06-24-2005, 04:55 PM
I was thinking of some weird esoteric scoring system today, after seeing how many of us have a sickening number of characters in WoW. I myself have around 13, but that's nothing compared to some others I've seen.
But merely having 20 characters all around level 10 means little. Sure, it's 200 levels of characters, but that's no comparison to having 3 level 60's. 180 < 200, so that doesn't show the true level of play.
So, how could one have a scoring system to determine which of us is in dire need of WoW A (Wowcolics Anonymous)?
(disclaimer: this is all in good fun. This is not meant to be an "I'm-more-uber-than-you" contest, and anyone treating it as such needs help. Seriously.
I was thinking of scoring things like so:
Levels 02-09: 1 point per level. Level 1 doesn't count!
Levels 10-19: 2 points per level.
Levels 20-29: 3 points per level.
Levels 30-39: 4 points per level.
Levels 40-49: 5 points per level.
Levels 50-59: 6 points per level.
Level 60 : 10 points.
It's difficult to score because level 60 throws things out of whack. You could have a level 60 that JUST got there vs a level 60 that's spent ages playing the game, running raids, etc. I'm not sure how you could fairly score time played at 60, since some people get more out of their playing time than others. Maybe point rewards for the time investment to kill Onyxia or run Molten Core would be in order, I don't know. A flat reward for level 60 does not accurately define time spent at 60, so suggestions welcome!
So, a character that is level 20 will score 8 points for levels 2-9, 20 points for levels 10-19, and 3 points for level 20, for a total of 31 points.
A character that is level 30 will score 8 points for levels 2-9, 20 points for levels 10-19, 30 points for levels 20-29, and 4 points for level 30, for a total of 62 points.
A character that is level 40 will have a total of 103 points.
A character that is level 50 will have a total of 154 points.
A character that is level 60 will have a total of 218 points.
By this system, a level 60 is worth far more than three level 20's (218 vs 92 points), as it should be.
What would be your overall point total under this system?
I currently have the following characters around, not counting ones I've deleted:
60, 38, 26, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 18, 10, 6, 6.
This would give me a total of 218 + 98 + 49 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 26 + 10 + 5 + 5 = 659 points. If I factor in characters I've deleted, I'd have another level 35 and another 20 at least, giving me another 86 + 31 points for a total of 776. By this system, that would mean that I could have three level 60's by now if I had concentrated only on three characters. Is that true?
I have 8 level 20's. I know for my first character, not taking advantage of rest state and untwinked but for some bags, it took 20 hours to get to 20 and 241 to get to 60. Now, with rest state advantages and small cash twinkages, it takes me just 13-14 hours to get to 20. It's hard to tell by pure time investment if I could have a full three 60's, but I could most certainly have 2 and be well on my way to the third, if that. Having a level 20 character isn't much, but having eight of them is a significant time chunk which needs to be reflected point-wise.
Anyway, this is all for fun, remember, but who scores the highest with this system? Or, if you have ideas on a better scoring system, how would you work it? This system highly punishes one-character players due to its lack of scores for achievements post-60, and rewards alt play. How would you structure points for post-60 achievements that accurately reflect time investment compared to, say, going from level 1 to 59 (which is 208 points)? Compare the time investment to do these activities compared to time investment when leveling up to assign fair point values.
Third disclaimer: this is all for fun! If you feel inferior/superior to someone else based on these point values, seek medical attention!
-Bolty
But merely having 20 characters all around level 10 means little. Sure, it's 200 levels of characters, but that's no comparison to having 3 level 60's. 180 < 200, so that doesn't show the true level of play.
So, how could one have a scoring system to determine which of us is in dire need of WoW A (Wowcolics Anonymous)?
(disclaimer: this is all in good fun. This is not meant to be an "I'm-more-uber-than-you" contest, and anyone treating it as such needs help. Seriously.
I was thinking of scoring things like so:
Levels 02-09: 1 point per level. Level 1 doesn't count!
Levels 10-19: 2 points per level.
Levels 20-29: 3 points per level.
Levels 30-39: 4 points per level.
Levels 40-49: 5 points per level.
Levels 50-59: 6 points per level.
Level 60 : 10 points.
It's difficult to score because level 60 throws things out of whack. You could have a level 60 that JUST got there vs a level 60 that's spent ages playing the game, running raids, etc. I'm not sure how you could fairly score time played at 60, since some people get more out of their playing time than others. Maybe point rewards for the time investment to kill Onyxia or run Molten Core would be in order, I don't know. A flat reward for level 60 does not accurately define time spent at 60, so suggestions welcome!
So, a character that is level 20 will score 8 points for levels 2-9, 20 points for levels 10-19, and 3 points for level 20, for a total of 31 points.
A character that is level 30 will score 8 points for levels 2-9, 20 points for levels 10-19, 30 points for levels 20-29, and 4 points for level 30, for a total of 62 points.
A character that is level 40 will have a total of 103 points.
A character that is level 50 will have a total of 154 points.
A character that is level 60 will have a total of 218 points.
By this system, a level 60 is worth far more than three level 20's (218 vs 92 points), as it should be.
What would be your overall point total under this system?
I currently have the following characters around, not counting ones I've deleted:
60, 38, 26, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 18, 10, 6, 6.
This would give me a total of 218 + 98 + 49 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 31 + 26 + 10 + 5 + 5 = 659 points. If I factor in characters I've deleted, I'd have another level 35 and another 20 at least, giving me another 86 + 31 points for a total of 776. By this system, that would mean that I could have three level 60's by now if I had concentrated only on three characters. Is that true?
I have 8 level 20's. I know for my first character, not taking advantage of rest state and untwinked but for some bags, it took 20 hours to get to 20 and 241 to get to 60. Now, with rest state advantages and small cash twinkages, it takes me just 13-14 hours to get to 20. It's hard to tell by pure time investment if I could have a full three 60's, but I could most certainly have 2 and be well on my way to the third, if that. Having a level 20 character isn't much, but having eight of them is a significant time chunk which needs to be reflected point-wise.
Anyway, this is all for fun, remember, but who scores the highest with this system? Or, if you have ideas on a better scoring system, how would you work it? This system highly punishes one-character players due to its lack of scores for achievements post-60, and rewards alt play. How would you structure points for post-60 achievements that accurately reflect time investment compared to, say, going from level 1 to 59 (which is 208 points)? Compare the time investment to do these activities compared to time investment when leveling up to assign fair point values.
Third disclaimer: this is all for fun! If you feel inferior/superior to someone else based on these point values, seek medical attention!
-Bolty
Quote:Considering the mods here are generally liberals who seem to have a soft spot for fascism and white supremacy (despite them saying otherwise), me being perma-banned at some point is probably not out of the question.