SOKOBAN

Compromise: maintain tables 1 and 2, expand tables 3 and 4, add table 5. Table 3 gets two new columns: R3b=R1a, R3c=R3a/R3b. In table 4 new column R4b=R2a and current column R4b becomes R4c=R4a/R4b. Table 5 is entirely new, summarizes all aspects and contains one column R5a. Formula for R5a can be based on positions (my initial idea) or values (MnLsDad). How about that?

Maybe the words of "List of Champions" on the homepage should be replace to something else. Cause the word "champions" is not quite right in there. That's bothering you, right, me too. "most levels solved" could be more accurate.

My opinion, (table 1) a "finding a solution in general" is very important, it shows how "many" levels you can solve from this site, and should not be removed. At least ask (take a poll) from those who's solved triple as many as you guys. Persons who are played well is different matter.

to MnLsDad (about overall champions): Don't know if 2*R3+1*R4 (on base of values) is a more objective standard than formula on base of positions. It partly depends on maintaining current tables or integrating them to new. If admin agrees on integrating, I'd support your summary-idea.

to MnLsDad (about combining tables): I see what you mean. However, integrating tables would mean that some players in current R1 would no longer appear in new R3R1. Same for new R4R2. Choosing is loosing... but I tend to agree on your choice.

To Admin1: A few other random ideas. It might be fun to "fly" each player's flag next to his name. Could you add the date a player joined to his personal page? Can the "comments" for a puzzle be highlighted if comments exist or indicated numerically i.e. comments(5)? Can the logged in player's name be highlighted on each list (puzzles, collections, rankings)? Could a player's rankings be displayed on the personal page even if he's outside the top 30? And - just for silliness factor - could you calculate each player's total moves? And, thank you for all of your hard work in maintaining the site.

to MnLsDad: thanks for detailed explanation.

To Arnold & Admin1: Tables/Rating 1 & 3 both display a player's success at finding ANY solution. The points system in R3 includes puzzle complexity. I suggest these two be combined into only one rating based on points. The first line would read Player: Labuxiere; Points(Gen): 843.8, Levels: 10,030, Avg Pts/Lvl: 0.084. Second, the same for tables/rating 2 & 4 which both display a player's ability to find the shortest solution: First line = Player: Jormawitick; Points(1st Pl): 2172.6; Levels: 3772; Avg Pts/Lev: 0.58; Win Ratio (%) 39.7 If you wish to see an overall champion I'd suggest just adding the points - with some factor to determine a balance between finishing and winning. Is it best to complete many puzzles -OR- find shortest solutions? Some players seem to favor finding the shortest, but others seem happy to find any solution. If you'd like to weight those factors equally, the ranking could be averaged and Jormawitick would tie Labuxiere. -OR- Add the points with the equation Points(Gen)x2 + Points(1st Pl) = Overall points - which would put Jormawitick in 1st place with 3731 followed by Labuxiere at 3288. I use 2 as a multiplier to put the two quantities - any solution vs shortest solution - on a roughly equal level.

to MnLsDad: I don't understand all of your suggestions. You mean switching table 1 and 3 (as well as 2 and 4)? Adding a column to current table 3 with average points seems a good idea to me. I suppose you suggest this formula: general points/completed levels?

to admin1: I made a mistake in my last message to you, so please ignore it. Of course all factors in your formula must be positions, none of them values (and lowest outcome is highest average).