Jace Hall's Feed

Jace Hall
05-23-2022 at 04:14 PM

Wanted to get some community perspective on this.

Please list what YOU think TG's TOP 3 priorities should be for the next 3 months.

For clarity, my asking this does not mean that TG will necessarily agree with the prioritization presented, but regardless - What is YOUR opinion?

Let's go! :)


User comments (118)

Unregistered's Avatar

Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall


No it would not.

The most recent submission would always be considered the player's place on the leaderboard.

For clarity, this discussion is about previous accepted scores auto-populating a leaderboard if for some reason a players current score is removed. I am not convinced that this should take place.


as someone who has regularly had multiple scores in the queue for the same game as i improve i wanna confirm this is correct.

i can submit multiple scores, newest being best of course, and the newest will soemtiems go first, i speculate that people would just rather adjudciate a top score than an already obsoleted one. when the older one goes through, it goes on the "accepted" historical list but it doesnt replace the score

i never tried submitting a lower score later. nor do i personally have a desire to.

  • alarm

i dont know if i'm jiust rationalizing and trying to see jaces view so i'm making up something here thats not his point, but i really am trying hard to find a way to agree with him or at least see his point of view as valid

i think i got it ;)

On tapper, there is someone who did a 5 life score but no marathon score. any 5 life score is autmoatically fine to double sumbit as marathon as it has all the same rule with the only exception you can use all your lives. BUT we still dont copy that score over to marathon because the player never requested that.

scores need permission to be on the board.

so, i guess you could argue, once the old score was removed, and with permission at that, due to the new submission, you cant add the old score back unless you also get permission.

  • alarm

In my opinion:

The Twin Galaxies scoreboard for any given track is a "Best of All Time" historical record.

It is NOT the active leaderboard for a tournament currently in progresss, the results of a special event held two weeks ago, the final standings from the 2021 Game-A-Palooza festival, or anything else of that nature.

If you believe otherwise, I must respectfully disagree.


Thanks timmell thanked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82


This is how the scoreboard works because there is no section for what you are talking about. In your above example, you are talking about a tournament/competition. I think most here would be in agreement that having a section of the site that tracks tournaments or competitions and keeps those scores/rankings/results are separate of the historic scoreboard unless someone submits to the main board.

Again, with your above example - Davids first score would not carry over because it is a different competition. Literally no one here is saying it should. Davids first score should remain on the top of the leaderboard (currently the only leaderboard). But what everyone is saying is that if davids previous score was 1 million and that score had been submitted and accepted. And the perfect score was then disputed and removed for some reason, this scenario does not undo David's previous score of 1 million.



Indeed as I explained in a previous post you are correct there is no current place for historic scores to reside and leader boards are actually used as historical records.

Therefore TWIN GALAXIES would certainly have to add some functionality to the player profile pages to be able to display historic scores so that the leader boards can be freed up from that responsibility.

This is something that would likely have to be done for the bounty system anyway.

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake



honestly most of what yu've been saying i felt was true in a vacuum but not really relevant in the context here BUT if THIS is the real crux of it i'm starting to get your point.

so, to put words in your mouth ;), when someone submits a score the submission itself comes wtih the implication that the submitter is distancing themselves from all older scores and wants the older scores removed?

by this logic willl you allow people to request score removal? alot of temper tantrum throwers have when leaving tg demanded all their scores removed. it sounds like this will allow them to do that, so im curious if by the same reasoning you're going to start allowing people to request their scores be removed.

i can easily imagine some people who arent leaving but hate second place and only want first places. its not hard at all for me to imagine some dethroned first places wanting their older score removed and now using this for that purpose

No. Score removal wouldn’t be possible as you suggest.

I think this topic has some of its points getting lost in different parts of different posts and it’s probably better discussed actively. We can talk about it more and explore the idea when I set up the TWIN GALAXIES zoom sessions if you would like to participate.

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

i can submit multiple scores, newest being best of course, and the newest will soemtiems go first, i speculate that people would just rather adjudciate a top score than an already obsoleted one. when the older one goes through, it goes on the "accepted" historical list but it doesnt replace the score

i never tried submitting a lower score later. nor do i personally have a desire to.

Yes this is a bit of the thought being explored.

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall


Indeed as I explained in a previous post you are correct there is no current place for historic scores to reside and leader boards are actually used as historical records.

Therefore TWIN GALAXIES would certainly have to add some functionality to the player profile pages to be able to display historic scores so that the leader boards can be freed up from that responsibility.

This is something that would likely have to be done for the bounty system anyway.

this is only true of the scores before your ownership. As you know, all tgsap scores, accpeted and rejected can be easily found in a dropdown even from the particular scoreboard as well as other places. The tgsap scores are all in place so i would imagine when a score is removed, brinigng back the highest tgsap score wouldnt require too much additional functionality

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall


Indeed as I explained in a previous post you are correct there is no current place for historic scores to reside and leader boards are actually used as historical records.

Therefore TWIN GALAXIES would certainly have to add some functionality to the player profile pages to be able to display historic scores so that the leader boards can be freed up from that responsibility.

This is something that would likely have to be done for the bounty system anyway.

Am I understanding correctly that you are thinking about changing the functionality of the current leader boards (which are historic since their inception) to be more on the active side of things and then creating additional functionality to store historic accomplishments on the player profiles-?

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by stella_blue

In my opinion:

The Twin Galaxies scoreboard for any given track is a "Best of All Time" historical record.

It is NOT the active leaderboard for a tournament currently in progresss, the results of a special event held two weeks ago, the final standings from the 2021 Game-A-Palooza festival, or anything else of that nature.

If you believe otherwise, I must respectfully disagree.


You are correct. That is what it currently is. There are both good and bad things about this and that is what I am assessing.

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82


Am I understanding correctly that you are thinking about changing the functionality of the current leader boards (which are historic since their inception) to be more on the active side of things and then creating additional functionality to store historic accomplishments on the player profiles-?

Yes that is one idea.

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall


Yes that is one idea.

Ok, so this is what I've been hearing over the past 5 years on the two things that I've been most excited about (I'm sure others could chime in with similar stories around their priorities)

Tournaments - 5 years ago the system was 6 months from being rolled out and testing was occurring - https://www.twingalaxies.com/twin-galaxies/wall/1944/user-hosted-tournaments-test-drive Since then it's been "no money to develop"

Bounty System - 2 1/2 years ago you wrote "I think once the front page / profile / dispute stuff is complete we can spend time on implementing a basic bounty system and build from there." Since then requests for a BASIC system have been met with "no money to develop"

Today- We're thinking about reshaping the scoreboard, adding all kinds of vague functionality and ground up builds to create this thing that no one has asked for. It will certainly cost more money than either the Tournament System to finish or a Basic Bounty System (both promised years ago).

smdh

This reminds me of a story - The Peace Corp has long prioritized latrine access as a reasonable project to carry out in areas where they are deployed. A group shows up to a village and explains they're going to build a state of the art latrine. The village says "That sounds nice, but we can go to the bathroom outside. What we really need is a warehouse to store our crops." Peace Corp volunteers build state of the art latrine and pat themselves on the back for helping to improve the village. After a year or so of going around building latrines for various villages they swing back around to this first village to find the people still crapping in the bush and the latrine stuffed full of their crops.



Likes JJT_Defender, MyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

Tournaments - 5 years ago the system was 6 months from being rolled out and testing was occurring - https://www.twingalaxies.com/twin-galaxies/wall/1944/user-hosted-tournaments-test-drive Since then it's been "no money to develop"

Hmm, not quite 5 years but this is generally correct. If people are interested in contributing all the money we may need to fully complete the tournament system immediately, rest assured we can find a way to make that happen!

However I find that kind of contribution to be unlikely, given that when we did roll out the initial system to test, and asked for help/feedback with it, the community participation in that process was unfortunately did not seem to be very robust.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

Bounty System - 2 1/2 years ago you wrote "I think once the front page / profile / dispute stuff is complete we can spend time on implementing a basic bounty system and build from there." Since then requests for a BASIC system have been met with "no money to develop"

As you can imagine, some resources have needed to be put toward various legal efforts and that can affect things. In the meanwhile of course, over those same 2 1/2 years you have referenced, many many improvements, additions and fixes have been done across the TG platform - but in reading your post and perceiving its tone, the fact that so much has been done in other areas unfortunately doesn't seem to count for anything.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

Today- We're thinking about reshaping the scoreboard, adding all kinds of vague functionality and ground up builds to create this thing that no one has asked for. It will certainly cost more money than either the Tournament System to finish or a Basic Bounty System (both promised years ago).

smdh

This description is incorrect.

For clarity - There was a user created request about "fixing" the leaderboard system so that it auto-populates a player's historic score if/when their current score is successfully disputed/invalidated. I indicated that I was not convinced that this should be done and that I was thinking about it. I have attempted to explain why I was not convinced after I was specifically asked to by a community member. That's all that has taken place and where the topic and conversation comes from.




  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

this is only true of the scores before your ownership. As you know, all tgsap scores, accpeted and rejected can be easily found in a dropdown even from the particular scoreboard as well as other places. The tgsap scores are all in place so i would imagine when a score is removed, brinigng back the highest tgsap score wouldnt require too much additional functionality

That is correct.

The question is whether or not leaderboard participants should be competing with the scores they actually see on the leaderboard - OR - are they competing with some theoretically infinite somewhat invisible list of ALL the scores ever performed by each of the participants on the leaderboard.

  • alarm

Jace, i dont know if it was rhetorical when you said if there donations you'd do it, but when tg did ask for donations they actually got them in rightogame.

you already have track creation that takes points to donate and a total, seems to me you could immediately use existing functionality to have your own kickstarter for tg stuff right here.

i bet some of it actually would get funded

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

Jace, i dont know if it was rhetorical when you said if there donations you'd do it, but when tg did ask for donations they actually got them in rightogame.

you already have track creation that takes points to donate and a total, seems to me you could immediately use existing functionality to have your own kickstarter for tg stuff right here.

i bet some of it actually would get funded

I am currently of the opinion that completing the tournament system is not nearly as important as getting a functional bounty system up and running.

There are already many tournament systems out there for people to use. Even Facebook has one now. So there are viable options available.

However, a bounty system is fairly unique and really could leverage TG's adjudication process - whereas other places would have to figure out some way of accomplishing their own verification process (which is not a trivial matter if you want dynamic flexibility in the system so you can cover a wide range of bounty-types.)

So anyway, that is more on the forefront of my thoughts in terms of "new" things. Mostly though, fixing bugs and etc are what get the priority at the moment. TG might seem simple from the outside, but it takes quite a bit to keep it running and deal with things like internet attacks, upgrading the entire PHP backend to 7.x, building a system that allows all games to have version numbering, etc...

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Hmm, not quite 5 years but this is generally correct. If people are interested in contributing all the money we may need to fully complete the tournament system immediately, rest assured we can find a way to make that happen!

I mean for that to happen, you'd have to actually give a number along with some accounting of what that number would be paying for. Perhaps you're right and the amount wouldn't be hit, but perhaps you'd be surprised...no way to know though when everytime you are asked about it, it get's brushed off.


Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall

However I find that kind of contribution to be unlikely, given that when we did roll out the initial system to test, and asked for help/feedback with it, the community participation in that process was unfortunately did not seem to be very robust.

I'm sure your recollection of this time and mine are different. Let me give you mine - you guys put the system out there to test and asked for help. Some folks started putting stuff together and reporting what they could. I remember spending a few hours navigating around and trying to figure out they types of tournaments that could be created, how it would operate and function, where things would go. There was no place to really ask those questions, and it was unclear where we should even be reporting issues we encountered. Giving help when the rollout was as vague about the help it needed as it was is difficult. Then it just disappeared. No more communication from TG about something that was being rolled out 6 months from then. I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why you can tell me that is not what actually happened, but that was my experience with it as someone who tried to navigate the rollout and help.


Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall

As you can imagine, some resources have needed to be put toward various legal efforts and that can affect things. In the meanwhile of course, over those same 2 1/2 years you have referenced, many many improvements, additions and fixes have been done across the TG platform - but in reading your post and perceiving its tone, the fact that so much has been done in other areas unfortunately doesn't seem to count for anything.

And I'm grateful for those improvements. I, like most of us Jace, exist in greys, and can appreciate what has been done for the site while also asking you to be accountable for what you said you were going to do. Those things are not mutually exclusive.


Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall

This description is incorrect.

For clarity - There was a user created request about "fixing" the leaderboard system so that it auto-populates a player's historic score if/when their current score is successfully disputed/invalidated. I indicated that I was not convinced that this should be done and that I was thinking about it. I have attempted to explain why I was not convinced after I was specifically asked to by a community member. That's all that has taken place and where the topic and conversation comes from.

idk what to say man. I asked you a question about the topic and asked if you were talking about changing functionality and building new functionality from the profile perspective. you said yes. However the conversation began, it got to the point of you talking about functionality because you chose to bring that into the conversation. If you need to step that back because it was not accurate then fine, but don't try to pretend like you haven't been talking about major functionality (and branding as a byproduct) overhaul of the TG scoreboard as a historical leaderboard.





  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

I mean for that to happen, you'd have to actually give a number along with some accounting of what that number would be paying for. Perhaps you're right and the amount wouldn't be hit, but perhaps you'd be surprised...no way to know though when everytime you are asked about it, it get's brushed off.

Yikes! Apologies, I was not being serious when I mentioned people "contributing all the money we may need to complete the tournament system immediately" - The engineering costs there in my opinion are quite prohibitive and inappropriate to lay on others so I assumed that my facetiousness would be obvious, but your response suggests it was not interpreted that way.

Clearly I failed in delivering that nuance and upon reflection I may have been too assumptive of others in regard to the understanding of engineering costs on a heavily integrated platform like TG. Apologies again.

However as a side note, please consider that your characterization phrase of "brushed off" may be a bit unfair. TG has been reasonably clear that the Tournament system completion has primarily remained a matter of prioritization and need of resources. There have been, and continue to be, more important items requiring our limited attention, resources and available focus. The Tournament System remains on the to do list, it's just not as high up on the list as other items. It will eventually get done.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

I'm sure your recollection of this time and mine are different. Let me give you mine - you guys put the system out there to test and asked for help. Some folks started putting stuff together and reporting what they could. I remember spending a few hours navigating around and trying to figure out they types of tournaments that could be created, how it would operate and function, where things would go. There was no place to really ask those questions, and it was unclear where we should even be reporting issues we encountered. Giving help when the rollout was as vague about the help it needed as it was is difficult. Then it just disappeared. No more communication from TG about something that was being rolled out 6 months from then. I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why you can tell me that is not what actually happened, but that was my experience with it as someone who tried to navigate the rollout and help.

I'm sure your experience is valid. However, regardless of anyone's subjective experience during that time, the tournament system that got rolled out quickly demonstrated itself to be objectively far from complete and would require much more additional work to meet its design requirements to be competitive with other available hosted tournament options.

When the system was deactivated, it was explained that the system needed more work, resources and priority before it could be reactivated again. That hasn't changed.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

And I'm grateful for those improvements. I, like most of us Jace, exist in greys, and can appreciate what has been done for the site while also asking you to be accountable for what you said you were going to do. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Totally agree that those things are not mutually exclusive, however please consider that those things may inadvertently be perceived to be portrayed as mutually exclusive during casual conversation if mentioned on stand-alone basis without some surrounding contextual consideration.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

idk what to say man. I asked you a question about the topic and asked if you were talking about changing functionality and building new functionality from the profile perspective. you said yes. However the conversation began, it got to the point of you talking about functionality because you chose to bring that into the conversation. If you need to step that back because it was not accurate then fine, but don't try to pretend like you haven't been talking about major functionality (and branding as a byproduct) overhaul of the TG scoreboard as a historical leaderboard.

I am having trouble understanding what you mean by "major functionality overhaul of the TG scoreboard?"

For clarity - there is no "overhaul" that I am aware of.

Let me restate my understanding of the issue and then perhaps you can help clarify?

Currently when a player's listed score on the leaderboard is disputed and removed, the TG system does not automatically place a "previous score" from that player on to the active leaderboard.

To my knowledge, the TGSAP system has never done this. There have been no changes.

It was suggested by the community that perhaps TG should automatically place a "previous score" from that player on to the active leaderboard under the aforementioned conditions.

That would be a new thing. Making that happen would require TG to write new code to perform this requested function. I didn't bring this into the conversation. It was suggested by a community member. Is this the major functionality overhaul of the TG scoreboard you are referring to?

If not, then perhaps I got lost on this below part...

In response to this community suggestion, I merely stated that I was not convinced that TG should do this new function and that I was thinking about the matter further.

I said that perhaps it might be better to place the historic scores on player profile pages instead so that they can be more easily referenced.

Adding that information to player profile pages allows the TG Leaderboard system to remain unchanged and continue to only show the players last "position" on the leaderboard - and if the player's verified submission that acquired that position is disputed and removed, then that player's position on the leaderboard is lost until there is another resubmission from that player for a new position listing. This is literally how it currently and has been working, with no changes whatsoever.

So is your reference to the "major overhaul" just focused on the idea of TG adding all the historical accepted submissions to the player profile pages? If so, you are correct in that I brought that up in the conversation - but that was only because I was directly asked why I was not convinced that TG should add the new functionality that was requested. Implementing this is not particularly major from an execution standpoint.

In general I am thinking about other ways to represent historical submission performance information on the platform, and considering things like the fact that the bounty system will need the player profiles to list those achievements anyway.

Overall, I am in agreement that right now there are number historic scores that are not being displayed in any convenient or prestigious way as a byproduct of the dispute system removing scores.

Will continue to think on this of course.

  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall

So is your reference to the "major overhaul" just focused on the idea of TG adding all the historical accepted submissions to the player profile pages? If so, you are correct in that I brought that up in the conversation - but that was only because I was directly asked why I was not convinced that TG should add the new functionality that was requested. Implementing this is not particularly major from an execution standpoint.

Yes, in a sense this gets a bit at what I meant. I was not referring solely to the amount of coding work that might have to be done, but also to what it would represent to the immediate TG community and the enormous number of casual gamers that recognize TG as a record keeper of best performances. I am possibly misunderstanding how you have been talking about it but this is what I have gleaned from what you wrote in your previous responses:

Scenario:

John Doe scores 550,000 on the arcade Can Kicker for the third place spot. He keeps playing and improving and scores 650,000 the next month, 725,000 the following month for the second spot. He's stalled out on improvement and decides to take a break. A few months later he's at a friend's house who also owns Can Kicker and has a video camera set up for recording. John decides he'll have a go on camera. He has the best game ever, scores over 1 million points, and takes over the top spot. He comes to TG, submits, and it is accepted. A few weeks later he's talking with his friend and realizes that the dip switches might not have been correct on his attempt. He brings this up with the community, a dispute is raised, the score is removed. Now none of John's scores are on the scoreboard. The policy is that he needs to resubmit his 725k (or a lower score) to get back on the score. But alas, John's house has a fire, his recordings and beloved Can Kicker are destroyed and in the aftermath John's desire to resubmit disappears for a variety of reasons.

As it sits now, John's scores could be found if one were to dig through accepted submissions, but none of them will be on the scoreboard for viewing.

Now, while I understand this is how the leaderboard currently works (scores are not replaced). The assumption, based on the request to add this and then the community's response to your question of "why that should be added?" to me makes it clear that current functionality (not adding the recent score) was seen as an oversight that could be improved on, while your responses (intended or not) have portrayed it more as a potential shift in the core of the scoreboard - to me this is an overhaul in that it is potentially reshaping what the general view of the scoreboard is and what TG has been and currently is. The scoreboard, imo, is a core of TG and one of the few things that currently makes this place unique.

It seems, based on your proposals, that you are suggesting all of John's scores be linked to his profile. Again, they won't be on the scoreboard, but will be in a different spot of the site. They are already stored on the site in the accepted scores area, so really this connect to a profile is simply duplicating data that is already on the site- This creates the same situation as above...anyone looking at the best Can Kicker performances would need to have fairly intimate knowledge of the site (and possibly of the game itself to know where to look)to be able to accurately determine the best performances.

A few times you've brought up this idea of people having to compete against an infinite number of previously submitted scores. This doesn't make sense to me. If I'm trying to get the highest score in Can Kicker and John holds that at 1 million, then that's my goal. If I manage a run of 950k, and then John's score is removed and his 725k replaced it then why would that matter? I take over the top score, John reverts to 2nd or 3rd or whatever and any shifting of positions on the scoreboard other than John's are either for them to go up or a result of my submission. Why would John's historic scores need to be available anywhere except the Accepted section? If a runner is gunning for Usain Bolt's world record in the 100, does it matter that at some point in the past Bolt ran a 10.50?

While historic listing on the profile could be interesting it seems to me to be a pretty low priority. There are other stats folks have voiced desire for that would be higher priority, and there are other projects, not stat related, that have been asked for that seem to be higher priority. So yes, it seems like things that folks are asking for (in my case tournament and bounty systems, but other asks for others) are getting brushed aside (or whatever term you want to use) when considerations are being made about shifting the way the majority of us thought the scoreboard was meant to operate AND adding some site functionality that no one has asked for.



Thanks MyOwnWorstEnemy, Jace Hall thanked this post
Likes MyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

Now, while I understand this is how the leaderboard currently works (scores are not replaced). The assumption, based on the request to add this and then the community's response to your question of "why that should be added?" to me makes it clear that current functionality (not adding the recent score) was seen as an oversight that could be improved on, while your responses (intended or not) have portrayed it more as a potential shift in the core of the scoreboard - to me this is an overhaul in that it is potentially reshaping what the general view of the scoreboard is and what TG has been and currently is. The scoreboard, imo, is a core of TG and one of the few things that currently makes this place unique.

Ok. Perhaps what you are describing here is more of a "recent realization" you or others have had rather than a new reshaping? To be clear, this mode of leaderboard operation has been in place since TGSAP was created many years ago - so this is probably why I became confused in regard to why you seemed to be suggesting that something new had occurred.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

It seems, based on your proposals, that you are suggesting all of John's scores be linked to his profile. Again, they won't be on the scoreboard, but will be in a different spot of the site. They are already stored on the site in the accepted scores area, so really this connect to a profile is simply duplicating data that is already on the site- This creates the same situation as above...anyone looking at the best Can Kicker performances would need to have fairly intimate knowledge of the site (and possibly of the game itself to know where to look)to be able to accurately determine the best performances.

I think it is important to put more context around what you are saying here when you are referring to "the best performances." I believe you mean "the best performances of all time." Is that correct?

The reason I bring this up is because that is only one specific type of way to sort the data, and historically TG has lacked any other way to easily categorize so the "all time" has become the default method and I've observed that it may create competitive limits and perception of achievement.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the "all time" measurement but what I am evaluating and thinking about are the ramifications of the ongoing idea. It's a discussion at this point, nothing more.

Consider the limiting nature of the "all time" measurement that is used in ESI calculation. As it stands, some people have played so many games, and made so many submissions that it makes overall ESI competition with them to be uninteresting due to the time commitment involved. Total ESI looks all everything over "all time" and certainly you get a complete result there, but perhaps the competitive landscape may benefit if ESI leaderboard measurements could be isolated to individual years, or specific time intervals.

"This year's biggest ESI achiever is XXXX - who will win next year?" - etc. etc.

(We are working on being able to provide this kind of thing, it is in progress)

World records of course are important and they tend to be oriented toward "all time" and Twin Galaxies has a tradition of recognizing that and will of course continue to do so - however, most video game accomplishments that takes place today are not necessarily world record oriented, instead they are more achievement/milestone oriented and this is where TG's leaderboards have not particularly addressed very well historically as a concept.

Part of my job is to think about these things and not simply keep doing something into the future just because it was done that way in the past.

Quote Originally Posted by Blackflag82

A few times you've brought up this idea of people having to compete against an infinite number of previously submitted scores. This doesn't make sense to me. If I'm trying to get the highest score in Can Kicker and John holds that at 1 million, then that's my goal. If I manage a run of 950k, and then John's score is removed and his 725k replaced it then why would that matter? I take over the top score, John reverts to 2nd or 3rd or whatever and any shifting of positions on the scoreboard other than John's are either for them to go up or a result of my submission. Why would John's historic scores need to be available anywhere except the Accepted section? If a runner is gunning for Usain Bolt's world record in the 100, does it matter that at some point in the past Bolt ran a 10.50?

Ok. I do understand what you are saying. However I am not sure if you are considering some of the implications that come with auto-populating leaderboards with historic score submissions. There are many concerns generated by auto-population of historic scores. Here is a simple one - Imagine this scenario:

You look at the Can Kicker leaderboard. John holds #1 position at 1 Million. You manage a run of 950k and you notice that something is wrong with John's 1 Million performance.

You dispute John's 1 Million and the score is removed!

- Expecting to be in the #1 position now you reload the leaderboard, only to find John's 999,999 point score he previously submitted in the #1 position because TG auto-populated his previous submission upon removal of his 1 Million point score.

You notice the same problem with the 999,999 point score. So you dispute that. A number of days go by and the score is eventually removed!

- Expecting to be in the #1 position now you reload the leaderboard, only to find John's 999,998 point score he previously submitted in the #1 position because TG auto-populated his previous submission upon removal of his 999,999 point score.

You notice the same problem with the 999,998 point score. So you dispute that. Days go by and the score is removed!

- Expecting to be in the #1 position now you reload the leaderboard, only to find John's 999,997 point score he previously submitted in the #1 position because TG auto-populated his previous submission upon removal of his 999,998 point score.

REPEAT. REPEAT. REPEAT.

One would have thought that just by looking at the initial leaderboard and seeing John's 1 Million score, and 8 other participant scores, all a person would need to do is beat the scores they ACTUALLY SEE on the leaderboard, but no, due to the auto-population of historic scores that are not directly listed on the leaderboard, you need to compete with and be aware of EVERY submission that ALL of the leaderboard participants have ever put forth.

So how do you do that? More interestingly, what is the actual leaderboard then? Is it what you see when you look at the top 10, or is it some giant nested set of pages of multiple entries of all the competitor's submissions that have submitted since the track creation?

The challenge is that with auto-population of previous scores, a number of type of possible repetitive activities can be generated across many TG tracks, particularly as TG scales up and has more and more participants.

This is why a gating function of requiring a leaderboard participant to actively choose to submit a performance to represent their "active" position on it may make sense. Again, these are just things I am thinking about.

You might say, "well if all of those scores seem to have the same problem why not just delete them all and avoid this repetitive issue?"

Well this is because all score disputes are unique and are treated and documented uniquely. Assuming that the score matter isn't one of deliberate deception, which may trigger a complete removal of the participant and their scores, each score would need to be examined for fault and then expressly removed from the leaderboard it appears on, when/if it appears through auto-population.

Anyway, all I am saying is that there are things to think about, discuss and consider, which of course is what I am doing. :)


Thanks JJT_Defender thanked this post
Likes JJT_Defender liked this post
  • alarm

How about adding Oculus to the platform list?

Thanks Jace Hall thanked this post
Likes datagod liked this post
  • alarm
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Join us