Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: A Proposal for Additional Levels

by demerphq (Chancellor)
on Oct 26, 2004 at 07:11 UTC ( #402487=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: A Proposal for Additional Levels
in thread A Proposal for Additional Levels

On reflection im going to second your complaint for the same reasons. As I say elsewhere this change should affect us all (except for maybe vroom just to respect ancient tradition). Thus we need a level suitably above merlyns to start from and then go down in XP. That way even the lofty ones get at least a level above to work for. If we adopted a geometric progression for the higher levels and started at say 128k, and reduced by half each time for the about 5 levels or so all the user base would be affected. The lower levels could be ordered a little more naturally. (I should say however that IMO the top levels should all be considered to be saints. So merlyn would become some sort of uber saint, with tilly close on his heels, you and I would barely clock in as serving-deputy-assistant-under-saint's or something like that :-)


---
demerphq

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    -- Gandhi

    Flux8



Comment on Re^2: A Proposal for Additional Levels
Re^3: A Proposal for Additional Levels (alternate ladder)
by tye (Cardinal) on Oct 26, 2004 at 16:28 UTC

    Here is an alternate proposal that leaves no one at the top level right now so the ladder will be reasonable for a while to come. It shoots for about 40% more XP gain required at each step (the second-to-last column).

    XP %Gain Gain %Diff Diff 25 +25 60 +140.00% +35 +40.00% +10 110 +83.33% +50 +42.86% +15 180 +63.64% +70 +40.00% +20 275 +52.78% +95 +35.71% +25 400 +45.45% +125 +31.58% +30 580 +45.00% +180 +44.00% +55 840 +44.83% +260 +44.44% +80 1200 +42.86% +360 +38.46% +140 1700 +41.67% +500 +35.14% +130 2400 +41.18% +700 +40.00% +200 3400 +41.67% +1000 +42.86% +300 4800 +41.18% +1400 +40.00% +400 6700 +39.58% +1900 +35.71% +500 9300 +38.81% +2600 +36.84% +700 13000 +39.78% +3700 +42.31% +1100 18200 +40.00% +5200 +40.54% +1500 25500 +40.11% +7300 +40.38% +2100 35700 +40.00% +10200 +39.73% +2900 50000 +40.06% +14300 +40.20% +4100

    I'd set the votes at 2 per level, 0..42. 2 extra votes per level is plenty little reward. I think going lower than that is more likely to end up with people being so conservative about casting a vote that you'll get lots of nodes with no votes. That will mean no reward for simple, run-of-the-mill contributions.

    "Inflation" of the rep of good nodes will not be reduced by reducing the number of votes. So reducing the number of votes will mean that the top-rep nodes will keep inflating as the number of users increase and the ordinary nodes will get less, widening the gap and increasing the motivation for XP whoring.

    Update: This may have the wrong number of levels. The problem with listing the borders between items in the same line with the items is that it isn't clear if you are listing the upper border or lower border. I didn't think Petruchio was proposing "level vroom" be renamed (yes, I only skimmed the text). We could name "level vroom" as "gods" which would solve the problem of the hard-coded 11s in the code and make for a fun message for top-level members.

    - tye        

      Yeah, this is pretty much what I had in mind, I think I would have ramped up a touch harder on the top three or four levels, but I wouldn't go further than mentioning the fact. Given the choice id take this grading over Petruchio's although I think his names are better than yours ;-)

      Thanks for that,


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


      I'm partial to the 2nd edition rules for druid class level advancement that required a druid with enough xp to level-up to find, challenge and defeat a druid of the level he/she wished to advance to. Frankly, I'm disappointed that this system is not in use here, but then, this is perlmonks, not perldruids. I don't remember if such a system applied to monk levels, but I wouldn't be surprised.

      R*


      --Solo

      --
      You said you wanted to be around when I made a mistake; well, this could be it, sweetheart.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://402487]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-12-18 01:28 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (41 votes), past polls