My progression gone, again

Let my say that is unfair that a person looses his/her progression to the next level when a machine is retired.

0xEA31

Comments

  • It's actually fair if you think about it. That makes everyone lose points, so this makes it posible for anyone new to become the top 1.

    buckko

  • You are talking about the hall of fame. I'm talking about the progression toward a new level. This morning I was "91% towards Hacker" now I'm "62.2% towards Hacker". And lost (again) the change to level up for a matter of minutes.

    0xEA31

  • @0xEA31 said:
    Let my say that is unfair that a person looses his/her progression to the next level when a machine is retired.

    So would it be fair if say, you reach Guru rank and then you stop doing machines. 20 new machines come out and you haven't done a single one, yet you're still ranked Guru. That would be fair as well?

    likwidsec

  • @likwidsec: yes, To me, a guru is a guru even if she/he stops doing machines. As football teams do not give their cups back when they stop winning, neither a guru should be called "script kiddie" just because she/he run out of time.

    But, as far as I understood (please correct me if I'm wrong) here at hackthebox.eu when you level up you don't loose your level (even if all the machine you have hacked are retired). How simply fall down in the ranking. That's correct (and fair).

    But if I keep loosing my progression to the next level I may manage to hack all the machine as a "forever script kiddie" (yes, I am really slow). Quite strange to me.

    0xEA31

  • I guess I should rip up my OSCP cert seeing as I havent been in the PWK labs for so long now too...

  • Hall of fame should work that way, but NOT rank progression IMHO. Skill HAS been demonstrated by the time players reach each rank hasn't it? Regardless of a week or two away from the lab?

  • The overall difficulty of boxes changes overtime. If you were a guru at the start of HTB, it doesn't mean you still could do 90% of the boxes in todays terms. The rankings are not certification, it's more-so a measurement of skill and activity in the labs.

    While it isn't ideal for everyone and can hurt motivation, I think it is still a great system. There are ways for people to flag themselves as "Looking for Job", and companies can filter by rank. Never downgrading ranks, would mean a lot of inactive accounts would show up when searching for specific skill levels.

    If you don't like that explanation, think about it this way. The environment is constantly changing. The rank title is the percentage the person knows about the current environment. Do you think it would be fair for a person to be labeled as "Guru" if they only know 20% of the active machines?

    Simply put there are a lot more benefits to having titles reflect what is active. As time goes on, you'll be able to pop the boxes quicker and progress in the ranks.

  • edited October 2017

    once you are guru you stay guru
    once you are pro hacker you stay pro hacker
    progression to next level is lost though as boxes come out and I feel your pain - Im in the same boat

    BUT current progression is based on % of completed ACTIVE boxes
    what alternative do you see ?
    to have it based on progression of all boxes ?
    then anyone joining wont be able to get to guru without going vip as he/she wont have access to old boxes.

    I gave it some thought in the past as with 0.6% missing to elite hacker I had to stop htb for a while and once Im back it will be so much harder to get there .... but I struggled to think of better alternative.

    If you can think of a solution that would satisfy you put it here and lets discuss it.

    Saying 'dont take my progress away' is not enough - read on how progress works, think it through and then suggest alternative.
    If its a good one I'm sure admins will consider.

    sajkox

  • @ippsec said:

    The overall difficulty of boxes changes overtime. If you were a guru at the start of HTB, it doesn't mean you still could do 90% of the boxes in todays terms. The rankings are not certification, it's more-so a measurement of skill and activity in the labs.

    Fair point, I can see that.

    I suggest maybe a schedule could be published each week, showing which are gonna be the next 5 retired boxes, and in what order. I really think that will help people plan for the order in which they attack the ACTIVE lab boxes.

    @sajkox said:

    Saying 'dont take my progress away' is not enough - read on how progress works, think it through and then suggest alternative.
    If its a good one I'm sure admins will consider.

    Another good point.
    IMHO implementing a scheduled system of retiring the old boxes, should nullify the feeling of surprise frustration in loosing progression by giving people a chance to plan how they want to try and level up without affecting the fairness for everyone else as described in this thread.

  • lets be fair, it already improved in that regards :)
    we do now at least a week ahead what box is going to retire.
    I might be wrong but I think boxes are submitted by community and evaluated by the team. Box to retire is picked up to keep the platform balanced (I think) so it kind of depends on what is in the queue.
    But its all just my thinking, I don't know exactly how things work behind ...

    sajkox

  • edited October 2017

    A simple suggestion: after a machine is retired, progression (not ranking) should be kept for a fixed time (1 week?). If in this time a user submit another solution, her/his fixed time starts again.

    Ratio:
    An active user will have infinite "safe time" to level up as far as she/he can prove his proficiency solving other machines in a fixed time (1 week).

    An inactive user and/or an active user unable to solve other machines, looses the progression after a fixed time (1 week).

    0xEA31

  • edited October 2017

    "read on how progress works" he said ...
    did you read the formula for current logic ?
    go to your profile and click on little 'i' icon to see it.
    (edit or see it here for example: https://www.hackthebox.eu/home/users/points/1491)
    then combine it together with what you just suggested and put it into words again or graph ... whatever.
    I think it would be unnecessarily complex.

    Additionally your suggestion could be gamed to progress higher while avoiding difficult boxes.
    I.e. in my case I needed 0.6% to get to elite but with my knowledge and available time I couldn't do any of tough ones before new box got released. And this new one wasn't as difficult ... with your suggestion in place it would allow me to get Elite hacker title while never owning required 70% ... I don't think it would be fair to those who got this title in the past as it would completely change the meaning of given rank.

    i.e. the way it is now, Guru could be explained as someone who at any point had over 90% of ownership.
    How would you describe the rank with your logic applied ?

    Unless you suggest to replace current system all together :)
    But then I personally prefer it the way it is.
    Still opened for ideas though.

    sajkox

  • Everything could be gamed (or hacked). We are here because we believe that we can game (or hack) things. :smiley:

    May be that I miss something, but... you are saying that the key difference to level up is time. I thought that the key difference was knowledge :blush:

    Anyway, not a big issue. Unfair, but not a big issue.

    0xEA31

  • In order to calculate points, the base points are multiplied by the owned % as you can see on the point breakdown. Meaning that if members dont loose owned % when a machine is retired, they have competitive advantage over new members and this is something we dont want. That is why ownership % also drops.

    Ch4p

Sign In to comment.