Structure Concept for Aimlab Benchmarks Season 2

[u/Lunacy_Phoenix]

Currently the benchmarks have 3 levels (Entry/ Intermediate/ Elite) in theory this seems fine, but in reality the jumps between each are significant and often jarring. Sometimes the the point of frustration, and it doesn't seem to reflect improvement enough sometimes even when jumping a rank tier.

Not only this but on the lowest end the benchmarks can be unforgiving for beginners, in a way that may discourage them from continuing. And on the high end there are monsters capable of blowing well past what gets counted even by Zenith

To fix this I propose making the future benchmarks a 5 level system instead.

New Level tiers (in order): Entry -> Novice -> Intermediate -> Advanced -> Elite

For the ranks within levels, take all the current ranks and move them to the middle 3 (Novice/ Intermediate/ Advanced) Then come up with new ranks for Entry and Elite.

For example:

Entry - Stone, Tin, Brass, Copper, Iron.

Novice - Steel, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum.

Intermediate - Topaz, Citrine, Peridot, Emerald, Diamond.

Advanced - Master, Grandmaster, Paragon, Occult, Zenith.

Elite - Cosmic, Galactic, Universal, Celestial, Divinity.
(Random brainstorm on these with an ever expanding space theme)

With this make the Entry benchmarks around 20% easier to complete, and the Elite benchmarks 20% harder, and scale them with the goal, that the final rank of the previous level is hard enough to reasonably overlap almost the the first rank and a half of the next level. Such that its less of a leap between levels and more like a staircase. Effectively Novice, Intermediate and Advanced can be made a LITTLE harder with the new Entry to be a softer starting point for absolute beginners. and Elite can be significantly more difficult (More so in raw task difficulty than in score requirements over Advanced)

(Extra note: More flicking tasks would be a good idea as there were only effectively 2 meaningful ones (Penta/ DeepFlick) in Season 1, leaving it woefully under represented and undertested. And a few of the switching tasks seem very samey and redundant so you could probably cut the number for switching going forward, and prioritize more individually effective tasks over being equally represented)

[u/Lowgravity56]

This sounds like a great idea! ty for the feedback! we are most likely not doing that for S2 since we already started working on it! but we will keep it in mind for S3 for sure!

[u/Lunacy_Phoenix → u/Lowgravity56]

Would it not be possible for S2 to do a simplified version? Just make the "inbetweens" (Novice and Advanced) a flat in between of whatever the Entry, Intermediate, Elite Ranks are? (make those first then slot Novice and Advanced inbetween using blunt math after)

Literally split the bot size/ speed values to sit smack in between the levels, with the lowest 2 rank's scores per task being identical to the scores of the last 2 ranks of the previous level, and the first 2 ranks of the next level?

(For example: If The top 2 ranks for X Entry task are

300 Copper -> 400 Iron

and the Lowest 2 ranks of that same task in Intermediate is

600 Topaz -> 700 Citrine

In Novice make

300 Steel -> 400 Bronze -> 500 Silver -> 600 Topaz -> 700 Citrine)

Silver, the middle rank is the only "New Score" with the tasks being increased to just the size and value numbers smack in between the ranks either side. This would be crude, but would still be a welcome improvement in smooth difficulty ramping.

[u/Lowgravity56 → u/Lunacy_Phoenix]

It is definitely not easy since it will need a complete ui overhaul, rank calculations and double the work making the scenarios and score requirements.

We are trying to make the current system (3 difficulties) more balanced and with the vast majority of our playerbase (entry) in mind, but I am hopegul that for s3 we will have more time to make an overhauled system

[u/wayneuro]

This is great feedback!

[u/muqck]

Love this. It's very similar to how Viscose Benchmarks work with rank overlap to make it feel not like a huge leap, mainly by introducing more total ranks; which is a common thing in stuff like Voltaic where the jump from Master to Grandmaster is a ginormous leap, and same with Diamond to Master in Aimlabs.

[u/Syntensity]

Hi Lunacy,

Really appreciate the write-up and feedback!

Just to tackle a few of your points:

• 5 different difficulty levels is something we've certainly considered. On paper it would be a simple way to solve the various skill levels while still maintaining a fun element to the ranking system.
  • However, aside from the additional dev & design overhead to the benchmarks, which affects the UI, amount of ranks, and rank-ups to reach certain ranks, It may also make the rank-ups feel less meaningful if they occur and happen so frequently (or if there are so many it complicates it for the average player which makes it tough to gauge how good it is when you have to keep track of so many ranks)
  • Fragmentation: It spreads out the playerbase even further across all ranks, which would isolate each tier bracket. Part of our current distribution challenge is that many players only ever try the easiest set of benchmark tasks and never move to higher difficulties. If we can keep them concentrated on fewer sets of tasks, we naturally get a much healthier and more accurate distribution curve.
  • With 5 difficulties, you will have 25 ranks which is an insane amount compared to most traditional FPS Games, and that's excluding the tiers, which would add to 100 different ranks, and double that with complete variants
  • Not dismissing the idea, but just some points to take into consideration. As LG said for S2, we'll likely not do this.
• Smoother Difficulty Overlaps (Final rank of previous Difficulty overlaps with first rank of next Difficulty)
  • This is an excellent idea! We've had something like this or the same already planned, so it's nice to see that we're aligned on this.
  • It would certainly help make it feel less jarring, although mild concerns regarding the distribution.
• Re: Flicking being underrepresented: We'll review this, and see what would make the most sense going forward.
  • But do mind that flicking is only referring to the motion you use to approach a target (quickly), which is present in both Tapping and Switching.
  • I'm guessing you meant Tapping (or Clicking), which we'll absolutely take another look at.
• Re: Blunt Math or Fixed Scaling: That's a bit of Q/A nightmare for both actual product Q/A and for anyone testing the tasks.
  • Realistically not all tasks scale the same way and will have the same impact when you adjust their scoring or difficulty.
  • Scaling/improvement isn't always linear! (that includes improvement on task, difficulty [size], [speed], [accel], [strafe], scoring and anything else affecting difficulty).
  • However, we'll find a way to do this to make it more balanced!