Seems as though we've reached the end.

In addition to throwing the big switch that turns off the GC...remember to also close off the daily challenges that are GC related.

As much as I enjoy the GC each time, I'm always VERY happy to reach the end too. Please hit the kill switch :-)

GC awards issued.

This thread is labelled GC #35 but the announcement in GC says Global Challenge 34 Has Ended.
We're still mixed up here. And what will the next GC be called?

According to the score HTML files it was GC 34. The next one is 35.

My error. Sorry.

Oh the shame of it all.

Aug 5, 2019: Global Challenge (#36) Has Begun!

Strange. I knew there was confusion from earlier discussions.

...and now it has been corrected.

I love the new 'softer' look to the answer pages in this Global Challenge. Thank you Terry!

Thanks! That was one part of the site that was still on the "old look". Still have a few more sections to go.

Private tournaments are my next big project. Gulp.

A couple of my teamies are a bit bewildered (which means they've reached my normal level of confusion).

From the above it appears that if 100 (already)Immortals reach level 10, the challenge comes to a stop, regardless of whether any newbies make it through by that time. Is this correct? If so, it seems to create a huge barrier, as so many existing Immortals get a lot of fun from attempting to improve their PB's on this game.

I could have sworn that when I did it for the first time, the rules were skewed more in favour of the Newbies so that the game continued till - 50? 60? newbies got through. Even if I'm 'misremembering' here, could some consideration please be given to not closing the game till after a reasonable quota of Immortals make it for the first time, regardless of the number of veterans who pour across the line ahead of them? Alternatively, is there some way of screening out existing Immortals and dropping them out of the game once a certain number complete the course?

This is a matter which has been discussed rather thoroughly both in these Forums and in the FT Boards for the past several years now. I will recap the salient points:

As the years have gone by, the ratio of newer players who have not already won the Immortal badge to more experienced players who already have has steadily dropped. This is to be expected. Since the more experienced players enjoy continuing to play, it should not be surprising that they currently dominate the leader boards in the Global Challenge. In addition, the number of newer players to FT itself has declined, as has total participation in the Global Challenge.

I do not know about the very beginning of the GC personally as I was not here at that time, but for most of the GC's history, the cutoff for ending it was when 30 (thirty, not fifty or sixty) new Immortals were reached. In reality, the number was often usually slightly more than 30 (say 31 or 32), because the GC had to be manually stopped by Terry himself and he did not like doing it in the middle of sets, so by waiting until a set had ended, often the number went slightly over 30.

This changed a couple of years ago. With very good reason, I may add. The demographic trends I mentioned in the first paragraph led to a change in how the GC ends. Technically, the rule is now that the GC ends when either 30 new Immortals have been created in Normal mode (Hardcore mode Immortals are not part of this number) or when 100 *total* Immortals in Normal mode have been reached. **Whichever comes first!** In practice, recent GC runs the past two years have ended for the second reason, not the first, because it comes first. That pattern is expected to continue because of the demographic trends. All of this was discussed at length both at the time the change was made and periodically since, including the various pros and cons of the change. One obvious "con" is that this new method means we get *much fewer* new Immortals in a GC run than we used to, much less than 30. The current number of new Immortals per GC run isn't too much more than 10, actually.

But it was done because lowering the standards (use whatever euphemism you want, but to go back to the old way *would* be lowering standards) and would drag out the GC longer than the approximate four months it has been for most of its history. WesleyCrusher, in particular, has pointed out this reality several times. I support the administration's decision on this. To protect the integrity of the game, the change was made. We are just going to have to get used to fewer new Immortals. In reality, the game is not any harder than it ever was. We just have fewer motivated players who have not already won the Immortal badge playing the GC than we used to, and lowering standards and dragging out the length of what are already long runs won't change the participation numbers.

Short version: My view: Leave it be the way it currently is.

Thank you for your eloquent explanation, brm.

I agree that it can be an increasingly exciting game for the more experienced players, and would never wish to discourage the high standard of competition.

May I point out, however, with the utmost respect, that in fact the present regime actually raises the standard, that the existing Immortals (who are to be commended for their commitment and competitive attitude) simply make it a very disheartening prospect for anyone attempting to attain Immortality.

Your closing comments confirm this, Quote: We just have fewer motivated players who have not already won the Immortal badge playing the GC than we used to.

Do you not think that perhaps the bar might be a little too high? I have given up trying to encourage my teamies to keep going, as they see themselves slipping below the odds within a very few days. I'm sure my team is not just a bunch of unmotivated quitters, but simply realists. What is the point in persevering in a game that demands a high level of commitment over several months, when it is obvious at a very early stage that you're doomed to failure?

Hear! Hear! Bravo Windrush.

You can make the suggestion, but it has already been refuted, a thousand times. There are substantial records in existence on Global Challenge. Games have almost always averaged to around 1500 games per edition of the Global Challenge. Some have gone a bit longer, the fastest go a little bit faster. What this means for those who are paying attention, if you play every game of the GC, you will end up playing around 1500 games. The bar for making Immortal is the same in every edition. You're not playing against anybody else in this regard. This is only for you. That bar does not move. And you have 1500 games whether it's GC 25, 30, or 35 (1500 give or take). So the amount of time that you have to make a run at the badge is about the same for a player beginning their first GC in GC 35 or like me starting out when I was starting, I can't remember maybe it was GC 28 or so. So the number of whacks that you get at it hasn't changed.

Next, I don't think we change standards around here because some people don't get a badge on their first try. I didn't get a badge when I first tried it. The thought of playing every day, 12 games and a Brain Twist seemed impossible. But to win the badge, I had to play every day. So finally after trying once and failing at it by coming up a little short towards the end, I decided to double down and try to miss as few games as I could in the next round and I made it. Some people won't have the time to play 12 games a day and Brain Twist every day for nearly five months. Then they just won't be able to win the badge. There are hundreds of badges and no one will win them all. So those people should decide given the time they have to play the game which for some people may be quite limited, what badges they want to work for. That isn't a substantial reason for changing the rules for everybody because some are dissatisfied about not being able to win every badge.



No, I don't think the bar is too high. I think some people want us to bring it lower so they don't have to rise to the challenge. Some things are difficult and not everyone is going to win. For those who are trying and not making it, let me tell you. After playing several GCs, I can now probably reach div 10 in around 1200 games, and that's hardcore where averages probably dip a little below Normal averages. So if you really work hard at it, then potentially you could miss around 300 games and still make it. So by no means should they have the attitude that, "Well if I'm not in the top 50 by day 20 then it's all over". No, as soon as you throw the towel in it's over. These games are long haul processes and you don't have to play every single game to make it. And you should keep playing because the question sets change in the later rounds so the more exposure you can get to these questions, the better prepared you are the next go around. By no means do you ever want to quit. You have no idea who is going to be there at the end. A lot of people hold on the first few weeks, but slowly they are going to be missing games. So if you're not in the top 100 against previous Immortals and it's Week 6, there's nothing to worry about. Once these players feel confident they're not going to be able to make top 10 or whatever, they will stop playing, and that's when the younger players can have an opportunity to move up.

Also, how can you make the argument that the bar is too high when some of these players apparently are not even playing the entire tournament? Shouldn't they be playing the whole tournament and then see where they're at? And if they miss 200 games, then do the math and find out where you would be if you could have got 100 more games. You might well find out that with only 50 more games you would have earned the badge. With that information and more knowledge about the kinds of questions to expect, then by the next go around, you won't even need to play those 50 or 100 games. You will already have built up enough skill that you can play the same number of games and make it across the next time.

I think the problem your players are having is they're overthinking. They're looking at how players like myself are doing and thinking there's no way I'm going to get there. But the good news is, you have 1500 whacks at it. And almost everybody, I believe that almost everybody, if they dedicate themselves to learning the game, the GC Immortal and Div 9 badges are eminently doable, badges that I think almost everybody can win. And for players at the top, they're going to be there this time around, and next time and the next time. Some people have been doing this for 15 years. That's not going to change. And again, there's no way to know how the bottom half of 51-100 is going to fill out. So there's no need to even compare yourself, not at least till you get to the third month and close to the fourth month, but even then you don't want to use that as a basis to quit. You should be using it as a motivation to get better.

I like to pick a target on the board, like if I want to make top 10, I just look at #9 for example and see how he or she's doing. And I try to tie their numbers or beat them everyday. No matter where I wind up, if it works, I'm going to end up no worse than around #10 probably. So just pick where your mark is where you need to be and try to focus on closing that gap.

In summary, the concise edition of my post: There are two kinds of badges in GC. There are badges that should be considered to be personal achievements* (only for yourself and how you're doing against yourself, getting better and stronger as a GC player) and then there is the competitive, which is really the Hardcore Winner badge. That is about how do you play against other players.

*This is true so long as the games continue to average about 1500 games per GC.

So your players are working toward a personal achievement, crossing the line over Division 9 and 10 for the first time. These they should think of as playing against themselves. Okay, I made div 8 last go around. Let me step it up a bit this time and try to make div 9 if not 10. Or, I played 1250 games last GC and didn't make it. I'm going to go for a minimum 1350 games this time. It doesn't really make sense to think of yourself in competition with anyone else, because that 1500 is the same and isn't going to change any time soon. So just set your goal and find what you're going to have to do to beat it.

Now the competitive badges are about how well you play against other players. If I was new in this current era, I would be psyched out. Because the players we have today are really excellent players, they're some of the old champions from older GCs and some of the best of the most recent GCs that are reinvigorated because of some of the recent badge expansions. The idea that somebody new is going to come in there, any time soon, and break into the top 10 of Hardcore, it's a low probability event in my opinion, and it's not something that you should even consider if you haven't already played at least two GCs, probably in this era of competition, more like four to five. In a few more tournaments that is likely to change as more players top out their badges with Division 7 markings. Once they get them they'll take a break from it, maybe to come back or maybe not. But for that reason, the next couple years are going to be very rocky for a lot of people. I mean to get my Division 7 for Immortal badge is going to take six years. So I'm not quitting any time soon. So for right now, keep working on making Division 10, ignoring how other people are doing because there's no guarantee they'll be playing in two or three months, and know that the bar is no higher or lower for you as it was for anyone who came before you, five or ten or more years ago. The level of difficulty is the exact same because it's non-competitive, if you will permit me to use that term.

I'll just repeat it - when looking at the objective difficulty of the Global Challenge, it has stayed extremely constant over the years. We could set the game to have a constant length of 1500 rounds (125 days) and not see significant changes in the numbers of new immortals. However, we feel that it's more interesting as it is.

Also, no one should ever be discouraged by early results in the Global Challenge. Divisions 1 to 5 are very unrepresentative of the whole game and players who lead the pack in those have (a) been consistent - even missing a partial round will send you way out of range of the top 100 early on (but it is easy to come back as you're not actually far behind in absolute terms) and (b) played fast times. In case you haven't already noticed, advancement in the GC is based on rounded scores, so a set score of 1451 or better will act like a little nitro boost on your advancement.

Divisions 6 and 7 are the mid-game. You still won't win the game there, but you can definitely lose it - if you find yourself falling back in this area, review your category choices!

Divisions 8 and 9 finally are where it's at. A lot of categories play very differently than before and you'll have ample chance to catch up to the leaders - or seal your fate.

However even if you do fall back - why give up? You can still go for tiers on the Impossible or (and here's a little sneaky trick) intentionally fall back a bit more and then try to nab some all-rounder wins while enjoying division 6 and 7 questions while the frontrunners need to contend with division 9!

I do see your point, and agree with the concept of keeping going; in admitting that I am not going to win this argument, I have to say that it is certain that the mix of existing and new immortals making the cut has changed a great deal in recent times. When I achieved it, our 30 newbies got there before the 100 repeat winners. There are now so many experienced players that I read from the above comments that perhaps only 10 newbies will get through. I am not arguing for it to be any less of a hard slog, or to make it any easier; when I played, I simply counted the number of non- Immortals ahead of me and tried to gain ground on them. Immortals didn't come into my equation, even though the rules were the same.

Now it's just that with the numbers of Immortals (all experienced at the tips and tricks), we could very well have a case of no new Immortals. Having competed in sport, I appreciate the need to support competitors at ALL levels, from beginner to elite player.

Have it your way, but I still think that by reducing the odds for beginners (and they ARE reducing, despite your denials - pitting larger numbers of experts against less experienced players has to change the odds) you are unnecessarily turning away a whole cohort of players.

Windrush, you might not win the "argument" but please know that your opinion is shared by other players--myself included. Thank you for posting.

Thanks Sally, that means a lot to me. I stopped playing the game when I realised I was only making it tougher for non-Immortals.

There are actually at least two alternatives by which you can play and gain your Immortal upgrades without making it harder for new players:

a) Play to Division 9, 99.5% and wait there until it is the last set from other players' performance anyway. Then just use that one to step inside (it does not matter how many players get in on the last set. They all qualify.). The disadvantage of that is of course that you might have to avoid the Brain Twist for some days unless you pace yourself earlier.

or

b) play Hardcore. There is no overall limit on Hardcore winner and Hardcore Immortals do not count towards the 100. You can even get upgrade credit towards three badges at once this way.

(Obviously, choice b is the recommended one. Challenge yourself to even greater heights and step out of newer players' way at the same time.)

It's fascinating. No matter how many times something is explained, there is still a refusal to believe it. This reminds me of something Piaget did called the conservation task but that's a different story. I'm trying to think of a good example. It would be like if I gave you three shots to put a basketball through a hoop, and then the next person and the next person. And maybe after six months someone comes along and says you're making it harder. Making it harder how? You have three shots to make the shot like anybody else.

Could you explain in what sense the badge is getting harder to earn? Some of the badges, as I've explained are getting harder. Hardcore Winner in my estimation is more difficulty to earn now than it has historically been.

Absolutely true. I, however, have a realistic assessment of my own ability. I am definitely not good enough for Hard-Core, and certainly not masochistic enough to try to swim through treacle. At least, not at present; I may revisit it at some point in the unforeseeable future.

As for the first option - it seems pointless to me, as, despite the fact that my speed and attention span are slipping alarmingly with age, I play to my best ability. To stop and dawdle on the doorstep is not an option. Also I very much doubt that I could best the 100 or more Immortal hot-shots speeding through the game; the most I could achieve would be to clutter up the chances of one of the would-be Immortals.

Anyway, I didn't set out to talk about me; while I genuinely welcome the enthusiasm of the several-times Immortals, I am simply saddened by my failed attempt to plead on behalf of those lesser mortals, who will sadly remain mere mortals.

Just for clarity:

The numbers of new players winning Immortal are indeed reduced. This is a clear fact. There are no longer 30 new Immortals ever round.

The difficulty of getting Immortal in terms of needed consistency and score per game has fluctuated within a certain narrow band, but is generally not increasing or decreasing.

The *odds* of a new player winning cannot be determined because this number would depend on two factors: The number of players winning (which we know has gone down) and the number of players making a serious attempt, i.e. playing all sets of a GC to their best ability (which we can only estimate, but from the overall playing figures and the rates of achieving the higher divisions, also probably has gone down quite a bit over the years).

To actually know whether the odds (which are defined as successful tries divided by overall tries) have gone down, gone up or remained constant, we'd have to know which of the two numbers declined more. However, I do not have that data, so we can't finally answer the question of the odds.