Almighty Dreadlock's Feed

Almighty Dreadlock
05-23-2018 at 11:52 AM
21 Comments
Rate this Entry

Constructing an index which truly measures the skill levels of record holders, step 1

Novice is the first skill level to be measured, so the relevant index shall be called the Novice Skill Index. It shall take the form of a multiplier, with a strength of 1, applicable to the Competitive Participation Index.

All score trackers which have no mandatory goal requirements shall be included in the Novice Skill Index. Examples of goal requirements:-
  • Attainment of a minimum score.
  • Completion of the game within a limited timespan.
  • Earning specific awards during gameplay.

The following examples are not goal requirements:-
  • Playing at an elevated difficulty level.
  • Compliance with rules against leeching.
  • Tying or breaking extant records.

Score trackers fitting the preceding description shall be referred to as standard tracks.
Comments
  1. Jace Hall's Avatar
    Interesting. Who would be setting these subjective standards in your proposed system?
  2. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    Interesting. Who would be setting these subjective standards in your proposed system?
    The standards are not subjective. Either a track has goal requirements, or it doesn't. Goal requirements must be written into the rules.

    All standards shall be set by adjudicators, of course.
  3. Jace Hall's Avatar
    A track with goal requirements is no issue.

    The issue begins to take shape when meeting goal requirements for one track is considered and valued by the system relative to other tracks with goal requirements. No objective way to value them versus each other, therefore an index can't be objectively created.

    Someone could simply create a new track with lowered goal requirements and meet them.

    Interesting nonetheless.
  4. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    A track with goal requirements is no issue.
    Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    The issue begins to take shape when meeting goal requirements for one track is considered and valued by the system relative to other tracks with goal requirements. No objective way to value them versus each other, therefore an index can't be objectively created.
    There shall be no relativity in this indexing system, therefore no subjectivity. Tracks shall not be compared to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    Someone could simply create a new track with lowered goal requirements and meet them.
    Setting easily achieveable goal requirements for a track would accomplish nothing, as the track would still be included in the Novice Skill Index, which has a multiplier of 1.
  5. Jace Hall's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    Good.

    There shall be no relativity in this indexing system, therefore no subjectivity. Tracks shall not be compared to each other.
    Im not sure what the value proposition is for players?

    A user sets up a track -

    Makes the track rules that say:
    if a player gets 1000 - 10,000 points, they are considered novice.
    if a player gets 10,000 - 30,000 points, they are considered expert.
    if a player gets over 30,000 points, they are considered pro.

    How does that actually determine skill, other than in the opinion of the track creator? And what value do you see in this approach?
  6. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    Im not sure what the value proposition is for players?
    In the case of the Novice Skill Index, no real value beyond the Competitive Participation Index. In other words, participation for its own sake, regardless of how good or bad the player is at the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    A user sets up a track -

    Makes the track rules that say:
    if a player gets 1000 - 10,000 points, they are considered novice.
    if a player gets 10,000 - 30,000 points, they are considered expert.
    if a player gets over 30,000 points, they are considered pro.
    None of that stuff is up to the track author. If someone wants to set up a track with a minimum score requirement, with the intention of its being more than a standard track, he or she would have to demonstrate that the score requirement fulfils the criteria of the stronger indexes. Random figures are not going to cut it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    How does that actually determine skill, other than in the opinion of the track creator?
    Fulfilment of a high enough score requirement is an obvious demonstration of skill, I should think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    And what value do you see in this approach?
    Players who have records on enhanced, expert and master tracks will have much bigger index numbers. The motivation will therefore be toward higher quality performances, and away from noncompetitive gaming. Players would have to submit literally thousands of unremarkable performances in order to get the same credit as a few goal oriented performances.
  7. GibGirl's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    There shall be no relativity in this indexing system, therefore no subjectivity. Tracks shall not be compared to each other.
    Then what do the multipliers have to do with it if there's nothing to multiply and compare?
  8. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Then what do the multipliers have to do with it if there's nothing to multiply and compare?
    There is something to multiply: the Competitive Participation Index. Comparison is made between players' overall index figures. Players can get higher figures by submitting to enhanced, expert and master tracks. Players who submit to standard tracks all the time are unlikely to get very high index figures.
  9. GibGirl's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    There is something to multiply: the Competitive Participation Index. Comparison is made between players' overall index figures. Players can get higher figures by submitting to enhanced, expert and master tracks. Players who submit to standard tracks all the time are unlikely to get very high index figures.
    Then this inherently compares tracks to each other. Maybe only simple terms, but it does - it tells us an achievement is worth more or less than another. And those comparisons are made subjectively, as each track's goals have to be decided upon by people, and there's no fixed criteria that exist that can be used to define those goals.
  10. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Then this inherently compares tracks to each other. Maybe only simple terms, but it does - it tells us an achievement is worth more or less than another. And those comparisons are made subjectively, as each track's goals have to be decided upon by people, and there's no fixed criteria that exist that can be used to define those goals.
    Tracks are not compared to each other. Each track either fulfils the criteria of an index, or it doesn't.

    Submitting a score to a standard track would be less lucrative in terms of index figures than submitting to an enhanced track, because achieving the enhanced track's goals is more challenging. In the case of a standard track submission, the player doesn't have to do anything more than play the correct game. In the case of an enhanced track submission, the player, at bare minimum, would have to get past the first stage of the game.

    I have set out the criteria for enhanced and expert tracks. There is nothing subjective about it. If it is unclear in any way, feel free to ask for clarification.
  11. GibGirl's Avatar
    First, your choice of criteria themselves are subjective.

    Second, what method is used to decide on objective measures for tracks? If there is an objective measure, then everyone should independently be able to use that method and come up with the same or equivalent criteria. If we can't - if, say, five people all tried to define an "Expert" track for, say, Centipede, and came up with five different sets of criteria, then it's all subjective.

    This reminds me of when people were trying to insist that game reviews should be objective, as if such a thing were possible.
  12. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Which criteria are subjective?
  13. GibGirl's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    Which criteria are subjective?
    They all are. Why did you choose for there to be, what, four levels (Novice, high, expert, master) instead of three, or five? Why only one goal requirement for high and expert, and why two for master? Why no pre-game advancement allowed? Why do expert and master require "full advancement", and what does that even mean?

    These are all things you chose for some reason of your own, created through your own judgement, and are therefore subjective. That alone doesn't mean they're bad, or biased, or anything like that.

    But it also means every track that would fit these various levels would also have to be subjective. People would have to decide what the goals should be, and others are going to disagree with them.
  14. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Why did you choose for there to be, what, four levels (Novice, high, expert, master) instead of three, or five?
    I could probably come up with more distinctions, but that would be overkill. Three elevated levels of skill is enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Why only one goal requirement for high and expert, and why two for master?
    Because master level gameplay is the pinnacle. Master tracks should have the most demanding rules, and be the most challenging for submissions.

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Why no pre-game advancement allowed?
    Because that circumvents the difficulty progression criterion. In some games, it also circumvents the minimum score criterion.

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Why do expert and master require "full advancement", and what does that even mean?
    It means that experts and masters must demonstrate an ability to play the game in its entirety, at every level.

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    These are all things you chose for some reason of your own, created through your own judgement, and are therefore subjective.
    I did not choose any of these things. They are examples of goal requirements, which may be applicable to some games, but not others. The list isn't comprehensive, but mentions the most obvious goals one could set. Ultimately, what one can do within a game is what decides the possible goals. This has nothing to do with my judgement, and there is nothing subjective about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    People would have to decide what the goals should be, and others are going to disagree with them.
    Track authors may set whatever goals please them, and anyone could disagree, but that won't stop the authors from founding their tracks. That's what's going on, right now. Nothing to do with me.

    However, my proposal will not enable anybody to conjure enhanced, expert or master tracks out of thin air. So, if you think you can make yourself an enhanced track by putting a ridiculous minimum score into your track's rules, you will be sorely disappointed. All goal requirements, such as minimum scores, must fulfil the difficulty progression criteria, etc. Otherwise, the tracks shall remain standard.
    Updated 05-23-2018 at 05:20 PM by Almighty Dreadlock
  15. GibGirl's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    I could probably come up with more distinctions, but that would be overkill. Three elevated levels of skill is enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    I did not choose any of these things.
    Likessdwyer138 liked this post
  16. Snowflake's Avatar
    ok, here's what I like. I'm a huge fan of more granularity so that we're comparing like to like. I do see benefit in finding yet another to categorize tracks so that we can have apples to apples comparisons. So I do see use here, however I also see the problems others are seeing and these problems are relevant because you're not simply presenting this as fun new apples to apples comparison but rather claiming it has some connection to skil -- which as you know is controversial and why you started this in the first place.

    While I agree with others objections, I think you're not quite strawmanning them but finding semantical errors allowing to purposely miss the point. Because semantics are fun when used to help explain details (and annoying when used to purposely confuse things) Ill see if i can help but i'm leaving immediately if this just turns into a game.

    You say you're not comparing tracks, this is semantically true. However since people are comparing themselves to others, and that comparison is based on the tracks there is an indirect comparison of tracks which is what people are really getting at and why there is subjectivity. More importantly, while you are not distinguishing between one novice track and another you are certainly comparing (technically contrasting) novice and expert, distiguishing in such a way to give one a higher multiplier is a sujbective contrast (casually refered to as a comparison).

    There was an honest breakdown in communiciation i hope this helps. If this is just a game I will not be fixing spelling errors or anything of the sort. arguing details is only fun when theres sincere disagreement on the details.
  17. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    That is a nice looking GIF
  18. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar
    According to the system I've proposed, there is already a master track. It's for Pac Man, on the arcade platform. The rules say that not only must you reach the last stage of the game, you must also attain the highest possible score.

    Where exactly is the subjectivity, in saying that this track demands a masterly level of skill from successful submitters?

    Other Pac Man tracks have no goal requirements. All you have to do is play the game. You could make zero points, and still get onto the board. According to the system, these are standard tracks.

    How is it not a valid comparison, elevating the master track above the standard tracks, in terms of index value?

    Saying the system is subjective does not make it so. Point out the nature of the subjectivity, otherwise I won't be able to see the validity of your arguments and objections (if it exists).
  19. Snowflake's Avatar
    while its true you can objectively compare both pacman tracks and say one requires more I think the issue in lumping master tracks together, or giving one easy "master" track a huge multiplier while giving a hard "novice" track a lower multiplier.

    I could for example make a candy crush track and say "you must earn at least 2 points" boom now its a master track. do you really think my master candy crush tracks deserves a higher multiplier then regular pacman? thats what makes it so subjective. calling something master simply because it has some added random requirement
    Updated 05-24-2018 at 01:46 AM by Snowflake
  20. Snowflake's Avatar
    i should probably clarify further as i think the response will be something like "see my prior statements". yes you've repeatedly said people cant just choose some random number and that it will have to justify the master title. the subjectivity though is enforcing that. please explain for example how you can enforce this "So, if you think you can make yourself an enhanced track by putting a ridiculous minimum score into your track's rules, you will be sorely disappointed." objectively?

    I'll grant you, that if your assumptions (such as the above assumption that peole wont be able to work the system with ridiculous low scores) are all valid, then your logic which stems from those assumptions is solid and not at all objective. However, if those assumptions are not valid, or only subjectively valid, the resultant logic falls apart.

    you know, you can have 100 pages of flawless logic, but if that flawless logic is all built upon an initial flawed assumption, well perfect logic + bad inputs = bad outputs. you're logic is fine and i have no argument. its the assumptions you logic rests on where the subjectivity enters. i'm just not seeing any objective way to enforce these essentail aspects
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Join us