of work put into assigning values to establish ranks, and even in such things the math is often contentious.

So there are a few points that have been made here that I see as really valuable. Obviously:

• High tier maps are worth far too few points and pretty much discourage people looking to rank up from completing them.

But, there's also a lot of value having competitive times on maps in giving their current amount of points. In my mind increasing the points assigned for completing difficult maps should take priority over reducing the point value from highly competitive times on easier maps because:

• High points from easier maps encourages skilled players to play the lower skill maps on the easier servers, fostering a better environment for new and upcoming players (especially with spec bots mostly broken).
• Most players don't visit the forums and will be unaware of any re-balancing, so suddenly losing 10,000 points will be more significant  to more players than the 300ish players who have significant T3 and above completions from gaining 10,000+ points.
• Depending on the adjustment, it could further discourage players from completing the more rare T1 maps (they already give very few points compared to the most popular T1s, but are essentially required playing for most lower skill players to actually get good).
• There needs to be a baseline for balancing points and we might as well use the existing baseline that has been established on the most popular maps to adjust the harder maps.

The easiest thing to do would likely be to apply an adjustment over a sliding scale for completions, where low completions award more points (so an entry G1 on surf_lo_tek (1500 completions) would be worth more points than an entry G1 on Luna 2 (30,000+ completions)). This sliding scale should be individual to each tier, as there is significantly more difference in the number of completes between common and rare T1 maps which would screw the math if it was then applied to every other tier. This should be combined with increasing the multiplier applied to higher tier maps significantly.

There will be problems no matter how you adjust things, because the current system is focused heavily on the noob T1s. There has been a massive amount of time investment across the board in these maps, from players of all skill levels, which has made the g1 times extremely competitive and skews things significantly with the sheer number of completions.

I do think something needs to be done. Maybe you could look at putting together a group to have a proper look at the current model and assess what adjustments could be made that would feel fair to people at all skill levels. I doubt you want to publicly reveal the specifics of the current system (as you might have 500 people offering some low effort 'best' solutions that would likely only benefit them) but adjusting from the current system is probably the best way to move, rather than establishing a completely new system.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Skoll

[drk]

For those of you who are interested in the point system, from what I know it works roughly like this: Click Me

Personally I believe the system atm works great in terms of groups giving better times on a map and with popular tier 1s with 20k+ completes giving a couple hundred points is good, id expect to get more points for getting a good time over many others then doing a tier 4 with 60 completes. I do agree that tier completion points could be more, especially tier 2s. I also don't think a rework is needed more a buff, but it wont change point grinding for higher ranked players, A current map completion will still be the same after a buff in points but the only difference will be the amount of points a player holds, so I only see it making a larger gap with more points rather then what it is now, but I agree that it would make players want to play harder maps

[Skoll]

6 hours ago, drk said:

For those of you who are interested in the point system, from what I know it works roughly like this: Click Me

This is quite interesting, and it's really good information to have. To summarise, the current system places a cap on the amount of points you can earn in T3+ maps (probably unnecessarily as it requires ~170 completes on a T6 to reach the cap).

In my mind we need to both:

• reduce the effect of mass completions on the most popular T1 maps vs the less popular T1 maps, and
• increase the rewards for completing hard maps.

It's pretty clear the system set up on that page was never intended to have 30,000 people complete a map. It means that a g1 on a 30,000 complete map gives ~2200 points, which is the equivalent of 3.5 * T6 map completions.
I've been fiddling with some numbers for a while, and while I was aiming to come up with something that wouldn't affect most players negatively, it's hard to justify keeping the insane amount of points awarded by those popular T1 maps. If things get rebalanced around them, it'll basically be by giving points in the same vein that MMOs assign healthbars to enemies (i.e. have 10,000 fucking points for no discernible reason).

I think it's easy enough to massively boost the map completion points given to higher tier maps, but I think the multipliers should be increased as well. Using the same system other than the completion points and the WR calculation I would do something like the following.

Completion Points 

• Tier 1: 25
• Tier 2: 50 to 200
• Tier 3: 100 to 350
• Tier 4: 200 to 600
• Tier 5: 400 to 1200
• Tier 6: 600 to 1500
  
  By boosting T2 completions significantly, hopefully we can see some more players approaching T2 maps without getting frustrated at the lack of points for not getting a group time. This then follows on in a similar vein to the higher tier maps. 

WR Calculation

The existing system already had a minimum for T3-6 maps, but to be even handed I think this should be applied to all tiers. Then combining with a limit, we can still have very valuable T1 maps, with rewarding WR and group times, but they don't completely outclass higher tier maps.

• Tier 1: (1.75 * Number of Completes) / 6 to 1.75 * MAX (200, (MIN (2000, Number of Completes / 5))
  • Meaning maps with more than 12,000 completions should be calculated as if they only have 10,000, so g1 times would go from 2.2k for a 30k completion map to a max of 900. Maps are also always counted as having at least 1000 completes, giving a minimum of 325 points for a WR instead of 25.
• Tier 2: (2.8 * Number of Completes) / 5 to 4 * MAX (50, (MIN ( 400, Number of Completes / 5)
  • High complete map surf_borderlands with 4.4k completes maxes out at 1.8k points for WR. T2 maps with 1000 completions give 1000 points. Maps are also always counted as having at least 50 completes and will award a minimum of 400 points for a WR.
• Tier 3: MAX(350, (3.5 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 6 * MAX (35, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 560
• Tier 4: MAX(400, (5.74 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 8 * MAX (30, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 840
• Tier 5: MAX(500, (7 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 10 * MAX (25, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 1450
• Tier 6: MAX(600, (14 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 12 * MAX ( 20, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 1750

To use some examples:
Old system, g1 on a 30k completion map is 2.2k points, equivalent to 3.5 * T6 map finishes (no group).
Updated, g1 on 30k completion map is 900 points,  which is 4.5 * T2 maps.

Of course it should be adjusted a bit depending on the average completions across the tiers, I can only really guess at how many people have actually completed T5 and T6 maps on the server... And also, there are always harder and easier maps within tiers. This accounts for the easier ones by placing caps on the point allocation after a certain number of completions, and somewhat for the harder ones by awarding a minimum amount of points for the WRs, but doesn't really account for just finishing some of the harder maps within a tier and not making a group.

Maybe admins could assign bonus points for completions of specific maps? There are a handful of T2 maps that could do with that, I think. Though I imagine that would be harder to implement than just changing the math in the plugin.

In any case this is just a suggestion, and I'm keen to see what people think of something using actual numbers.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Skoll

[Silver 3]

7 hours ago, Skoll said:

This is quite interesting, and it's really good information to have. To summarise, the current system places a cap on the amount of points you can earn in T3+ maps (probably unnecessarily as it requires ~170 completes on a T6 to reach the cap).

In my mind we need to both:

• reduce the effect of mass completions on the most popular T1 maps vs the less popular T1 maps, and
• increase the rewards for completing hard maps.

It's pretty clear the system set up on that page was never intended to have 30,000 people complete a map. It means that a g1 on a 30,000 complete map gives ~2200 points, which is the equivalent of 3.5 * T6 map completions.
I've been fiddling with some numbers for a while, and while I was aiming to come up with something that wouldn't affect most players negatively, it's hard to justify keeping the insane amount of points awarded by those popular T1 maps. If things get rebalanced around them, it'll basically be by giving points in the same vein that MMOs assign healthbars to enemies (i.e. have 10,000 fucking points for no discernible reason).

I think it's easy enough to massively boost the map completion points given to higher tier maps, but I think the multipliers should be increased as well. Using the same system other than the completion points and the WR calculation I would do something like the following.

Completion Points 

• Tier 1: 25
• Tier 2: 50 to 200
• Tier 3: 100 to 350
• Tier 4: 200 to 600
• Tier 5: 400 to 1200
• Tier 6: 600 to 1500
  
  By boosting T2 completions significantly, hopefully we can see some more players approaching T2 maps without getting frustrated at the lack of points for not getting a group time. This then follows on in a similar vein to the higher tier maps. 

WR Calculation

The existing system already had a minimum for T3-6 maps, but to be even handed I think this should be applied to all tiers. Then combining with a limit, we can still have very valuable T1 maps, with rewarding WR and group times, but they don't completely outclass higher tier maps.

• Tier 1: (1.75 * Number of Completes) / 6 to 1.75 * MAX (200, (MIN (2000, Number of Completes / 5))
  • Meaning maps with more than 12,000 completions should be calculated as if they only have 10,000, so g1 times would go from 2.2k for a 30k completion map to a max of 900. Maps are also always counted as having at least 1000 completes, giving a minimum of 325 points for a WR instead of 25.
• Tier 2: (2.8 * Number of Completes) / 5 to 4 * MAX (50, (MIN ( 400, Number of Completes / 5)
  • High complete map surf_borderlands with 4.4k completes maxes out at 1.8k points for WR. T2 maps with 1000 completions give 1000 points. Maps are also always counted as having at least 50 completes and will award a minimum of 400 points for a WR.
• Tier 3: MAX(350, (3.5 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 6 * MAX (35, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 560
• Tier 4: MAX(400, (5.74 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 8 * MAX (30, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 840
• Tier 5: MAX(500, (7 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 10 * MAX (25, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 1450
• Tier 6: MAX(600, (14 * Number of Completes) / 4) to 12 * MAX ( 20, Number of Completes / 4)
  • Min points for WR 1750

To use some examples:
Old system, g1 on a 30k completion map is 2.2k points, equivalent to 3.5 * T6 map finishes (no group).
Updated, g1 on 30k completion map is 900 points,  which is 4.5 * T2 maps.

Of course it should be adjusted a bit depending on the average completions across the tiers, I can only really guess at how many people have actually completed T5 and T6 maps on the server... And also, there are always harder and easier maps within tiers. This accounts for the easier ones by placing caps on the point allocation after a certain number of completions, and somewhat for the harder ones by awarding a minimum amount of points for the WRs, but doesn't really account for just finishing some of the harder maps within a tier and not making a group.

Maybe admins could assign bonus points for completions of specific maps? There are a handful of T2 maps that could do with that, I think. Though I imagine that would be harder to implement than just changing the math in the plugin.

In any case this is just a suggestion, and I'm keen to see what people think of something using actual numbers.

Appreciate the effort and thought that has gone into this post. 

Firstly I dont think this actually solves the issue, because whats effectively been done is multiplied everything by 2-3 (without adding in the scaling). The problem I have with this is doesnt expand on the original idea, if we wanted an overhaul then sure, but from what I understand, these are the main points the post was wanting changed (correct me if im wrong)

• Rework the minimum floor for WR points (rolls down to top10s/g1) for T2-6
• Add a minimum points floor for T2's
• Increase the scaling / make it take effect with fewer completes

The issue with the current system, and why these posts are being made is to reward players for top10s. Now with the proper map complete points being displayed for T2-6,  map complete points are obviously similar to WR points on lower tiers. With your solution base WR points on a Tier 6 is 1750, while complete is 1500, currently its 600 and 600 respectively.

Secondly, im confused about your syntax regarding how points would be calculated. 

Just for comparisons sake Tier6 is currently MAX(600, (3.5* Number of Completes) for simplicity. Which means it takes the highest of two values being either a flat 600 points or the scaling of 3.5 times the number of completes. Whereas you have 12 * highest value of either 20 or number of completes divided by 4, which doesnt mean the minimum points would be 1750. (again correct me if im wrong)

For the sake of simplicity it would be better to not overhaul everything at once, since that only complicates the calculations more. Keeping the current completion points the way they are and only expanding upon the scaling of WR points and changing the default values for the WR points. I would have a better understanding of how your suggested system would work to achieve this if I could make sense of the syntax sorry.

The original idea was to rework the scaling, current scaling in brackets

• Tier 2  >500. (Scaling starts at 1, needs a minimum floor)
• Tier 3: >100 (between 337 and 362)
• Tier 4: >50 (207+? less than 289)
• Tier 5: >25 (no scaling on server)
• Tier 6: >10 (no scaling on server)

All ive learnt is the scaling from the points system we copied is wrong for tier2-6. Obviously that isnt much data to go off of, but hope it puts in perspective what was suggested verses whats currently implemented.

[Skoll]

7 hours ago, Silver 3 said:

Appreciate the effort and thought that has gone into this post. 

Firstly I dont think this actually solves the issue, because whats effectively been done is multiplied everything by 2-3 (without adding in the scaling). The problem I have with this is doesnt expand on the original idea, if we wanted an overhaul then sure, but from what I understand, these are the main points the post was wanting changed (correct me if im wrong)

• Rework the minimum floor for WR points (rolls down to top10s/g1) for T2-6
• Add a minimum points floor for T2's
• Increase the scaling / make it take effect with fewer completes

The issue with the current system, and why these posts are being made is to reward players for top10s. Now with the proper map complete points being displayed for T2-6,  map complete points are obviously similar to WR points on lower tiers. With your solution base WR points on a Tier 6 is 1750, while complete is 1500, currently its 600 and 600 respectively.

Secondly, im confused about your syntax regarding how points would be calculated. 

Just for comparisons sake Tier6 is currently MAX(600, (3.5* Number of Completes) for simplicity. Which means it takes the highest of two values being either a flat 600 points or the scaling of 3.5 times the number of completes. Whereas you have 12 * highest value of either 20 or number of completes divided by 4, which doesnt mean the minimum points would be 1750. (again correct me if im wrong)

For the sake of simplicity it would be better to not overhaul everything at once, since that only complicates the calculations more. Keeping the current completion points the way they are and only expanding upon the scaling of WR points and changing the default values for the WR points. I would have a better understanding of how your suggested system would work to achieve this if I could make sense of the syntax sorry.

The original idea was to rework the scaling, current scaling in brackets

• Tier 2  >500. (Scaling starts at 1, needs a minimum floor)
• Tier 3: >100 (between 337 and 362)
• Tier 4: >50 (207+? less than 289)
• Tier 5: >25 (no scaling on server)
• Tier 6: >10 (no scaling on server)

All ive learnt is the scaling from the points system we copied is wrong for tier2-6. Obviously that isnt much data to go off of, but hope it puts in perspective what was suggested verses whats currently implemented.

When I adjusted the T1 and T2 WR calculation I fiddled with the listed order of operation a bit, so I kept that going for the T3 - T6 stuff, so sorry if that was confusing. I probably poorly explained a few things because I was in a bit of a rush as I wrote things up. The 'Max points from WR' I mentioned included the points from completing the map, so I definitely buffed the completion points for T4 - T6 a bit too much to make up for having little info on the average number of completes for the maps. Also... looking at it I definitely changed the math half way through and didn't fix the examples, whoops (though they're not that far off, the 1750 for a T6 WR would be [1740 = (12 * 20) + 1500]. I wouldn't be surprised if I did screw other bits up, though. The actual points given for the WR specifically, rather than just the completion, for my suggestions of T4-6, would be pretty low, meaning the ranking between players would be better established by number of completions at that level rather than a few better times - but again I'm not as confident about those changes as I am about the T1-3 stuff.

I was in a bit of a rush when I was writing it up, and even if I'd used accurate examples, I don't think I was very clear, my bad!

The above posts suggest a change to the scaling on higher tiers, and I changed it a bit because I see it as something that isn't quite that simple. As you can tell from my previous posts, I'm 100% behind harder tier maps being worth far more than they currently are, and I agree that the scaling on the high complete T1 maps is really out of hand.

The problem is that those high complete T1 maps aren't entirely indicative of the situation on all T1 maps, because of how played they are due to being on noob surf (and the reasons behind *why* they're on noob surf - being really good / easy introductory maps that show off the positive sides of modern skill surf). Lower played T1 maps aren't really easier than those high complete maps, so I don't see inverse scaling (like Tigger suggested) as being a viable option in that case. I therefore wanted to look at something that would minimise the effect of outlying levels of completes (which happens at the T2 level as well - and maybe T3 for all I know, but I wouldn't really know as I've only done like 7 T3 maps).

So my aim was to:

• Rework minimum floor for WR
• Buff completion points for T2+ (because just finishing a T4 - T6 map should, in my mind, definitely be more valuable than a g1 on a high complete T1 map)
  • Also, the current system doesn't allocate any points other than completion points for non group times, meaning someone would need to finish 22 T3 maps in the bottom 50% to get the same amount of points that you currently get from a T1 G1 on a 30,000 complete map - according to the math on the page drk linked.
• Reduce the impact of the points scaling on T1 high completion maps (which will always have higher completes because they're on noob surf and are chosen as introductory maps for new players).

I was err-ing towards simplicity by just reworking the math as stated in that readme. So, basically I added a cap for T1 and T2 maps, boosted completion points by a lot, and scaling by a little for any T2+ map.

I think incremental changes to the system would be harder to deal with, as players would see their points and ranks be adjusted multiple times (this might have to happen anyway, but I think adjusting everything is a better way to achieve a more equitable system, I don't see a solution from adjusting just the scaling or just the completion points).

If anyone has the numbers, getting an average of the number of completes across maps on each tier would allow more tightly controlled caps to be placed (both minimum and maximum) on the points achievable. From looking at my stats (which is a small data set of roughly 170 maps across T1 and T2 - with only 7 T3 maps), there's a significant difference between the number of completes on different maps in each tier - but often that isn't an indication of difficulty due to maps being older/newer or (more obviously) being in the noob surf rotation. T2 maps are a bit different, where the number of completes does correlate more with difficulty, but there are still exceptions and it can come down to factors like RNG and just not appearing very often in votes (but also some perspectives on difficulty are subjective, so I could be wrong here). I think a map like surf_ebony is a really significant outlier, hence my suggestion of some way to assign 'bounty' or something to those *really* hard maps within a tier, but again this would be outside the current system.

If we just increase the scaling, there will be a lot of players who aren't going to get any increase in points because they're in the bottom 50% of the records. That means there's little incentive for them to try and compete with the current players smashing T3+ maps, and giving them more points for completion would ease the level of surf madness they need to smash their heads into the brick wall that is KZG's top skill surf players.

To sum up my suggestions, without any of the math:

• Add / reassess the minimum floor for WR points on each tier to increase the value of low completion maps,
• Add a cap to points gained by WR completion on each tier to decrease the value of WR and thus group times on high completion maps, and
• Boost completion points for T2 - T6 maps significantly to encourage people to complete maps beyond their comfortable skill level, even if they can't get a group time.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Skoll