About the CHAMP Classification

Posted by: seadancer

About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 07 2012 08:48 AM

Can you get out of the CHAMP classification if you score low enough? How does that work? ---Sea
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 07 2012 09:54 AM

Once a champ, always a champ.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 07 2012 03:36 PM

Indeed.

If you get a low score, you're still a champ, just a Badly Behaved Champ, and have to sit in the corner.
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 07 2012 05:42 PM

And even if you got there by playing at a pretty mediocre level most of the time, but consistently enough to get the monthly badge, then had one fluke win, you still stay there. Forever.
Posted by: seadancer

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 07 2012 08:35 PM

How do all the Champs feel about this? i.e., Are there disadvantages? What are they?
Posted by: Lones78

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 07 2012 09:10 PM

Doesn't bother me in the least smile
I play for me. Sometimes I beat the top guys, sometimes I don't. It's only fun - not sheep stations smile
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 02:26 AM

Originally Posted By: seadancer
How do all the Champs feel about this? i.e., Are there disadvantages? What are they?


Sometimes the corner's a bit draughty.
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 02:52 AM

I keep a comfy chair in the corner.
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 02:55 AM

It's warm in this corner isn't it? Looney keeps making toasted sandwiches and they're on fire! Everybody out!
Posted by: seadancer

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 08:36 AM

Reminds me of the time I asked a teacher of the gifted what happened when a student who wasn't really gifted got into the gifted class simply by dint of hard work. The teacher replied: "They cry a lot." smile
Posted by: rossian

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 09:13 AM

The corner is fine - we have chocolate and red wine as well as the toasties. Before I found FT, I used to play on another (now defunct) trivia site. We had a wet, rather cold, basement on there to contend with whenever we played badly! In comparison, the corner is paradise.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 10:19 AM

I suspect these chairs and chocolates and cheese toasties are editor perks. I've only ever had a hard cold wooden church pew (except for the time I was in the Word Wizard corner and had an appurtenance and it included grazing rights).


In all seriousness, seadancer, I would love it if the champion levels were split up a little so that you could play against people with similar ratings as you, perhaps in divisions or sets that get chosen at the beginning of the month/week and give you a chance therefore to move up into the next one, or down! I think that would make for more meaningful play sometimes.

I have no idea what that would take to set up or host but I suspect it would be quite a lot of coding etc so perhaps not worth it.

Failing that, I might try to get into Rossian's corner next time. Red wine!

Is that a birthday I spy, Flopsymopsy? if so, have a very Happy Birthday! If not, have a very Happy Unbirthday.
http://www.bunspace.com/static/photobucket/9656/pRabbitBday.jpg

Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 10:41 AM

I think the champs division is fine as it is. If you are good enough to make it to the champs division, you're good enough to compete with the best of the best. Because, you ARE one of the best. smile So splitting the champs division isn't something I think should be done.

But hey, that's just my opinion. You never know. :P
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 10:51 AM

Well, I'm not going to make stand or a fuss about it and broadly agree that everyone had to get the same entry requirements to be there so it's fair on that front, so I'm only talking about fine tuning.

But in no way could my performance in any champ division even begin to compare with the best of the best. My ratings are generally below the default 1500 whereas some people's are hitting 2100! Very different capabilities, I would say. I agree with the basic idea to create a champs' division though.

My only reservation about altering it as described is that it would be extremely awkward, difficult, heavy on the site, time-consuming etc etc -- and possibly not add enough bonus enjoyment to warrant the nervous breakdowns it may induce. wink
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 12:42 PM

Thanks very much for the birthday wishes, Chavs. grin

I don't care about the ELO ratings - and if you pick and choose which topics/games to play it's possible to skew those a bit so dinnae fash yersel. smile

I'm not an editor either, I can only sniff LT's toasties and hope she drops crumbs. Rossian must bring her own supplies. wink
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 01:15 PM

Originally Posted By: flopsymopsy
I'm not an editor either, I can only sniff LT's toasties and hope she drops crumbs. Rossian must bring her own supplies. wink

I am more than happy to share my toasties with all who share the corner. But some rabbits are pretty good at the games, and don't drop in very often.
Posted by: rossian

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 01:22 PM

Does that mean I can bring rabbit stew next time, without upsetting our hopping friend? I'm not an editor, either, but waving bottles of red wine around opens lots of doors, even the ones leading to dead end corners.
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 01:37 PM

I love rabbit stew. blush
Posted by: Jabberwok

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 02:05 PM

It's why no one ever finds the bodies. smile
All llamas know not to upset Wonderbun.
I occasionally find myself in the champion divisions for certain topics, it is a matter of great amazement and befuddlement to me.
Although having a hip flask helps soften the shock.
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Jabberwok
It's why no one ever finds the bodies. smile
All llamas know not to upset Wonderbun.


Now look what you've done, Jabber. shocked I was hoping to sneak up on a few more but now my secret is out. whistle
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 03:29 PM

The curse of the flopsybunny! Not quite the same ring to it as the curse of the wererabbit but chilling none the less....
Posted by: Terry

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 03:59 PM

A good solution is to create a second "standings chart" that sorts standings by other criteria... level, time on the site, etc. And have it sortable, so that you can compare and compete against whatever players you think best represents "fair competition".

That is something I can add someday to our hourly / daily games, although it is a bit of a project.
Posted by: abechstein

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 08 2012 11:59 PM

The only frustration (and it's relatively mild) that I have with the champs division is in the Who Am I game, which is my worst game on the site by far. I got most of the badges when it was an hourly game, so I find myself slogging gradually toward the 50,000 Whozit badge in the champs divisions. Only about a year left to go on it... tongue

Also, the battles in divisions 11 & 12 in the daily game are fierce -- I'll never be top of the table there, but since everyone in there has all the badges, I'm not bothered by it.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 10 2012 12:36 PM

Thanks for replying, Terry. It's the "bit of a project" part that makes me wary about any changes - just thinking of all that work being wasted if people aren't going to use it or don't feel it would add enough fun. (Salami, for example, likes things just as they are and maybe most people do! smile )

I was thinking of something more along the lines of the current Mind Melt (or Who Am I!) system that sorts people into random* sets. I suppose it increases the chances of winning a "division" if that's your Daily Challenge, but there's still an over all scoreboard to refer to. (If that makes sense). I had thought it might also allow people more chances to collect points towards those long-haul badges - but Abechstein's post doesn't seem to back that up?? Maybe I misunderstand how it works.

*When I posted earlier in the thread about sets being sorted by ratings, Flopsy quite rightly pointed out that one's ratings could be manipulated if one wanted to drop into a lower set.



But as I say, the fuss involved in setting it up would have to be worth it. If other people don't want to be split up I am quite happy to sit back down on my pew. I found a boiled sweet stuffed down the back of it earlier and it was delicious, if a little a furry. wink
Posted by: jabb5076

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 10 2012 07:37 PM

I'll chime in Chavs, just so you know you aren't alone. I have often wondered why there are certain people who are champions in many of the expert game categories, are rated in the top five, yet continue to play those categories again and again. Because many of them have played for years, and have seen virtually every question in the category, their times are generally so low that it's almost impossible for people new to that champion category to win. I know I sound disgruntled, but it seems rather unsportsmanlike to continually play and win the same champion expert games over and over, when there is no real advantage in doing so. Their places at the top of the ratings heap aren't threatened, so why play every time the category comes up and effectively prevent those new to the champion category from winning? A system of separating the champions into different divisions, like Terry mentioned, sounds ideal. I sure hope it's doable!
Posted by: Buddy1

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 10 2012 08:11 PM

I sort of agree with this, mainly with jabb5076. I've never quite understood why people play games in which they are already a champion when there are so many other games and quizzes they can play. If it's to get a badge, I understand; if it's to get points, then why not play other games? I rarely play "Who's the Expert?" categories I've already won, unless it's required (for example, The Great Quiz Race or Daily Challenges).
Posted by: Anton

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 10 2012 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Terry
A good solution is to create a second "standings chart" that sorts standings by other criteria... level, time on the site, etc. And have it sortable, so that you can compare and compete against whatever players you think best represents "fair competition".

That is something I can add someday to our hourly / daily games, although it is a bit of a project.


Good solution? Maybe. If it is, it isn't the best solution. There will come a time when people complain about how it is unfair yet again. How many times can you make it easier for some people before it becomes too watered down?

The best solution is to just ditch all ELO ratings and make all Champ divisions like Who Am I is now. Multiple sets and no ELO.

ELO serves no purpose anyway, and it might even make the server run that much smoother.
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 10 2012 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Buddy1
I sort of agree with this, mainly with jabb5076. I've never quite understood why people play games in which they are already a champion when there are so many other games and quizzes they can play. If it's to get a badge, I understand; if it's to get points, then why not play other games? I rarely play "Who's the Expert?" categories I've already won, unless it's required (for example, The Great Quiz Race or Daily Challenges).

Some people play them just because they love that game, and it is one of their favorite activities here. Then, for the games that count towards team scores, there are those who play them to get points for their team.
Posted by: seadancer

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 06:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Terry
A good solution is to create a second "standings chart" that sorts standings by other criteria... level, time on the site, etc. And have it sortable, so that you can compare and compete against whatever players you think best represents "fair competition".
That is something I can add someday to our hourly / daily games, although it is a bit of a project.


I'm wondering if a solution would be to somehow make it possible for Champs, who aren't performing well over a period of time, to be automatically taken out of the Champ classification and moved down.

BTW, I'm only interested in this because one of my team members mentioned his frustration at finding himself in the unhappy predicament of becoming a Champ by a fluke, and then always being among the lowest scorers. It can't be fun to be always spinning one's wheels. ---Sea
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 08:31 AM

Once you're a champ, your score really doesn't matter, unless you are working on your ELO rating. The champs division is the best of the best, and if you get there, somehow, with a fluke win (and I've done that myself a few times), consider yourself honored to be fighting in the champs division. You are the best of the best right alongside with them.

I will agree with Anton; we do not want to make games constantly easier. Besides, why make the champs division easier? What's the incentive? You've already won the category, or the badge. There's no point in making it easier, in my opinion.

If there is going to be a solution, the best is Terry's solution. I do not at all want to get rid of ELO, and I don't think it's quite possible to remove someone from the champ division. If they qualify for being in the champ, they are a champ; you cannot have all the badges in a game, or a category win in expert, and not be a champ (unless it also removes your original win, but I foresee far too many problems with that).
Posted by: malik24

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 09:51 AM

To be a Champ you must at least be reasonably good -- it's not entirely a fluke, except for maybe certain Expert categories where everyone guesses.

The downside is it makes winning some Daily Challenges harder... the upside is it gives you better opponents to encourage you to up your game.

I say this as a generally low placing gamer in the Who Am I? Hard game -- yes, I knew it would be harder having won the monthly through playing the Easy variant, and yes, I knew I would be rubbish at the hard one. But I also know that I will improve over time, as I started out bad at the Easy version initially too. Positive out of a negative.

There is no reason to feel bad about being bottom of the Champs either ... think of it as a "worst of the best" type thing.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 09:59 AM

Thanks for that post, Malik, it was very nice. I completely agree with you. I especially like the "worst of the best" part. I'd rather be the worst of the best than the best of the worst. smile
Posted by: Buddy1

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 10:05 AM

Originally Posted By: looney_tunes
Originally Posted By: Buddy1
I sort of agree with this, mainly with jabb5076. I've never quite understood why people play games in which they are already a champion when there are so many other games and quizzes they can play. If it's to get a badge, I understand; if it's to get points, then why not play other games? I rarely play "Who's the Expert?" categories I've already won, unless it's required (for example, The Great Quiz Race or Daily Challenges).

Some people play them just because they love that game, and it is one of their favorite activities here. Then, for the games that count towards team scores, there are those who play them to get points for their team.

I never thought about team scores. I've never cared about my team score (except on team games) and my team doesn't make a big deal about it, so that never crossed my mind.

Originally Posted By: AntonLaVey
The best solution is to just ditch all ELO ratings and make all Champ divisions like Who Am I is now. Multiple sets and no ELO.

ELO serves no purpose anyway, and it might even make the server run that much smoother.

I agree. I don't care about ELO, I'm not sure how it's calculated or what it is, and it wouldn't matter to me if it was deleted.
Posted by: CliftonClowers

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 10:29 AM

ELO It's a living thing.
Posted by: rossian

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 10:36 AM

It's a terrible thing to lose (to continue the theme).

To get back to reasons Champs continue to play - we enjoy testing ourselves. Winning the badges, though enjoyable, is not why I play and I played the quizzes before badges existed and continue to play. There are people I target, depending on the game, in the hope of beating themn. This rarely happens, but it makes it even more enjoyable when I do. Malik makes a great point there - the champions division is the elite and you should be proud to be in it.
Posted by: seadancer

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 08:00 PM

To salami_swami from seadancer:

I did not suggest that we make the Champs Division easier.

I suggested that Champs who aren't performing well over a period of time might be automatically (or at their request) taken out of the Champ classification and moved down.
---Sea
Posted by: seadancer

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 08:15 PM

BTW, I am under the impression that the questions asked in the Champs Division are more difficult than the questions asked in other divisions.
Is that the case? ---Sea
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 09:09 PM

At least in most games, the questions are the same, the competition is more difficult. So you can get the same scores, but your name shows up lower (often, for me, MUCH lower) in the table of results.
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 09:34 PM

Quote:
I suggested that Champs who aren't performing well over a period of time might be automatically (or at their request) taken out of the Champ classification and moved down.


This could potentially be very unfair, in my opinion as there would be nothing stopping front-runners from dropping down into the lower divisions and dominating all over again. They'd either need to slack for a little bit (which is completely doable with high ELO ratings) or simply ask to go lower.

In most games it wouldn't be fair though-- these people would have monthly badges signifying their proficiency in the game over a long period of time. Would it be fair to put some of the highest scorers back down with the first-timers?
Posted by: zorba_scank

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 09:54 PM

Honestly, there doesn't seem to be any end to this. Earlier there was just one set. Then people started complaining that the top ranked players, mostly those who had been on the site for long, were winning all the time making the games frustrating for new comers. So we had the different divisions based on player levels. Complaints again started that players who had won all the badges were still playing and making it difficult for others to win the badges. That led to the Champions division - once you had all the badges that could be won in the game, you were moved here (I think this is true for all games except the Who Am I? but I'm not certain). Now again there is a problem with the ELO ratings.

My suggestion is to just ignore the ratings. Personally, my performance swings wildly in most games (except for Who Am I? where I'm almost always at the bottom), so my rating is at best average though I do manage to win games in most hourlies at least some of the time.

Even if Terry does make changes to address this concern right now, going by the past track record, there will soon be some other aspect that frustrates or annoys players. We'll just have to draw the line somewhere.
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 11 2012 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: zorba_scank
Honestly, there doesn't seem to be any end to this. Earlier there was just one set. Then people started complaining that the top ranked players, mostly those who had been on the site for long, were winning all the time making the games frustrating for new comers. So we had the different divisions based on player levels. Complaints again started that players who had won all the badges were still playing and making it difficult for others to win the badges. That led to the Champions division - once you had all the badges that could be won in the game, you were moved here (I think this is true for all games except the Who Am I? but I'm not certain). Now again there is a problem with the ELO ratings.

My suggestion is to just ignore the ratings. Personally, my performance swings wildly in most games (except for Who Am I? where I'm almost always at the bottom), so my rating is at best average though I do manage to win games in most hourlies at least some of the time.

Even if Terry does make changes to address this concern right now, going by the past track record, there will soon be some other aspect that frustrates or annoys players. We'll just have to draw the line somewhere.


THIS! smile

I think this exactly. It ain't broke.
Posted by: reeshy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 12 2012 09:16 AM

I agree - the competition in the Champs division is more for fun, as there are no badges to be won (with the exception of the mastery badges) for coming out on top. Otherwise, it's mostly bragging rights. smile Rejoice at the fact that you've been good enough to get into the Champs divisions! Relax a little and enjoy the games instead of worrying about the competition smile If you win, that's great, but you're still getting the points for participating, wherever you rank. For me, it's more a competition with myself, trying to get the scores in the game I know I'm capable of, rather than what the best of the best are capable of. Focusing on your own game might allow you to improve enough to beat those top dogs every once in a while, you never know!
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 12 2012 09:27 AM

We all have our own targets in the Champs divisions. In my case it's to get as many points for my team as I can and on those rare days when I contribute 200 points to the team total I am just as pleased as I was when I got the individual badges. In Expert though my aim is different - I like to get as many FT points as possible but I don't want to win. I'd rather keep the line on my profile saying I beat 153 other players than replace it with one saying I only beat eight. And yes, those are eight champions but it makes me feel better to have beaten 153. grin
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 12 2012 10:22 AM

Even if we attempt to "fix" this problem, a new one will arise. You cannot please everyone all the time.

If we were to rid of the ELO, or champs division altogether, I would not be happy; I like the champs division. Further, everyone would be upset once again for having all the top competitors back in their divisions.

Sometimes it's nice that all the players who never lose are put in their own division. I'd never win Expert if daBomb were in my division again. wink



I still think it's fine as it is.




Seadancer, I was not saying you said to make the champs division easier. I was stating a general statement to all, not to you.
Posted by: MikeMaster99

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 12 2012 11:20 PM

I'm with flopsymopsy on this one (and many others too apparently). I simply enjoy the competition of the Champs categories I'm in. If I win, that's great (although rare), if I don't then I''ll try next time. I certainly don't stress about the ELO rankings. If I bring the Tim Tams can I join the comfy corner? (Forget Vegemite, Tim Tams really are a worthy contribution for Aussies to bring to the world palate.)

(I also share abechstein's feelings about 'Who am I?' - the 50,000 point badge for this one's definitely for the very long haul, as I rejoice when I get more than the minimum 30 points per day. But that's OK!)
Posted by: Barbarini

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 07:49 AM

Tim Tams? Did someone say Tim Tams? I'm in!
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 08:23 AM

Tim Tams? Delicious. I'll take some. And some coffee, for a Tim tam slam.

They're manufactured and sold in the US too, btw, by Abbot'ssisyer company, Pepperidge Farms. wink

Though no American I've talked to seems to know that. Lol
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 08:50 AM

Stop talking about Tim Tams! I stopped eating cake, chocolate, and biscuits back in the summer and now I really, really want to p.p.p.pick up a Penguin!
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 09:18 AM

Ooh, penguin.
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 09:47 AM

Originally Posted By: flopsymopsy
Stop talking about Tim Tams! I stopped eating cake, chocolate, and biscuits back in the summer and now I really, really want to p.p.p.pick up a Penguin!

Have some carrot cake. Bunnies like carrots right? And you get some extra fibre wink
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 09:55 AM

Get thee behind me thou temptress!
Posted by: seadancer

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 13 2012 12:02 PM

I do see the problems involved.

BTW, I must clarify here that I didn't mean that a Champ might be moved out of the Champ division against his will. He has earned the designation and deserves it.

But let's say that a frustrated Champ voluntarily chose to move down from the Champ designation. In that case, as someone said, he might dominate his new division. That doesn't seem fair either.

This issue sounds like a Catch-22. I'm sorry I mentioned it. LOL

Interesting conversation, nevertheless. smile

BTW, Salami_swami, thanks for clarifying.

---Sea
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Tue Oct 16 2012 04:31 PM

Is it time for a Champs division in Mind Melt? WAI was subdivided a long time ago. There are almost as many players every day in each game. Over 320 MM Monthly winners puts a lot of 'Champs' at the top of the sets, reaping the lion's share of MM points.
There are many who have a real tough time with this game, and never see the top 10 in a set, even on a good day.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Tue Oct 16 2012 06:11 PM

Yes please! I would absolutely love a champ division for mind melt!
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 19 2012 06:20 PM

Put me down as a yea vote on that idea. MM really could use a Champs division.
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 19 2012 06:32 PM

Put me down as a "they must be out of their minds" - don't do it!
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 19 2012 06:36 PM

Yep. I'm crazy. Crazy like a fox! LOL
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 19 2012 11:08 PM

Call me crazy!
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 20 2012 12:53 AM

You're crazy.:D
Posted by: gracious1

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 20 2012 02:55 AM

Originally Posted By: salami_swami
Yes please! I would absolutely love a champ division for mind melt!


I would like that, too!
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 21 2012 12:20 AM

I'm for it mainly becuase of the 50K badge, I know as an FMI guy that it would be unfair to put "regular" people in the same division as us champs. MM is pretty much just as difficult to master as FMI. if not more so. It 's VERY difficut for "regular" people to win a division against the vocab savants. I'm pretty good, but I'll never be as good as Rob (robert326), Trav, (klinsky1987) and Jack. (Da Bomb). It would be like a regular player playing against me in FMI. There's a good reason why Champs divisions are established. It gives the "regular" guy a shot, too.
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 21 2012 07:24 AM

Gosh. I don't think I've ever seen the word "regular" used so much in one paragraph that wasn't about bran muffins lol.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 21 2012 07:28 AM

Another corner beckons?! lol! Oh dear, I guess I had better get comfortable in it. Maybe buy a beanbag.
Posted by: dippo

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 21 2012 07:43 AM

Beans would make you regular!
Posted by: themonarch

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 21 2012 07:55 AM

I'd vote for champion divisions in Mind Melt but only because every other hourly/daily game that has sets and the proper badges already have it, this is the odd one out. Personally I never liked having hourly games having divisions, I was around when there was a time you actually had to beat everybody to get a badge and when you did it was quite the accomplishment. It's much easier for "regular" people to win most of the competitive hourly/daily badges because of it. Didn't mean to derail this with my rant, I do like the divisions in the daily games because they do randomly put people in them and everyone has the same questions so you know who's the best player for the day.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 24 2012 09:10 PM

When I use the term, "regular:, I'm talking about those who aren't super-ardent-MM players (I mentioned FMI. I would be called super-ardent-FMI!) MM should have a special place for those for the super-good, just like in so many of the other games.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 24 2012 09:16 PM

Achievement, Division-win, Monthly win (VERY hard for many!) and 5 K win (also super-tough!) Vets don't get the return now, but new players do. Vets play in a much-tougher division, and get less return It's easier for a new player to get a monthly MM than a vet now I f the super-vets are put in a Champs division, Regular vets can also compete Not as well as new players, but a better chance/
Posted by: Anton

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 24 2012 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: themonarch
I'd vote for champion divisions in Mind Melt but only because every other hourly/daily game that has sets and the proper badges already have it, this is the odd one out.


Pot Of Gold doesn't, and I don't see people whining about making that game easier for "regular" people to win. Ditto for the World Game. Anybody going to lobby for that game to be made easier?

The fact is that these games should not be made easier for anybody to win. Can't win something? Tough. I'm not going to win Tuesday or Thursday in POG any time soon, but you'll never see me asking to move anybody into a quarantine. I'd rather get rid of all champion divisions and let everybody play everybody the way we used to.

Originally Posted By: themonarch
I do like the divisions in the daily games because they do randomly put people in them and everyone has the same questions so you know who's the best player for the day.


You would think so, right?
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 24 2012 10:49 PM

GM games like Pot of Gold do not enter into this discussion. This is about the MM and having it set up equally like all the hourlies and Who Am I. When newbies and those in the lower levels gain an unfair advantage by being grouped in smaller sets of players from the lower levels, they gain far more MM points than the vets. It's not about the wins, but about the point totals. See who leads the monthly standings. Look at the winning scores in sets 6-15 or thereabouts. If they can be grouped in the lower sets, so should the 'champs'. Or else have everyone placed randomly across the entire sets. It doesn't seem like a level playing field.
Posted by: Anton

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 24 2012 11:08 PM

Originally Posted By: ssabreman
GM games like Pot of Gold do not enter into this discussion.


Why not? It's basically the same thing. People who have won all the badges should be quarantined like the other games, right? That's what I keep hearing when I read the last page of posts about Mind Melt. Kick out all the people who have all the badges and allow others to win or gain more points so they can win another badge.


Originally Posted By: ssabreman
This is about the MM and having it set up equally like all the hourlies and Who Am I.


You do know that the champs got royally screwed in Who Am I right? Is it fair that champs might have to wait years to get the big points badge and others it might only take months?

Originally Posted By: ssabreman
When newbies and those in the lower levels gain an unfair advantage by being grouped in smaller sets of players from the lower levels, they gain far more MM points than the vets. It's not about the wins, but about the point totals. See who leads the monthly standings. Look at the winning scores in sets 6-15 or thereabouts. If they can be grouped in the lower sets, so should the 'champs'. Or else have everyone placed randomly across the entire sets. It doesn't seem like a level playing field.


I agree here. Noobs shouldn't be winning anything big before a veteran. They should have to go through the best just like all the old timers had to. But this conversation didn't come up as noobs winning points. It started out by you suggesting the better Mind Melt players get kicked to a set all of their own because they are better than others and, rightfully so, they earn more points than them. Why should mediocrity ever be rewarded?
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Wed Oct 24 2012 11:45 PM

GM games do not have divisions. There are only a third as many people playing Pot of Gold as there is in MM or WaI. And the players are very equally spread across the sets. No streaming of newbies or champs.
My comment about newbies winning more points than vets was to add support to the idea of streaming 'champs', like they are in all the hourlies and WaI. If the newbies are kept in their lower sets in MM, then champs should be set apart as well. Either that, or nobody gets preferential treatment.

But you have all the badges in MM so it shouldn't matter to you, should it? You can play with the best and beat them as easily as the feeding off the lesser lights, right? The divisions were set up to give the weaker players a chance to win a few things. Not to win everything, but to have a chance against similar strength players. It's not happening in MM.
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Thu Oct 25 2012 03:47 AM

I think we should have a "Chump" division. I might even get a badge there LOL
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 26 2012 07:10 PM

POG is different in that there's no monthly badge involved. It's set on a weekly basis. Also, like World, it's a GM game, unlike the other games which have champs divisions.

MM has been around for over 2 1/2 years. I'd like to think there would be enough players who'd quallfy to make up a division or two. I believe the time for a champions division has arrived.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 26 2012 07:14 PM

To clarify Darryl's point, The GM daily games DO have divisions, but they're not divvied up acccording to your Level. You just get one of 15 random group quizzes, regardless of Level. MM is based on a person's Level.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 26 2012 07:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Jakeroo
Gosh. I don't think I've ever seen the word "regular" used so much in one paragraph that wasn't about bran muffins lol.


Sorry. Maybe I should have used "more casual", instead. One glitch in my writing also is I'll use a word more than a couple of times. I should have mixed it up. Thanks.
Posted by: Mariamir

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 26 2012 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: cubswin2323
To clarify Darryl's point, The GM daily games DO have divisions, but they're not divvied up acccording to your Level. You just get one of 15 random group quizzes, regardless of Level. MM is based on a person's Level.


But MM's configuration is the same as the GM games. Random sets, not by level. While a Champs for Mind Melt sounds good for "regular" players, what about the Champs? As stated before, not all Champs are equal, and I for one would hate to be always in the same division as players like DaBomb.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Fri Oct 26 2012 08:04 PM

So would I. That's why the call for a Champs Division. I've NEVER been in a division 1-20. If it were just random, I would be.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 27 2012 06:53 AM

I'm voting for Jake's Chump divison.

I also think there should be a chimp division.

(This test is a 'limited-hold memory task', using a sort of photographic memory, a test in which young chimpanzees out-perform adult humans.

http://games.lumosity.com/chimp.html

It'll give you about 10 turns before it tells you how well you performed compared to the chimp. Good luck all.)
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 27 2012 09:51 AM

The main arguments are that the vets are punished because they have to play against the supers while the newer players get to pile up points against equally new players. The divisions are mostly Level-based, As a result, vets can never get the points to get a 5 or 50 K or even a monthly badge. Not to mention even winning a division. Other non-GM games have a champs division, MM has evolved to the point where it should have one as well
Posted by: Mariamir

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 27 2012 10:00 AM

One more argument, the supers are punished playing the supers, too. Not all supers play equally, some are even "superer" than others. It's not fair for the "less super" Champs to be forever in a division with the "super-supers". There is probably no way to satisfy everyone. I rather think a Champ division would be a good idea, but still punishing on some players. If the divisions are indeed Level-based, then make MM like the GM games. Random sets, you might land in the same set as a very good player, then again, you might not. So vets, newbies, supers, all get their shot at winning a division and getting more points.

I hope that made sense... laugh
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 27 2012 12:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Mariamir
If the divisions are indeed Level-based, then make MM like the GM games. Random sets, you might land in the same set as a very good player, then again, you might not.


I am fairly sure that they are not. I can't find anywhere that says that they are, and I was put in a set with lots of players who are roughly half my level, the lowest of which is 53.

Originally Posted By: cubswin2323
I've NEVER been in a division 1-20. If it were just random, I would be.


You probably have been in a division with players under level 20, but you've just not noticed it. Unless you're telling me that every day you've ever played mind melt, you've always checked the levels of every single player in your division in the last minute (or at least last hour) of the day so no-one else plays after you look.

But even if you haven't, that doesn't prove much. Most of the people who play mind melt (or any other hourly or daily) will be above level 20. Look at WTE - I've seen hours where over 70 people have played in my division (the top one apart from champions) but only 1 in the level 1-20 division.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 27 2012 12:37 PM

No, Dave means he hasn't been placed in divisions 1-20. Come to think of it, most high scores from high leveled players are put in divisions past 20...
Posted by: TimBentley

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Oct 27 2012 12:38 PM

It appears that players in divisions 6-15 have less than 5000 melting points; players in 16+ have at least 5000 melting points. I haven't found any other pattern.

There's a level 29 player in set 27 and a level 168 player with more than 50000 melting points in set 16.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 28 2012 05:00 PM

They have less melting points because they haven't been around as long Still, they are garnering points at a faster rate than the vets, A champs division needs to be established. Period. I'm not backing down on this, Why? Because I know in my heart and mind I am correct.
Posted by: flopsymopsy

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 28 2012 05:11 PM

Having a champs division won't get you more points, all it gives you is more of a chance to be beaten by a few who are really good at it with almost no hope of ever winning the set. If you want to be demoralised, be a very good player in the WAI champs divisions - you'll almost never win and as a result will get fewer points. It's better now than it used to be but even so, never winning is just as demoralising for champs as it is for anyone else. And now you want to spread the gloom to MindMelt which is a pretty depressing game anyway. Give it a rest.
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Oct 28 2012 11:54 PM

I beg your pardon? I'm entitled to my beliefs. Don't tell me what to say. The fact remains I'm correct. Trying to shut people down only further proves people like me and Sabre are right all along. MM has evolved to the point to where Champs division is needed. It's pretty much impossible to win a division due to the fact all of the "champs" are in the vets divisions now. I find it strange nobody gripes about the Daily Game's champs sets. Why not do it that way?
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 12:15 AM

Of course, over time "vets" who keep playing will meet the criteria to become "champs", even if they only get there through persistent mediocrity (which is how I seem to have reached champions division in a couple of games). They then will always compete only against superchamps, and never again collect any points, as currently happens in Who Am I. Because there are fewer sets for champs, as there are always going to be fewer of them than of lesser mortals, the competition is intensified. If everyone is spread out, you will by luck sometimes be in an easier pool, and sometimes in one with tougher competition.
Posted by: Mariamir

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 12:20 AM

But the Daily Game doesn't even have a Champ division.

Quote:
It's pretty much impossible to win a division due to the fact all of the "champs" are in the vets divisions now.


Your point is that the veterans cannot win a division because of the Champs. Firstly, not everyone in every set is a Champ, with this configuration there will always be a set without Champs in it. You, I take it you are one of the vets you keep mentioning, are saying it isn't fair to the vets. Well, if all the Champs are put in their separate division, there will always be some Champs that will NEVER win that division. It isn't fair to them, either. As Mind Melt is right now, at least everyone has a shot at winning their division. Can you prove that the players who keep winning the divisions the vets are in are Champs? You can't. Just because they're better than you doesn't mean that there aren't others better than them. Q.E.D. Mind Melt as is is fairer to ALL. laugh If you think that the Champs winning or losing has nothing to do with you, well, they still need to be taken into consideration as well.

Edit: exactly what looney_tunes said.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 03:45 AM

Maybe each game needs something like the hardcore system in the Global Challenge. Something optional. Added on to what we have already.

Those looking for a more competitive challenge can opt in once they have done their time in Champs or got the required badges/levels etc.

That might serve everyone best?
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 05:02 AM

I believe the request is not to provide more or different competition for the Champs, but to forcibly remove them from competition with others. Making it optional would not have the desired effect. What is being called for in setting up a Champs division would be rather like saying that everyone who is Immortal in GC must play Hardcore.

edited to clarify an ambiguous wording
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 06:44 AM

To quote Terry from Feb 1,2010 and the rationale of Champs Divisions
As briefly touched in an earlier post, "Champion Divisions" are being added to some of our hourly games.

Why they are good for most players:

They are special divisions where our super-expert players can battle against each other in our hourly games without inadvertently stomping on newer players hour after hour.

Why they are good for the champions:

Champions get to fight it out with the best of the best in a small, comfy setting. It's you vs them. All champs get special rating statistics, and you can battle your enemies directly on a daily basis. Champions will also tend to earn more points than regular players due to their thinner numbers and exclusive division.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many, but not all of those who beat me now have the monthly and the Mastery badges and would then be Champs. I'm sure many of the Champs were not pleased with being separated from the masses in the other games, but they would then experience what many of the rest of us mediocre players have put up with all along. If the Champs have ALL the badges in the game, what are they really missing out on? Stomping? And if they are mediocre Champs, like I am in WaI, it's just back to being stomped by the real Champs like it was before. So be it. The best players win. The Champs are not losing out on anything. Winning a set in Champs in MM would lead to nothing else since there is no ELO in that game.
I am no better than the newbies who get to play in sets 6-15 yet I am being stomped on just the same. I gain far fewer points each day than they do as my 26- 30/30 in 250 sec gains me 20 -40 points but the same score in sets 6-15 will probably win or get 90 points. Those who are streamed into those sets will have the advantage of winning the monthly and Mastery long before others. But why? I have never had the privilege of being in those sets.
If Terry had a reason to create the Champs divisions, why is this game exempt? If there is no Champs division, then ALL players should be randomly spread across ALL sets. NO streaming. The newbies and casual players should not have a greater opportunity to win than other vets. WaI had a Champs Division of 2 sets long before there were 320 Champs as there are in MM, and then it was expanded to 5 sets. The best will win, regardless.
Giving the vets a chance to gain some points towards the monthly would be appreciated.
Posted by: Chavs

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 06:51 AM

Originally Posted By: looney_tunes
I believe the request is not to provide more or different competition for the Champs, but to forcibly remove them from competition with others. Making it optional would not have the desired effect. It would be rather like saying that everyone who is Immortal in GC must play Hardcore.


Wouldn't it be more like saying that everyone who is Immortal in GC has the option to play Hardcore but doesn't have to?

(Then, with those who would like to play hardcore kept busy in their own divison, the rest of the immortals carry on playing each other as normal. And everyone is happy?

From everything written here, the people who like the champ divison are people who enjoy stiff competition and don't feel put off by being worst of the best - so presumably they would opt for hardcore thus opening up the current divisions for the "veteran-but-not-feeling-very-championish-today" players.)

Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 07:31 AM

I am in favor if the champs division. It is in my opinion that if champs want to complain about not winning.... Tough. They have the badges. But a regular guy cannot compete against constant 85-110 second scores.

When the game started, I was in the top bracket. Power players emerged and skyrocketed to all the badges while us mediocre players could never get a good enough score to get many points. Now they have their badges, and still compete in the divisions. We still truck along.


That being said, though I am in favor of champs, I certainly won't be disappointed if it stays as is.
Posted by: TimBentley

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 08:31 AM

An alternate idea would be to put people with 50000+ melting points (I don't know how many of the 145 regularly play; if I counted correctly there were 10 in my set yesterday, so probably most) in their own sets. However, I would think a monthly badge (the person currently in 10th has average about 70 melting points per day) includes more strong players than the mastery badge, as it includes strong players who haven't played for well over a year. There could be 3 or 4 sets of masters, or perhaps about 7 sets of champs (I don't know how many of the 321 monthly winners regularly play, I assume most of them have won a set and gotten the achievement badge).

It should be noted that the main issue people seem to have with the Who Am I champ division (they don't actually need all the badges, they can lack the mastery badge, or even the whozit collector badge (although not many people would be a monthly winner before getting 5000 whozits)) is people getting the 50000 whozit points more slowly in those sets.

I can see the advantages and disadvantages regardless of any action or lack thereof.
Posted by: Mariamir

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 08:34 AM

Eh, my two cents' worth. I am not a Champ, obviously. I argue against having a Champ division because I think it'd be unfair to the less super Champs to be forever stuck in a division where they will almost never win. As is right now everyone gets a fair shot at winning every now and then. If the Champs themselves want to be in a separate division, then by all means, away with them! :-P Whatever way you do it some people will lose out, so I guess the issue is keep it as is and the vets lose points they ought to have, or some less Champy Champs almost never win, and so lose out... Now what to do?

I knew I was going to type something wrong...
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Chavs

the "veteran-but-not-feeling-very-championish-today" players.)



I'm more of the "not feeling very championish EVERY day" sort of player lol. Doesn't matter to me which route is ultimately chosen, my chances are the same in either case. Sometimes I get lucky lol.
Posted by: TimBentley

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 10:29 AM

An interesting tidbit of information: the 10th person in the Who Am I monthly badge standings is 13th overall (note that the easy sets add a wrinkle here, I know that when I choose to go for the monthly badge I'll probably play easy), and the 10th person in the Mind Melt monthly badge standings is 86th overall.

All but one person in the Who Am I race have 5000+ whozit points (one has 50000+); three people in the Mind Melt race have 5000+ melting points.

This last point sours my disposition regarding the status quo. I was thinking that players could be separated based on whether they had won a timed set instead of 5000+ points (2860 have won their set, 2360 have 5000+ points), but that would probably cause the number of new people winning a set every day to more than double, and I think that would be a net negative. Also, should someone be moved up because 2048 was good enough to win their set?
Posted by: Terry

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 02:26 PM

Yes, the plan is to have a champ division for mind melt too, for players who have won all the badges there.
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 03:20 PM

Very good news. Thanks.
When you say ALL the badges, you mean both the Monthly and the Mastery?
Posted by: Terry

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 03:30 PM

Yes
Posted by: WesleyCrusher

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 04:14 PM

At that time, it might also be a good idea to update WAI champs to only accept players with 50k Whozits, not those with 5k (the division was created before the 50k badge and players there are at a significant points disadvantage).
Posted by: cubswin2323

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 04:40 PM

Agreed. When the champs division was added in WAI, I don't think the 50K badge had been added yet so it made the journey to 50K much tougher. I think it's a good compromise.
Posted by: gracious1

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: salami_swami
I am in favor if the champs division. It is in my opinion that if champs want to complain about not winning.... Tough. They have the badges. But a regular guy cannot compete against constant 85-110 second scores.


Originally Posted By: Terry
Yes, the plan is to have a champ division for mind melt too, for players who have won all the badges there.


Originally Posted By: WesleyCrusher
At that time, it might also be a good idea to update WAI champs to only accept players with 50k Whozits, not those with 5k (the division was created before the 50k badge and players there are at a significant points disadvantage).


Would you also please consider a champs division for the Daily Game? The "Daily Game Winner" badge was actually one of the hardest daily-set-winner badges to earn (for me, anyhow), after the "Who Am I?" equivalent. I realize there's no monthly badge (although that might be nice, too), but it just sort of seems unbalanced not to have a champs division, in principle, if other games do.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Mon Oct 29 2012 10:16 PM

There are already champ divisions. Do you notice how 11 and 12 divisions always kick butt! wink
Posted by: Terry

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Tue Oct 30 2012 06:37 AM

Originally Posted By: WesleyCrusher
At that time, it might also be a good idea to update WAI champs to only accept players with 50k Whozits, not those with 5k (the division was created before the 50k badge and players there are at a significant points disadvantage).


Will do.
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sat Nov 03 2012 04:29 PM

Originally Posted By: WesleyCrusher
At that time, it might also be a good idea to update WAI champs to only accept players with 50k Whozits, not those with 5k (the division was created before the 50k badge and players there are at a significant points disadvantage).



Will you also be disbanding the MM sets 'reserved' for the newbies and casual players, ie 6-15? The rest of us who struggle just as much as they, are at a significant points disadvantage. They can win the monthly in their first or second month. Some of us have tried for nearly 2 years with scores that are better than theirs, but earn half the points. Levelling the playing field would be nice. They can 'pay their dues' the way the rest of us do. Let everyone play in ALL the sets, other than the 'champs'.
Posted by: eyhung

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Nov 11 2012 07:51 PM

Just wanted to say that I support the movement to separate people who have won the Mastery badge (50000) from those who have just won the Monthly badge, for all daily games. When is this likely to be implemented?
Posted by: ssabreman

Re: About the CHAMP Classification - Sun Nov 11 2012 10:05 PM

Yes, I was kinda hoping that it would have been in place to start the month, but it wasn't. So another month of hammering away while the newbies and casuals fast-track to the monthly badge in the 'easy' sets. Time for a change, please!