Project Euler Forum

euler wrote:

hk wrote:I still don't see the use of ranks that are unattainable for the next one or two years.

The reason I would still support having currently unattainable ranks is that if/when this system is introduced some members would be instantly transported to the top level. For those that might have enjoyed going through at least one advancement there would be nothing to look forward to. It may even leave some of them feeling that there is nothing left to achieve.

So perhaps the following boundaries are a good compromise in that the top level will be achievable by this time next year. I certainly don't think these gaps are too large, as we are not giving "levels" away and earning one is meant to be an achievement.
Level 1, Tetrahedron, 25-49
Level 2, Cube, 50-99
Level 3, Octahedron, 100-149
Level 4, Dodecahedron, 150-199
Level 5, Icosahedron, 200-249
Level 6, Sphere, 250+

With the additional condition that you are only immortalised once you've solved 100 problems; that is, members will disappear from the level 1+2 tables after 60 days of inactivity.

BjornEdstrom wrote:(..) such as Mathematician or Computer Scientist. Not only would this settle the age old debate (we all know who's the smartest), it'd be fun information when a new problem is posted.