I'm not sure what you mean by "tying the bonus into the different % of total scores each game has", could you elaborate on this idea?

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

We want the bonus to be based on some semblance of the amount of competition per game, correct? That way higher level competition is awarded higher bonuses. But no matter how we decide to award points, it will always be arbitrary in some fashion based on how we perceive the amount of competition, and that can differ from person to person. And at this point, it is largely just me and you doing it, which is a pretty small sampling.

My idea would be to award the bonuses based on the percentage of each mode's total scores in the system.

For example, there are 10 total modes, correct? (5 games, 2 modes apiece) - if we did the aforementioned 10% bonus for each, that gives us 100% total, a nice round number.

So let's say that instead of saying that each mode gets 10% like this:

SSX 3 Racing - 10% bonus
SSX 3 Showoff - 10% bonus
SSX Tricky Showoff - 10% bonus
SSX Tricky Racing - 10% bonus
etc and so forth...

Let's tie it to the amount of scores each mode has like the weighting function of the Best Overall Categories are. For example, we know that SSX 3 has the most scores (let's say 35%). Let's say it gets broken down to something like

SSX 3 Racing - 20% of total scores so 20% bonus.
SSX 3 Showoff - 15 % of total scores so 15% bonus
SSX Tricky Showoff - 12.5% of total scores so 12.5% of bonus,

until each mode has a bonus that is exactly equivalent to the amount of competition that each game actually has in terms of hard, quantitative data (percentage of total scores) rather than soft, qualitative data like our subjective evaluations. Which would mean for SSX 3 Racing, we'd have 20% of total bonus divided among 11 tracks, etc and so forth. There's an added benefit of this of "set it and forget it" - in the future, if you or I should miss out on the competition scene for a new game, we don't have to worry about trying to create a valid evaluation of a game we didn't play. And the bonuses would change as the competition changed, so if a new game becomes popular, the percentages would change accordingly.

The real thing to work out here is that I think the totals for each track/mode are all based on different totals because of the different number of tracks per game. Should we just total up the number of tracks - factor in a sample base figure (say 100 bonus points per track), total that up and then divide by the percentages as I described? So there are 132 tracks total. 132*100 = 13,200 possible bonus points.

So it would break down something like:

SSX 3 Racing: 20% of 13,200 - 2640 possible bonus across 11 tracks, so possible bonus per track of 240 points
SSX 3 Showoff: 15% of 13,200 - 1980 possible bonus across 15 tracks, so possible bonus per track of 132 points
SSX Tricky Showoff - 12.5% of 13,200 - 1650 possible bonus across 10 tracks, so possible bonus per track of 165 points

etc and so forth. Make sense?

_________________

Yes, that does make a lot of sense, great idea gondee. One small problem about that system is that it overlooks the fact that some players submitted scores just for the hell of it. If you look at the SSX3 scoreboards, some of the scores are ridiculously bad from a competitive POV. So SSX3 would be overvalued a little bit. Then again, who cares.

I hate to add complexity, but what about incremental bonuses? (e.g. +10 for each 1st place score in category). The more 1st place scores, the higher the bonus reward should be. Using your examples:



SSX 3 Racing: 20% of 13,200 --- 2640 across 11 tracks, 240 points per track - base of 190, +10 for next
SSX 3 Showoff: 15% of 13,200 --- 1980 across 15 tracks, 132 points per track - base of 62, +10 for next
TrickyShowoff: 12.5% of 13,200 - 1650 across 10 tracks, 165 points per track - base of 120, +10 for next

The formula to find the base points is: pointsPerTrack - (numberOfTracks-1)*increment/2

In the examples above the increment is +10. So instead of 240 + 240 + 240 ... in SSX3 Racing, it would be:

190 + 200 + 210 + 220 + 230 + 240 + 250 + 260 + 270 + 280 + 290 = 2640

And for SSX3 Showoff and Tricky Showoff:

62 + 72 + 82 + 92 + 102 + 112 + 122 + 132 + 142 + 152 + 162 + 172 + 182 + 192 + 202 = 1980
120 + 130 + 140 + 150 + 160 + 170 + 180 + 190 + 200 + 210 = 1650

Sounds good?

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

I think that's a good formula, I like it. I've forwarded it onto Thoul, and he'll get to work on it shortly. I'll let you know when it's done - at this point, that'll solve about all our concerns with the hack at this point, right?

_________________

It looks like so, but you never know.

There is the issue of +10 perhaps not being an appropriate increment for all categories. If you could ask Thoul to make sure the increment variable is easily modifiable for each category (with 10 as default). And of course that the basePoints will adjust based on the increment variable (using the formula in my previous post).

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Well, I asked for a quote on the things we described above, and it's prohibitive. It would almost be as much as I paid to have the scoreboard transferred in the first place!

So I was thinking I could ask for simply a small piece of code that shows what percentage of scores each game+mode possesses and then fill in the point totals myself rather than automating the whole thing. One small benefit to this is that if we decide for another method for the bonus scores we can change it as we see fit.

Does that work for you, RE?

_________________

Sure, but is "filling in the point totals myself rather than automating the whole thing" necessary? Use the time that would take to figure out how to do it programmatically. Drop me a PM and I'll help with whatever I can.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

I don't have a clue as to how to reprogram Thoul's stuff, he's on another level, writing PHP I can barely follow. Plus, it's so in depth at this point I don't want to play around with our own code.

_________________

OK, but surely you can find out how to retrieve the scores/times from the SQL database by just examining Thoul/Austin's code.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

No, I can't. I'm a scrub dude, and the very peak of my skill in coding is really crappy javascript.

I had Thoul write up the addition which displays the score distribution across all the different game modes. Then I will go in and plug in the bonuses into the individual modes - I wish I had enough money to make it all automatic, but honestly it would cost more than the scoreboard itself and that's simply too much for an "add-on" to the main rankings system. Here is the score distribution as it is at the moment:



Pretty nice huh? I like it alot.

So, based on my previous formula, here is the figures I mentioned previously, based on 100 points per track (miscalculated my last total # of tracks, turns out it's 133, so 133*100 = a pool of 13,300):


The second column is the adjustment bonus per your equation above - there's a bit of a problem in that the modes with a lot of tracks but not a lot of scores in the database will have a negative range to start from. So what do you think we might do to remedy that? Should we begin with a smaller range of possible bonuses, ones not based on the number of tracks? There shouldn't be a penalty (and can't be, honestly, won't go any lower than 0) for getting a first place score.

And how did you want to tackle the additional +10 bonus option? As just a flat +10 for every track? Or adjusting it somehow? Remember, at this point, all work on the mod is for the most part done, as any additional work on the bonus option will require too much money to make happen, so whatever we decide there must be a way to do it via spreadsheet like the bonus above.

You can download the Excel (2003) Spreadsheet here:

http://www.merqurycity.com/gondee/scoreboard_bonus_document.zip


Let me know what you think.

_________________

OK, instead of +10 we can use the category % divided by 2. Below are the calculations for each category.

Remember the formula as you try to make sense of the calculations:

basePoints = pointsPerTrack - (numberOfTracks-1) * increment/2

and that:

total # of tracks = 133
points per track = 100
hence available points = 13,300


SSX 3 Showoff: 19.70% of 13,300 --- 2620.1 across 11 tracks, 238.191 points per track - base of 188.941, +9.85 for next
increment = 19.70/2 = 9.85
basePoints = 238.191 - (11-1) * 9.85/2 = 188.941
Verify that the numbers are correct: 188.941*11 + 9.85*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10) = 2620.101


SSX 3 Racing: 17.15% of 13,300 --- 2280.95 across 15 tracks, 152.063 points per track - base of 92.038, +8.575 for next
basePoints = 152.063 - (15-1) * 8.575/2 = 92.038
Verify: 92.038*15 + 8.575*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14) = 2280.945


Tricky Showoff: 13.60% of 13,300 - 1808.8 across 10 tracks, 180.88 points per track - base of 136.875, +6.25 for next
basePoints = 180.88 - (10-1) * 6.8/2 = 150.28
Verify: 150.28*10 + 6.8*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9) = 1808.8


Tricky Racing: 12.45% of 13,300 - 1655.85 across 10 tracks, 165.585 points per track - base of 137.573, +6.225 for next
basePoints = 165.585 - (10-1) * 6.225/2 = 137.573
Verify: 137.573*10 + 6.225*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9) = 1655.855


Now on to SOT Showoff, which gave a negative basePoints number (-48). The percentage of submitted scores doesn't really represent the competition level for SOT Showoff (it has more tracks than the others and people tend to submit scores for all tracks), so let's add a divisor to reflect this (and to get rid of the pesky negative numbers at the same time, heheh). Say /2, or put another way, the % divided by 4 instead of 2. So we have 10.67% / 4 = 2.668.

On Tour Showoff: 10.67% of 13,300 - 1419.11 across 23 tracks, 61.700 points per track - base of 32.352, +2.668 for next
basePoints = 61.700 - (23-1) * 2.668/2 = 32.352
Verify: 32.352*23 + 2.668*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22) = 1419.1


As for SOT Racing, which also gave a negative number... Since the percentage of submitted scores doesn't really represent the competition level for SOT Racing (recall that we only competed seriously in 18 "user-made" tracks out of the 26 game tracks), the same deal applies. So we have 10.1% / 4 = 2.525.

On Tour Racing: 10.1% of 13,300 - 1343.3 across 26 tracks, 51.666 points per track - base of 20.104, +2.525 for next
basePoints = 51.666 - (26-1) * 2.525/2 = 20.104
Verify: 20.104*26 + 2.525*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25) = 1343.329
Highest bonus possible: 20.104 + 2.525*25 = 83.229


With SSX1 the opposite of SOT occurs. The competition level is higher than that reflected by the number of submitted scores (which means that it's harder to hold many 1st place scores, which means that the incremental bonus should be higher). So for the two SSX1 categories we could use the actual % instead of half.

SSX Racing: 5.57% of 13,300 - 740.81 across 8 tracks, 92.601 points per track - base of 73.106, +5.57 for next
basePoints = 92.601 - (8-1) * 5.57/2 = 73.106
Verify: 73.106*8 + 5.57*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7) = 740.808


SSX Showoff: 4.93% of 13,300 - 655.69 across 8 tracks, 81.961 points per track - base of 64.706, +4.93 for next
basePoints = 81.961 - (8-1) * 4.93/2 = 64.706
Verify: 64.706*8 + 4.93*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7) = 655.688


SSX Blur Showoff: 2.87% of 13,300 - 381.71 across 12 tracks, 31.809 points per track - base of 23.9165, +1.435 for next
basePoints = 31.809 - (12-1) * 1.435/2 = 23.9165
Verify: 23.9165*12 + 1.435*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11) = 381.708


SSX Blur Racing: 2.70% of 13,300 - 359.1 across 10 tracks, 35.91 points per track - base of 29.835, +1.35 for next
basePoints = 35.91 - (10-1) * 1.35/2 = 29.835
Verify: 29.835*10 + 1.35*(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9) = 359.1


These numbers seem to make sense, agreed? Although the pointsPerTrack might be too low (100), it should be easily modifiable in the future.

I'm not sure how you plan to insert the data from the spreadsheet into the scoreboard. I could write the above formula in PHP and I think that all you'd need to do is change a $percentOfTotalScores variable for each category.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

not readin the whole thred but if ppl get jack points for playing ssx blur then what is the incentive to do so..............

_________________
w/e

These are bonus points for the best players who have 1st place scores. In Blur it would be so easy to get 1st place scores that the bonuses shouldn't be much of anything. You get many more points for the overall categories by just playing Blur and placing in the top spots, which is very easy. The only hard part is getting a Wii just for one game.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Okay, I've added in your changes - that works for me as long as it's based off of something. I like the element of basing the bonus off of half of the % of total scores. Here is the updated spreadsheet:



Your math was a little off but I understand what with posting as much as you did. So those figures are correct and they work for me, but I'm not sure I feel the same about SSX 1. To me the formula should be as consistent as possible across as many games as possible, with the only variation coming to avoid negative scores on the spreadsheet. I left it the same on SSX 1 to see how the numbers turned out (increment/2). Feel free to download the spreadsheet to look at the formulas.

http://www.merqurycity.com/gondee/scoreboard_bonus_document.zip

How often would you suggest I update the figures? Given the dearth of new scores, I was thinking every 3 months or so.

_________________

What/which were off? I used the "Verify" calculations precisely to ensure the math was correct. I used the older figure of 19.70% instead of 19.97% for SSX3 Racing, but other than that I think everything is correct.


The SSX1 adjustment is consistent with the SOT adjustment. Compared to the other games: SOT = many scores, little competition; SSX1 = few scores, much competition. The more competition, the harder to get many 1st place scores, the higher the bonus increment should be, and vice-versa. Therefore, adjusting one but not the other is less consistent than adjusting both in the same proportion.

Not that it makes a significant difference, given that the numbers are so small. In the future when we change the pointsPerTrack to something higher than 100, then it might become relevant though.

I think SSX1's low number of submissions make it a bit of a pariah, heh. We should probably increase the total bonus points for SSX1. Maybe multiply by 2. I suppose the SSX1 players would have to weigh in on this.


How do you plan to insert the data from the spreadsheet into the scoreboard? It seems like a lot of work, so if you really want to do it that way, 3 months seems reasonable. I suggest you make it as semi-automatic as possible. Here is a sample code to give you an idea:

(if the above code is hard to read (it is on the dark skin/theme), click here for the same without colors): | Click to reveal hidden content

Code:

<?php

//default variables
$totalTracks = 133;
$pointsPerTrack = 100;

//these are the variables you'd need to change for each category
if($category=="SSX 3 Showoff") {    $numberOfTracks = 15; $percentOfTotalScores = 19.97; }
elseif($category=="SSX 3 Racing") { $numberOfTracks = 11; $percentOfTotalScores = 17.15; }
//...repeat elseif conditional for each category
elseif($category=="SSX On Tour Racing") { $numberOfTracks = 26; $percentOfTotalScores = 10.10; $increment = $percentOfTotalScores / 4; }

//if $increment not already set (for SOT and SSX1) use the default percentOfTotalScores/2
if(!$increment) $increment = $percentOfTotalScores / 2;

//get the bonusPerTrack, the 13300 number being adjustable by changing the $pointsPerTrack variable above
$bonusPerTrack = ($totalTracks * $pointsPerTrack) / $numberOfTracks * ($percentOfTotalScores / 100);

//the basePoints formula: pointsPerTrack - (numberOfTracks-1)*increment/2
$basePoints = $bonusPerTrack - ($numberOfTracks-1) * ($increment/2);

?>

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Your math was all correct - some of your figures were wrong, you had 11 tracks listed for SSX 3 showoff, there are 15 - no math errors at all, just a few small copy/paste mistakes.


We did this mainly to fix the negative numbers arising from the bonus ranges on your original formula on OT and Blur. Were it not for those negative ranges I would avoid modifying the formula from game to game. I'm not really in favor making any arbitrary judgement calls on particular game's competition level based on any kind of perception - because that can vary greatly from person to person - as long as the bonus ranges are positive. That's the purpose of using the percentages of total scores to modify the bonuses - to make sure these things are changed based on some hard data, not an arbitrary judgement call based on two players who just happen to be the only ones left discussing the system. As long as we have a system that is doable - meaning that the bonuses begin in positive numbers - I'd prefer that we keep the formula the same across as many games as possible. If we can alter the system to allow for the bonuses to be positive no matter what - while using the same equation on ALL games - that's what I'm most in favor of doing.


It's not a lot of work - just changing the bonus amounts for each mode by plugging in new numbers. No big deal on my end, maybe 10 minutes at most. The real thing to avoid is forgetting to change the figures, but I suspect the overall score totals won't change so drastically as to make a big difference until a new SSX game comes out.


I appreciate that, but I don't want too many cooks in the kitchen, especially since Thoul's built this thing from the ground up, and I wouldn't know how to plug that in anyway - while I would love for it to be all automated, that was cost prohibitive and this method gives us some flexibility to change things without altering any code and screwing the whole thing up by some left-out semicolon and such.

_________________

Ah, I got the number of tracks for SSX3 Racing and Showoff mixed up, haha.


I see what you mean, but like I said, adjusting one but not the other is less consistent than adjusting both in the same proportion. The perception of competitiveness may vary from person to person, sure, but not enough to reasonably say that it's easier to get 1st place scores in SSX1 than in SOT. That's would be factually wrong.


OK, if it's just 10 minutes every 3 months...

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

in easier words please....

even its still too hard to understand, its interesting stuff

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkyFTFW

Sorry, this isn't a topic for people who don't understand english very well. We're not gonna dumb it down for you, because this is technical stuff.

_________________

then i will use translator

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkyFTFW

gondee, I've got a couple of thoughts/additions to the highscore thingy... They are just minor things, but I hope that can be taken up for consideration:

1: Enable nationality/flags for users. Like, when you view the scoreboard, it'd be nice to have the persons flag/country next to the username. As it is now, it doesn't look so smooth.

2: Ladder system. Like, You could have arrows if the player has moved up or down on the ranking, - if there's no change to the rank. You could also put a number next to the arrows that shows the user's previous ranking and/or how many places the user has climbed/dropped on the list.

3: You could also add a line (somewhere on the overall ranking page) where it says when the last update on the ranking was done. Like, it updates automatically every thursday or something.

4: Add a total overview. Like, how many stages in total the user have cleared, how many 1st, 2nd and 3rd place records the user holds etc. You could have that next to the username (on the right side) on the total ranking page. There's plenty of room to have that there. If you cannot put that there, then you could add that inside the user information. Like, when I click into THL's username, I can see a complete list there on how many 1st, 2nd and 3rd places +++

So yeah, those additions would be nice and awesome to have on the scoreboard. Do you reckon that it can be done, or? I know it'll be a lot of scripting, but it shouldn't be that hard... There are flag packs here and there and probably even some ladder-system packs as well.

The point in having all these additions, is that this makes things look smooth and nice + it makes things a bit more competitive as well! Not only that, but it'll be interesting to see who has been climbing and "dropping" down on the rankings, thus it will be more interesting to follow the rankings.

So yeah, what you reckon?

(meh, my english sucks... I blame the time.. almost 4am....)

No worries, I always appreciate feedback. Speaking of which, I let this fall off my radar without resolving the issue with the bonuses.


I'll see if that can be done, but if it's too much work, I won't pay for it. I'm going to have an upgrade for the scoreboard in the new 3-6 months or so (have a scores button on your post, a trophy of some kind on each post, maybe a new rank or something.) We'll see if this is possible, but my intuition is that this might be a big pain in the butt, and while it would be nice, it's not imperative.


I would like this too, but I suspect this would be an outrageously expensive hack because it would require tracking of each person's place from week to week, which would require database changes and a whole new subset of routines. Maybe in the future but probably not right away.


This should be doable in the next set of updates. I'll see.


Well, this would be nice but that's a pretty big change so I can't make any promises. You can see what scores they have by going to the user scores page, the place is listed there. It's a good idea, I agree, but might be a bit expensive to create a summary line since it would have to run that for every person on the overall scoreboard table. Probably on the individual score page rather than a summary line.


These are all good ideas, I agree. The only limitation is money - it costs to get this stuff done and my hackz0r sense is telling me some of this stuff might be prohibitive.

Okay, and back to the bonus stuff.

RE - I really can't get past the idea of using separate formulas for different games. I don't like it at all. I would rather go back to the simple way (applying the bonus based on % of scores per game) to use one standard bonus system for all games rather than make SSX special for some reason. To me, it's a deal breaker to single out SSX for some reason, I can't get past it. It would just be too arbitrarily based on the observations of two guys out of the hundreds on the scoreboard. Give me your feedback.

_________________

Good stuff, elgen. I like the nationality/flags idea. It adds a flavor to the otherwise dull, undescriptive usernames. A player overview showing how many 1st places, 2nd, etc, seems like a great idea. Cyberscore has this IIRC. Ladder system is way too complex, and not very useful since there's not much competition going on.




It's not singling out SSX1 "for some reason", it's for a very valid reason (less scores submitted, more high-level competition, harder to beat scores). Same with SOT (but in reverse: more scores submitted, less competition, easier to beat scores). You say that our observations are "too arbitrary", but I would suggest that the SSX1 players would undoubtedly agree. But if you don't want to do it for SSX1, that's fine with me (I don't play SSX1). Just do it with SOT to avoid the negative numbers.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Yes, but again, this is a very, very limited subset of players who are getting favorable treatment on their games. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I can't get past it.

I don't want to do it for any of the games, to be honest. I would like it to be a straight representation of what the games represent on a hard-data level (the % of scores per game) with little to no modifiers in them if it can be helped. I was considering going back to the standard bonus amount and leaving out your formula for the adjusted bonus amount. That would avoid a negative number and avoid any adjustment of the formula for any particular game. Would that be a gross injustice in your opinion? If that's okay with you, I will use the standard bonus figures (I would update the percentages of scores per game to what it is NOW since it's been a while since we started talking about it, of course).

Please, lend me your thoughts - I appreciate your feedback even when I don't agree with it, and I want to get this squared away so I can go to Thoul and see about adding some of the hacks Elgen talked about above.

_________________

I'm not following you... "favorable treatment"? What are you talking about? First of all, we're talking about very small numbers here; the benefit of adjusting the SSX1 incremental bonus amounts in accordance with competition level is negligible to begin with. Same with SOT -- the disadvantage is meaningless when we are dealing with less than 1% of the score worth itself (if you have a 1st place score you get 10,000 pts, and on top of that the tiny bonus we're talking about of less than 100 for both SSX1 and SOT, a bonus that is incremented by an even smaller amount for every 1st place in the same category). When/if we change the base number (100 "points per track") to something much higher, then "favorable treatment" might be something to worry about.

But more importantly, are you saying that the SSX1 players, who put up a high level of competition (FBX and ssx4ever in Racing; BD, alp, MrChaos? in Showoff), deserve to get unfavorable treatment for no reason other than perceived inconsistency in a formula?

Again, the formula is entirely consistent with those two adjustments. SSX1 has less scores submitted, had more high-level competition, and therefore has harder to beat scores. SOT has more scores submitted, had far less competition, and thus has easier to beat scores. This is not subjective, it's a plain fact. I don't see what's wrong with the adjustments.

Maybe what you want is an adjustment variable that's based on something more specific, rather than *2 for SSX1 and /2 for SOT... But as far as I can see those are specific enough, especially since SOT happens to have around 10% of all submitted scores and SSX1 has around 5%. So all it does is reverse the roles (SOT gets 5% and SSX1 gets 10% of submitted scores).

And you're thinking of dropping the whole incremental bonuses system that we both spent so much time pondering, thus giving unfavorable treatment to the best players (those with many 1st place scores who would get lower bonuses)? This is all hard to visualize, so let's put it in numbers:

SOT Racing basePoints = 20.104
SOT Racing increment = +2.525 (with /2 adjustment applied)
SOT Racing last bonus = 20.104 + 2.525*25 = 83.229
SOT Racing avg. bonus = 51.666

If you don't use the adjustment you get basePoints = -11.459, so that's not an option. If you remove the incremental bonuses altogether, then every 1st place bonus = 51.666, without awarding a greater bonus for holding many 1st place scores. That would not be a worthy bonus system (the more 1st place scores, the higher the bonus reward should be), especially after the time we put into discussing it.


SSX1 Racing basePoints = 73.106
SSX1 Racing increment = +5.57 (with *2 adjustment applied)
SSX1 Racing last bonus = 73.106 + 5.57*7 = 112.096
SSX1 Racing avg. bonus = 92.601

If you don't use the adjustment you get basePoints = 82.8535 and last bonus = 102.349. With the adjustment it's 73.106 ... 112.096. This illustrates how minimal the difference is in SSX1, and how the issue is a complete non-issue.


So do it with SOT to avoid the negative basePoints number (-11.459), and ignore SSX1 since it makes absolutely no difference until the time when we increase the "points per track" number (100).




BTW, here's another idea before I forget: an 'Activity' page showing the latest score submissions. This would show who have recently played, and give an idea of how long it's been since X player submitted a score.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.