I noticed another area of change, where the lists aren't as complete as they used to be.

The leaderboards for the hourly badges used to show A LOT more places in line. I'm not sure if they showed all 500, but they certainly showed the top 200. Now they only show the top 100.

For example, I remember that if I was ranked like #141 in the Easy Game, my name would be there. Now, it tells me that's my rank, but the list stops at 100.

http://www.funtrivia.com/hourly2/cumulative.cfm

Same thing with the Wizard game, and all the others.

Please make it the way it was before. It was interesting to see where all kind of people placed. Also, the compettion is so tight, it is difficult to make the top 100 on many of these hourly games. It is even more discouraging now that one doesn't even have that old list.

I certainly agree that it's a shame to see the 'top 500' list reduced to 'top 100'. I presume that it's got something to do with saving system resources. As it is, in WW for instance, the last placed player (currently) in the Champions race is at No. 84. It's not inconceivable some months (in the near future) that they could fall outside the top 100 and not show up on the list.

I frequently scroll down to around 400 on the list to check on players who score highly in WW but who play very few games ... you know, 'just keeping an eye on them'!! ... I'm sorry if I won't be able to do that anymore.

Either way though, if it stays as is, the text at the top of the scoreboard which still says 'You are currently xth out of 500 ranked players' needs amending.

But the thing is, most people are NOT in the top 100, and have a better chance of hitting the top 500, and I think it would be better to let them see that.

I don't suppose there is any way of bringing back that top 500 list? The same people are making the very elite group of top 100, and it would be less boring to see a wider variety of names.

Please, Terry, bring it back. There must be some other way to conserve resources.

The 'You are currently xth out of 500 ranked players' has to stay as it is, because the top 500 players get ranked, even though only the top 100 show up.

As for a way to check them all, they could be organized in 5 pages of 100 players each. Page 1 for players 1-100 etc.

Mmm, this is a bit annoying. I've just gone to the monthly Standings table for the Word Wizard game to check who's ranked 499 and 498 on the Average 'score per game' Rank, and what their average scores are ... and they're not listed because they don't appear in the 100 highest point scorers this month. (Previously the table displayed all 500 ranked players.)

There are only two scoring aspects of Word Wizard I bother with these days - the ELO score and the Average 'score per game' Ranking. Now the latter of these has become harder to monitor.

Could we have the full ranking list back please? Or at least as far down as the 500 Rank Points mark? Pleee-ase!

It is a shame that the top 500 can no longer be seen

It's back! Yippee! Thank you Terry.

Not all of them are back yet...

The obscure game still only shows the top 100 instead of the full 500.

This is an issue now more than ever, because one of the top 10 for the monthly doesn't even crack the top 100! Seeing how you stand is extremely important when going for a monthly, so the list should most definitely be extended as soon as possible.

You mean monthly badges are now given to people who can't even get into the top 100? Can you get one for just turning up these days?

Someone save me, I feel my inner Scrooge coming out!

lol, yes, Flopsy.

I remember when it was originally that you had to be in the top 30. That was impossible, because so many top players always dominated.

Perhaps a new rule could be included, where you still have to be in the top 100?

Though I think it was decided long ago that eventually everyone could have the badges, because of it being infinitely awarding down the top 500... I don't remember, but I think maybe the top 200 isn't too much to ask, at least?

Hmm, top 30 wasn't all that impossible, I got all of mine when that was the rule - and trust me, if I can, a lot more can. While I understand that some leeway is required, I do think not even being in the top hundred is taking that leeway a little too far. People should be given something to aim at, and often it maybe slightly out of their grasp, at least at first - but if they keep trying they may succeed. Monthlies, by definition, should require application and effort. If they don't need to try, what's the point? It's like those school prizes given to every single child because little Johnny might cry if he comes last.

The top 30 is near impossible for most, Flopsy... To score in the top 30 in any of the games lately, you need to play 23 hours a day and score 10 in 30 seconds each time. :P

I think 100 is a good number, but because it was decided way back when to make it a bit easier as time went on, I suggested 200.

I would prefer top 100. Yes, it's easier now than it was at the start, but that was by design, though a top 100 qualifier would somewhat protect the badges earned from eventually becoming worth very little.

Long story short....

Top 30 is too difficult, that was decided years ago when the badges were made. Top 100 is, yes, easier, but still difficult for the majority of players, but gives us a limit so it never comes down to position 483 winning a badge.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Please do not do that. As I age, I am slowing down. My memory does not behave either. Speed AND accuracy is a virtual impossibility for me, so a reward for being persistent would be good

I'm old enough to be Salami's grandmother - he beats me on speed every time but I still got a lot of the monthlies before he did. There does need to be some effort put in or the badge is just not worth having.

So because I do not have the badges, I am not putting any effort in?

No, but it may take effort over a longish period... and really, what is the achievement if you can't get into the top 100 after several tries? People might put effort into scoring 1/10 but should they get a prize for it? There does need to be some kind of bar people have to get over or there's no point.

There are a number of badges and badgelets which do not require a great amount of time or effort to get. Some you will get eventually and some will happen with minimal amounts of 'going out of the way'.

What would be a great shame is either making tons more easy badges or diminishing the value of some of our hardest challenges. Some will do this on their own-- it's only normal-- but there's a point their called challenges. I fought long and hard for some of my badges and they are, in my opinion, great achievements. It wouldn't really be fair to lower the bar to get them.

Some challenges are not going to be completed by everybody. Some people will not get a Lucky Duck; some people won't become Immortal; some people will not write a single quiz. Some challenges are going to be difficult for some people. They are meant to be achievements for those who are capable and who put in the extra effort. Scoring too low on successive quizzes is a fairly lackluster way of winning a monthly, especially when a lot of us put in a significant amount of effort. We're not necessarily going to be able to stop it; I guess it's IMO.

I already know I will never reach the top 100 for a couple of the games... So I will have to win these badges when it is down to 200th place.... But I'm still advocating for the top 100 marker because it just makes the badge a little more rewarding for those who win it.


And just because I am faster, doesn't mean I can get all the questions right. It also doesn't mean I can score well frequently. So speed isn't the only thing involved. I'd rather all right in 100 seconds than missing 2 questions and getting 25 second times. :P

I agree with Flopsy on this issue. I had to win these badges the hard way, when everyone was aiming for them and you had to be in the top 30. Now I have them, I don't play the hourly games regularly and I can't be the only one, so at least some of the competition has been removed. I think finishing in the top 100 ought to be a minimum requirement. These badges are meant to be challenging.

I'm old enough to be Salami's other grandmother and I can't get anywhere near the 11 seconds some players get in the easy game, for example, but I can still get under 20 seconds and that's good enough for me.

I don't know about the difficulty levels of other monthlies except that I got my Word Wizard one much more easily than I am getting my Who Am I one so they fluctuate.

But I do think the Obscurity one is a little flawed. After my first few days playing I was 2nd on the leaderboard for the monthly badge, and even without playing every day I am still second. It seems that there's nothing I could do to avoid getting it. Maybe some badges have less people playing for them so could do with stricter qualification rules.

Incidentally, the qualifying score that hasn't made the Top 100 in that game is only 4 measly points outside the listed 100 so it's not as dramatic as it sounds.

Chavs, the obscure game is less popular, and most of the scores are fairly low. That means that an average of 800 over 10 games is good enough for the top spot. It's just the unfortunate happenings of obscurity.


I realize some players had to earn the badges when it was top 30, which was difficult. But it took at least 4 months before the 31st player would win.

So, my vote is top 100. Not too difficult (as top 30 is dominated by the same players each month), but still difficult for most players. I will struggle getting top 100 in the remaining monthlies, and I view myself as an averageish player. So 100 is good.



And I would much prefer you two, Flopsy and Rossian, over my actual grandmothers.

As I recall, the top 30 was not an actual requirement. Yes, in the challenge description, it did say that, but you never actually had to fulfill that particular requirement.

I would also favor a top 100 cutoff, but also still a bit more emphasis on skill over grinding. What I would suggest is that the score would be based on a player's (up to) 150 best games in the month, so you CAN get the badge or even come first with five games a day (still some serious dedication required - this needs to remain an element of the badge), playing more is still an advantage (since you get to remove your worst scores), but you can't essentially force the badge by playing 14+ hours each day with rather average scores. This setup would essentially mean that you can do well with 5/day and going beyond 8 or so would quickly give diminishing returns on the extra effort. It would also mean that you can't hurt your standing by playing - no more need to avoid a category you are not sure about in Smartest or Easy.

I like the sound of that. It would stop players tailing off towards the end of the month too

I am really opposed to the top 100 cutoff. There are too many people on here who are very, very fast and it makes it too hard for newcomers to get anywhere.

It was very discouraging at first, and there were periods when I gave up being here because I wanted FT to be fun and it felt like work.

The elitist attitudes expressed by several top scorers on this site leave me speechless, and that's no mean feat.

If Terry is interested in keeping this site growing, then the 100 cutoff will be a mistake that he will regret.

I don't think speed is really that important in the monthly standings; accuracy and playing often is the key. For example, averaging 40 seconds per game in POC would get people in line for the badge this month if they didn't miss any questions and played 5 times a day. (The tenth person is currently ranked 75th.)

Well, speed is more important than I first thought, since someone averaging 20 seconds per game could afford to miss 27 questions (over about 135 games) and have similar results (actually for 135 games it would be identical results), but it shows that even someone slow can get the monthly badges by making it up in accuracy (and/or particularly high volume of play).

I'm rather for the 100 cutoff. I've never tried for one of the Monthlies, and probably will never get one unless it happens to fall in my lap. I agree, though, if I got a Monthly without being in the top 100 it'd be rather anti-climactic and disappointing. If someone's going for a Monthly (which is supposed to be hard) it'll take a lot of effort and time, anyway.

I probably didn't try for a Monthly because it would take a lot of time and effort, and I'd get myself worked up. FunTrivia is not "not fun" because of anything FT is or does, it depends on how one approaches it and acts. I'm not going to quit this site because I don't have a Monthly, on the contrary, difficult badges like the Monthlies are going to keep me here, working until I CAN be good enough to get one. "And I'm telling you, I'm not going, and you (badge), and you (badge again), and you (Monthly badge), you're gonna be mine..."

And after all, it's a badge. I'm not going to die if I don't get it. If I get it too easily, the gaming side of the site will get boring very quickly.



I haven't seen any people expressing elitist attitudes, and certainly not in this thread. What exactly are you referring to?

I'm in favour of the 100 cutoff too. The badges are an acknowledgement of an achievement. If it's too easy then they don't acknowledge much at all. Sure, some of them aren't easy to get. There's a badge or three that I've conceded I'll never own (barring small miracles) and I don't lose any sleep over it. I've let it go Over 400 people have won the monthly badges in the hourly games last I looked and I'm sure many of them don't play that regularly any more. I certainly don't. So the field is open.. go for it. You may not get the badge the first or even the second month you try, but keep going. It took me three months to get the Word Wizard badge and what a happy day that was when I finally got it

I am not so fond of your idea, Wes. The monthly is supposed to be over all games of the month. Only adding the top 150 scores seems a bit strange to me.

Hmm, monthlies seemed like an impenetrable barrier to me too when I started. I focused on my strengths and got a couple though, then got several more over time. Some of the games get less traffic, too, which makes them easier to win...

I don't mind 100 cutoff. It's not really an issue now when only some games are teasing the edge of 100, but I could see why it might be in 5 years or so. I wouldn't change the criteria past that though.

I assume that the 'elitist' comment was aimed at me and Flopsy. If you feel that way, I'm sorry, but I don't see that that believing that the monthly badge is becoming too easy to win is elitist. The badge is an award for being one of the top scorers over the month, and to get it for finishing outside of the top 100 scorers doesn't seem much of an achievement to me.

The only person who can decide is Terry, in any case, so it will stay as it is no matter what any of us say, unless he chooses to change it.

My remark, not meant to offend, wasn't directed at anyone in particular; it's just something I have noticed at FT lately, that there seems to be too much concern about making things too easy, when there are so many people who are really struggling, and are not finding FT as fun as they might. I could have been more diplomatic, but really I have been so amazed at some of the sentiments expressed that it was really too difficult to find le mots justes.

Happy Holidays and especially a happy new year. Peace.

As someone who has been struggling for years to get the Who Am I monthly badge (actually, I resigned myself long ago to not getting it, but it looks as if it might actually happen this month), I get the sense that a lot of newer members here think that badges will all be as easy to accumulate as the intentionally easy introductory ones are. Most of them do take a lot of work, often over a number of months. And some cannot be earned at all, you either get lucky or you don't. If you find the activities you do enjoy, and don't worry about all the others, you will maximise your own enjoyment of what is on offer. There is so much variety that it doesn't seem to me that any significant changes to what already exists need to be made. Anybody who feels that they are really struggling, and not enjoying themselves, would probably be better off with a change of activity focus.

Well put.

I believe I've brought up the 'too easy' argument before and usually I mention it in reference to quizzes, simply because we try to avoid giving free points. That being said, a number of my recent quizzes have been rated 'Very Easy'.

I bring 'too easy' up in reference to badges because there are a great deal of relatively straight-forward, 'easy' badges and badgelets to be won, many of which you can do quite quickly if you have gold membership and a month or two of time. In fact, you could probably get to level 100 breaking minimal sweat (I got 100 without any monthlies) or cumulative badges. Terry and Wes (in particular) are working very hard to create long-term advancement without diluting the achievements currently in place. Some badges aren't meant to be achievable by everybody. Some, as can be seen, are retired.

I'll be the first to play new badges/badgelets when they're introduced, and I'll even go so far as to suggest new ones, but I also understand the reasoning behind trying to make things a bit more difficult and restrict the amount of 'easy' ones out there. The site can still be fun without winning everything (at least I hope). There's more to do at FunTrivia than most other sites and plenty of new things being added to worry about the challenges I'm not able to complete right now.

Gracious1, I was not offended by your remark. Looney_Tunes has put things well in her comment. The object of the site is to enjoy playing, and maybe writing, quizzes. The earning of badges is a by product of that, not the main purpose of FT. When I started playing, there were very few badges and I earned the ones I did achieve almost accidentally. The addition of badges has enhanced the site, and I do like the challenge of winning them, but I would still be here, playing and writing quizzes, if they were all removed.

As the Monthly badges are earned by a combination of rankings based on average scores and total points, I'm wondering whether there is any information available to compare the badge earning scores when the badges were introduced with those being achieved now to get them. My thinking is that those who earned their badges early on will have improved over the years and have higher scores now than when they earned their badges and today's winners, wherever they are in the rankings, may be getting the badge with similar scores to those the early winners achieved when they got theirs. In which case, it could be argued that earning the badge has not become easier - it is of a similar difficulty.

And what about the Obscurity badge? And the Gold Madness Monthly? It looks like I will be getting both of these for free. I have hardly played the games at all. That means they are too easy, in my opinion. I think it would enhance those specific games to award the badge to less people per month. I think I am 2nd in line for both.

I'm not trying to be critical or elitist; I am just offering feedback.

backs out of thread feeling thick

lol! But that's the point, really. No brains needed! I get about 50% correct on the madness games, and more in Obscurity but that's only because I google. The games are definitely difficult, and fun; it's just the respective monthly badges that are too easy. I should have had to play for more than half the month and get a few more correct, in my opinion.

The way I see it is that you have to be the best in the month, so whether that requires you to play for less than half the month or not is irrelevant - you're up against the other players that month, so it depends how they perform. It's kind of like in schools if they do relative marking - one year you could get an A for the same piece of work you would get a B for next year. I don't think it's a fair system in schools, but I think it works for FT games. It all depends on the competition, I think. If it's an easier achievement, well, everyone should be in that same boat, and so has "the same" chance of achieving the badge as you do! (Thus increasing the competition and making it a bit harder, if that makes sense. :P)

Just my two cents. I personally think things are o.k. the way they are. Some monthlies are more easy than others, but that's to be expected, I think.

Okay, you know, I started this thread because I wanted to say something about the rankings disappearing from certain games and from other places. I would like to get back to that.

I am very pleased that several of the hourly games have returned to showing the top 500. I would really like to see the same with the Obscurity game, which shows only 100.

Also, I would like to be able to see ALL the members on a team using the "List Members" link, which used to show EVERYBODY, even inactive people, but now it only shows 100 of them, too.

That's exactly how I feel about the site, and I too have acquired several badges by accident.

Nothing wrong with any of that, Reeshy, very well put; certainly I never thought for a moment that anything was unfair, but I absolutely think that Obscurity and Madness Monthly badges were expected/intended to be more of a challenge than they currently are.

And here's the proof -- extracts from the badge blurbs:

Message:

"......the madness has an end for you now! Be it a photographic memory, a knack for insanely fast research, sheer obscure knowledge or a combination of some or all of these, you have conquered one of our extra-difficult games on a consistent basis and demonstrated that you are one of the greatest all-around trivia buffs on this planet.

Behold the Monthly Winner: Gold Member Madness badge .....your reward for...persistence!... "


Message:

".....Congratulations! .....in your quest to defeat the hardest monthly game available at FunTrivia.com, so we proudly present you with the Obscure monthly winner badge. ..."

I'm leaning towards a "top 100" cutoff for all cumulative monthlies, starting next month.

It was certainly a lot harder to win when you were competing against everyone. A limit of "top 100" will at least force some minimum level of difficulty as we go forward.

I love Wes's suggestion of taking your best 150 games. Even though I've got all the monthly badges, I don't try to do well in the monthly tournaments anymore because it's simply a grind and ends up rewarding the people who have the most free time.

I think "top 100" is too strict. Perhaps a "top 150"?

It isn't right that champions keep playing and playing and playing, and locking newcomers out of opportunities.

I'm not sure it was harder before, people were less experienced two years ago than they are now.

I won the monthly badges, but frankly they put me off most of the games that I won them in, beacuse I had to play them 12 hours a day. Not sure it should be a game that rewards people who have free time.

I'm in favour of the 'top 100' cut-off, as being the simplest change that's also reasonably fair. I think it's perfectly possible to win a monthly on that basis without playing endless games - so long as your average score per game is pretty decent.

I don't know why people like Gracious1 feel the need to attack other players for playing Funtrivia games they enjoy. I'm assuming I'm one of the people being referred to as "keep[ing] playing and playing and playing, and locking newcomers out of opportunities." Like other 'champs' I play some games regularly after I've won the monthly badges because I enjoy playing them, and still find them challenging - not to thwart Gracious1 or anyone else!

Raising the cut-off point from the top 30 originally was the right thing to do as it was beginning to make it too difficult for non-champs - but now the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

The top 100 cut-off is a decent compromise for long-term management of the badge and I don't think it will even come into play that much. Player bases change and it seems that lower ranges of 70 to 80 are almost stable in the long run, similarly to how the GC mostly stabilized with having its lower edge Immortals at about 65th overall.

If the 100 limit, once implemented, should ever result in a game awarding fewer than 5 monthlies in one month, we might want to take a look at changing it again, but I don't see that happening for the next several years at current rates.

As I've pointed out before, the purpose of the site is to play quizzes and games and NOT the winning of virtual badges. The champions are already transferred to their own division, which they weren't previously, and I think Terry has made it as fair as possible.

Wesley is the statistics expert, so if he is saying that the 100 limit is unlikely to apply anyway, I wouldn't even think about arguing.

Any idea if the list of all team members was lost too? I like to see when team members were last active. It seems to only list 100.

Sorry, really, it wasn't meant to be an attack. Just trying to point out how there are things built into the system that erect barriers that can be difficult to penetrate, as current players become more experienced and play faster and better. I would imagine it is harder to achieve certain badges and other accomplishments now than two years ago because of the increased level of competition against the experience and accomplishment of current players.

Peace.