PDA

View Full Version : maybe two separate catergories


kat
02-22-2009, 12:08 AM
Just a thought...

I've noticed that there are two types of players here. Those who are "100%-ers" and those who solve for speed. My issue is, I'm kind of both. Yet the top three awards for fastest solver never go to any one of the 100%-ers because they take the time to solve every puzzle.

I was thinking that maybe it would be nice to have two separate categories for the fastest solver challenge. One for the ones who solve every puzzle, and one for those that don't. It would make things a little more fair, in my opinion. It is a choice one makes to sacrifice a faster time to solve a difficult puzzle, I understand...but I think a separate category would make some of us feel better. It's tough to be behind someone with a 75.1% success rate. We're just different types of players.

opallady
02-22-2009, 02:08 AM
I made the decision to switch to the 100%er group when I realized that I would have been in the top top ten of the success rate catagory if I hadn't blown off a few puzzles because, hey, life is short. I'm too methodical by nature to be all that fast at something like this anyway. The catagory you propose would be interesting, though.

ernests
02-22-2009, 02:07 PM
Or how about a fastest solver score which takes account of both average speed and percentage solved - e.g. a penalty of 1 second for every % under 100%.

So if a player has an average speed of 30.4 seconds and 92.1% solved (so 7.9% missed), this would work out as a score of 30.4 + 7.9 = 38.3.

Here's the top of the fastest solver competition as it stands this minute, with rankings just on average time:
1. ferrym85 - 81.6% - 28.70s
2. debzhaus - 75.10% - 28.70s
3. rhaydon - 85.21% - 29.00s
4. kat - 100% - 36.6s
5. 1ARE - 84.62% - 40.4s

But with the 1 sec per % penalty, the top five would look like this:
1. kat - 100% - 36.60s + 0 = 36.60s
2. Altoid701 - 100% - 41.80s + 0 = 41.80s
3. rhaydon - 85.21% - 29.00s + 14.79 = 43.79s
4. toeprint - 100% - 45.80s + 0 = 45.80s
5. maradnu - 100% - 45.90s + 0 = 45.90s

What do you think?

maradnu
02-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Well, I would like that, for the obvious reason that I'd do better in a time competition against other 100%ers. I can't seem to manage to crack the top ten on speed because of the time it takes to do the 'tough' puzzles. I am usually in the top five among those who complete everything.

Altoid701
02-22-2009, 05:29 PM
I'm definitely for two separate fastest solver times or a weighted ranking system. I switched over to being a 100%-er because it didn't feel right to me to skip over the ones that took a long time. Yeah, it sucks when one takes you 800+ seconds to solve it and it increases your solve time by a second, but every puzzle should count for a true average solve time, IMO. And you should be penalized for not completing a quote, I think. I've considered just doing 75% next month to see what my solve time would be, but I doubt I actually will. It doesn't feel right.

kat
02-22-2009, 09:54 PM
Ernests, that is a pretty cool idea. I think , perhaps, that it might upset some of the non 100%-ers though. I'm not looking to take anything away from anyone. It just feels to me that we're playing in two separate ways. I like seeing those stats though! You've proven that even someone with a percentage of 85.21 is still in the top 3 fastest solvers with that system. (not to mention the fact that it puts me at the top;) ) I also like seeing some of the other 100%-ers up there. I think they deserve something for finishing every puzzle, and quickly. The only thing I am concerned about is upsetting the players who do not finish every puzzle.

momof6
02-23-2009, 01:03 AM
Hi!
I solve for speed and don't let it bother me too much when I refresh the page - a split second of conscience whispering and then upwards and onwards. I admire those with the perseverance to solve every single puzzle, but count me out. I gotta save my patience for more important things (or people). Sometimes things come up and I've gotta leave a puzzle in the middle. Ernest's idea has merit, but seems a little complicated, but I guess that's where the computer kicks in. I hate to admit it, but that system does seem fairer. As Kat says as a non100%er, I like the system the way it is.
Momof6

maradnu
02-23-2009, 02:48 AM
I don't think we should eliminate the existing speed competition, just perhaps add one.

gryhnd51
02-23-2009, 03:08 AM
as a player who doesn't solve 100%....not because I care so much for speed, as I just get befuddled by some.....I TOTALLY agree with Kat that it's more a matter of everyone's brain working a different way than anything else
Two separate categories for speed would, indeed, be fairer for ALL of us.

My hat is off to all you 100 percenters!!

gryhnd51
02-23-2009, 09:28 AM
If you great solvers don't keep this going, why would Stephen pay any attention to your idea?

You folks who spend time in the chat room should bring it up there, also....seems to be a lot of ideas being passed around in there!

Just a thought....good luck!

kat
02-23-2009, 10:36 AM
mostly for your support gryhnd51! Like I said, very much not trying to rock the boat, so to speak, but the fact is, there really ARE two types of players. I have a weird thing about trying to please everyone. (There's ben franklin quote about that floating around out there..) I want something for myself in this instance. Simply a recognition of the fact that I am fast and I am consistent. But not just for me. For Maradnu and Lily, and Pootie and gosh, I'm sorry..Laura and Digirl (sp?) altoid..the list goes on. We are a group of folks that enjoy puzzle solving. Maybe addicts. Needless to say, we are all of the same ilk.

The fact that there really are two factions in the game makes me think that the competition isn't necessarily skewed, just um.... well, i'm at a loss. it's not exactly unfair, but it isn't exactly fair either. I want the players who are super fast and skip some to feel that they're represented, yet I would like to feel represented as well. I hope I don't upset anyone. I just want to maybe get some kind of recognition for being fast AND solving all of the puzzles. Does that make any sense at all?

admin
02-23-2009, 05:23 PM
That's not a bad idea - maybe a fourth monthly competition for "Elite Solvers". The requirements would be:

- Must be in the top 50 High Scorers
- Must have a solving percentage of 98% or higher
- Ranked by average solve time

I'll put some thought into it.

ferrym85
02-23-2009, 07:11 PM
I agree that it's extremely impressive that there are some people capable of solving 100% of their puzzles in fast times... it's definitely something I would never be able to do! ;) Too many actual important things happening to worry about such trivialities.

I give a big old THUMBS UP for a new contest for the "elitists" here! There's certainly some merit to being recognized for being quick and accurate. I'm sure those of you who succeed spend a lot of time and effort to do so...

Continue on with your crusade! Hopefully you'll be able to find that satisfaction you crave and can't find elsewhere.

kat
02-23-2009, 07:30 PM
Thank you. I appreciate your feedback.

sonofcarc
02-23-2009, 11:54 PM
Actually it seems to me that there are three groups: those who have the discipline to finish every puzzle; those who have the discipline to blow off every one that slows them down in order to keep their average time as low as possible; and those like me who can't bear to give up on the middling-hard ones, OR to keep going when we've run out of ideas.

I have always thought it would be interesting to try running two different personae some month. The problem is I spend so little time here compared to some others that I couldn't keep either of them in the top 50 . . .

digirl28
02-24-2009, 03:19 AM
For some of us, it would make the playing field seem more fair. I hate giving up on any puzzle and have worked hard, as all others mentioned here, to get my speed down. Great idea, Kat!

digirl28

gryhnd51
02-24-2009, 04:30 AM
It sounds like Stephen is putting some serious thought into this, so I'm hopeful that you guys will get what you deserve.

I'm not sure I agree with the 98% part of it, but that would be more up to you perfectionists than myself

At my age, I don't have either the time or the patience to spend hours....let alone days....on just ONE thing! life gets to a point where you try to fit as much as possible into every minute! However, in case I haven't said it clearly enough, I have the GREATEST respect for all of you who solve at a very high percentage and also manage to do it so darned fast!

maradnu
02-24-2009, 06:39 AM
That is not a bad idea. There have been so many times that an 'elite' puzzler has missed a puzzle, either because of a system glitch, or something of that sort, that it makes it fairer to include those who may have missed a very few puzzles. I know that has happened to Kat, Di, and Laura, among others at various times. No reason to exclude people from the 'elite' just for a glitch. Besides, Stephen is less likely to get complaints about glitches than if the 'elite' were limited to 100%ers.

1ARE
02-24-2009, 01:57 PM
I agree that there are more than two types of players. After the previous game crashed, I changed my player name and my approach. I've fought perfectionism for years, and decided I don't need to add frustration to my life. Now, I relish solving the "difficult" puzzles as quickly as I can. (I'm more inclined to pass on the long "easy" ones.) It used to bother me that the same points were awarded regardless of the speed with with the puzzle was solved. I'm less concerned about standings now, and enjoy playing more. It's a great game, with some amazingly talented participants who play for both speed and accuracy. Kudos to them. In fairness to those who really care about standings, there's the consideration of changing rules in the middle of the game. For that reason, a new category is probably best--one which starts "from scratch". It isn't possible to please everyone, but that might help. The one thing that would please me would be a different term than "elite players". I'd love to see the game kept playful while maintaining the mental challenge. (Of course, it won't actually affect me, since I won't be on that list!)

kat
02-24-2009, 09:17 PM
I agree. The term "elite" bothers me as well.

ferrym85
02-24-2009, 09:25 PM
How about "Overall Achievement" or "Best All-Around" ??

Lily H
02-25-2009, 06:14 AM
How about super solvers? That would not alienate those of us who have had to sacrifice speed to achieve a higher solve rate. I gave up trying for speed because I knew I could not compete in that category. I really admire those of you who can solve at 100% and still have a really fast rate of solving.

bansaisequoia
02-25-2009, 06:36 AM
I wanna a start a new ranking category for something no one seems to have thought about before. There is a new unsung hero on this site named "layla," who has overtaken everyone in the category of "Avg pts."

http://www.cryptograms.org/forum/image.php?u=70

Are there any cryptedians or cryptediennes who can say that they surpass this Avg pts score? At the time of this posting, 312.1 will be a very hard score to beat. My hat is off to layla.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/U2048735.jpg?size=67&uid={95552FDC-9368-401C-86A4-B567FEFC6B32}

(Hey, why have I been unable to upload these images? I hope everyone is able to just click on them)

gryhnd51
02-25-2009, 09:01 AM
I like that "SUPER SOLVERS" name for the new category.......makes the point without sounding "elitist"

Ban, is it possible that Layla ONLY solves the hardest ones???

ferrym85
02-25-2009, 09:02 PM
Oh, I think I love "Super Solvers" heehee ;)

sonofcarc
02-27-2009, 12:06 AM
A random thought I had: Does the software (or could it be persuaded to) keep statistics on how many record times each solver has? That would make an interesting bar graph (with bansai's bar much taller than anybody else's, one would think).


Ratio of record times to total puzzles attempted would also be a cool statistic.

munchlet
02-28-2009, 08:17 PM
Hello, Kat --

fyi... I always keep a semi-obsessive focus on scores and rankings -- eyes on the prize (mostly to see how far short I have fallen this month).

It does not escape my notice that of the TOP FIVE solvers in February's "Fastest Solver Competition"... you have the only 100 percent solve rate there. In fact, none of the other four even come close to 100 percent.

That's awesome... like totally. Kudos and hats off to the queen!

Andrea

kat
02-28-2009, 10:44 PM
Thank you! I appreciate the kudos! :D I love this site.

mikehallbackhoe
05-19-2014, 11:41 PM
has this cause faded away, or will it ever come to pass?

locodad
05-20-2014, 08:41 PM
its being so long that they were talking about the Super solvers that original crypto solvers(the Egyptians) called and said that they were complaining because they were hoping to qualify for the catergory