Перполькен
Auto-translated
Ley, you are wrong; that division by two actually gave an advantage to the players who did not receive 1000 points. Because the leaders lose 500 points, while the others lose 300-350 points. The difference is 150 points, and after dividing by 2, 3, or 4, only 20 points remain of those 150. Where is the fairness in that? Is winning the 3rd stage really more prestigious than winning the 1st? Perhaps there were more participants in the 3rd stage, and it is much harder to complete a map in 5 days than in 3 days.
Dirty_Player, I fully support your system for determining the ABSOLUTE leader. But right now, we are talking about awarding points, which determine the winner of the scenario.
You say that if you miss a stage, you have nothing to hope for. I disagree. If you score 3000 points in 4 stages (missing the 1st stage), you can still win the scenario, but it will be difficult (see the points table). In general, those who play and strive to win do not miss stages. Of course, there are difficulties, and there is not enough time to play (to show a good result). But if a person does not send a save file, it means that they either did not want to play or the result was very modest. And you can always find time to play, because you can manage to complete a map while having a cup of coffee. Moreover, we have 7 scenarios, so you can definitely complete at least one scenario. If you miss the first scenario, there are still 6 more. And if you are aiming to be the absolute leader, you can skip two scenarios completely.
K0Lb@zzeR, in order to create a competition (raising the bar from X to 1150), you introduced a system of average scores. There is no arguing with that. But I disagree with the starting score of 0 and the reduction of points.
The bar is raised in any case, because after each stage, the hero's skills increase, thereby raising the bar. It's just that it doesn't happen as dramatically as with 575 (the bar is raised by 10, not by 100). And the reset will still have to be done, because raising the bar by 100 is not infinite.
Imagine the situation: I and Dirty_Player score 1000 points in stages 2-1 (rating = 950). Then I skip all the stages of the 2nd scenario, while Dirty_Player plays in all the stages, but not very successfully, and his rating drops to 940. So, I will be first, and will that be fair?!
It is best to do the reset after each scenario, and when the time comes to determine the absolute leader (in 3 years), then Dirty_Player's system is the most suitable.
In order for the rating to be fair to all participants (those who play, newcomers, and those who miss a stage), it should look like this (rating = the sum of the number of points in the completed stages / the number of completed stages).
Example: I played stages 1 and 2, but did not play stages 3 and 4. In the first 2 stages, I earned 2000 points (rating = 2000/2), after the 3rd stage (rating = 2000/3), after the 4th stage (rating = 2000/4)
That is, my final rating after the 1st scenario = 500
After this, all ratings are reset, and the 2nd scenario begins. And so on until the 7th scenario.
After the 7th scenario, Dirty_Player's system comes into effect, and the absolute leader is determined.
Dirty_Player, I fully support your system for determining the ABSOLUTE leader. But right now, we are talking about awarding points, which determine the winner of the scenario.
You say that if you miss a stage, you have nothing to hope for. I disagree. If you score 3000 points in 4 stages (missing the 1st stage), you can still win the scenario, but it will be difficult (see the points table). In general, those who play and strive to win do not miss stages. Of course, there are difficulties, and there is not enough time to play (to show a good result). But if a person does not send a save file, it means that they either did not want to play or the result was very modest. And you can always find time to play, because you can manage to complete a map while having a cup of coffee. Moreover, we have 7 scenarios, so you can definitely complete at least one scenario. If you miss the first scenario, there are still 6 more. And if you are aiming to be the absolute leader, you can skip two scenarios completely.
K0Lb@zzeR, in order to create a competition (raising the bar from X to 1150), you introduced a system of average scores. There is no arguing with that. But I disagree with the starting score of 0 and the reduction of points.
The bar is raised in any case, because after each stage, the hero's skills increase, thereby raising the bar. It's just that it doesn't happen as dramatically as with 575 (the bar is raised by 10, not by 100). And the reset will still have to be done, because raising the bar by 100 is not infinite.
Imagine the situation: I and Dirty_Player score 1000 points in stages 2-1 (rating = 950). Then I skip all the stages of the 2nd scenario, while Dirty_Player plays in all the stages, but not very successfully, and his rating drops to 940. So, I will be first, and will that be fair?!
It is best to do the reset after each scenario, and when the time comes to determine the absolute leader (in 3 years), then Dirty_Player's system is the most suitable.
In order for the rating to be fair to all participants (those who play, newcomers, and those who miss a stage), it should look like this (rating = the sum of the number of points in the completed stages / the number of completed stages).
Example: I played stages 1 and 2, but did not play stages 3 and 4. In the first 2 stages, I earned 2000 points (rating = 2000/2), after the 3rd stage (rating = 2000/3), after the 4th stage (rating = 2000/4)
That is, my final rating after the 1st scenario = 500
After this, all ratings are reset, and the 2nd scenario begins. And so on until the 7th scenario.
After the 7th scenario, Dirty_Player's system comes into effect, and the absolute leader is determined.
Все гениальное-просто!
:) F A I R :) P L A Y[/COLOR]:)