Leaderboard Cut-Off: Discussion

[AL]

p.s Go on Jimmy White ! UP YOURS Tommi !!!


heh...heh.....

AL

[Zwaxy]

Just a moment - what was I thinking?

Almost anyone can get 1st place on at least a few games. Hell, even I have a few 1st place recordings and I hardly ever play any MAME games.

With the proposed 'olympic' scheme, as soon as I have any 1st place recordings at all, all my other recordings become irrelevant other than in deciding whether I'm above or below people with the same number of 1st places as me.

When the leaderboard started in the very beginning, all it counted was the number of 1st place scores each player had. Barry suggested we should award 2nd and 3rd places as well, so we started giving 10 pts for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd place. Then it got more complicated, with the 15% decay, and points given based on the percentage of the top score achieved.

The 'olympic' scheme is almost exactly a return to the very first leaderboard, where we just count the number of first places. Other places will only be used to settle tied places, which won't happen much towards the top of the table anyway.

Do we want to return to a system where only the top score really counts for anything?

(This is getting boring now...)

[The TJT]

Cheers for Jimmy...first win in 12 years!

I was very sure Hunter would take the title, he really was playing great before... didn't play as well as expected in the final, many easy mistakes.
Maybe he didn't follow hes "plan B" for relaxation, hehe.

At Worldchamps, Hunter could be tough man to beat now...

Anyways, nice to see an old gun to fire...

TJT
You must start wearing helmet now

[Weehawk]

Do we want to return to a system where only the top score really counts for anything?

If I understand this method correctly a member with a single first place score (and no others, or the rest crap) would be above a member who had several hundred second place scores, but no firsts. Is that the way we would want it?

Yes, why not? If he's capable of getting several hundred 2nd place scores then surely with a little more effort he can get a single 1st place score. He will then jump over all the other people with a single 1st place score and less 2nd place scores.

It's Easter, not April Fool's Day, but I feel like I'm getting a joke played on me.

[MrBunny]

So it seems if two individuals are tied with one first place score each, it will be the member with 4182 twelfth place finishes who does better than the member with 4181 twelfth place finishes. Yes, that will certainly discourage uploading of worthless scores.

[The TJT]

What if you don't have any 12th place scores

[Zwaxy]

So it seems if two individuals are tied with one first place score each, it will be the member with 4182 twelfth place finishes who does better than the member with 4181 twelfth place finishes. Yes, that will certainly discourage uploading of worthless scores.

That's missing the point. It will discourage uploading of 4181 or 4182 12th place scores, because a single 11th place score is worth more than a million 12th place scores.

It goes further than this - any score which isn't a 1st place score is almost worthless, and is only used when settling ties between people with the same number of first place scores.

It's Easter, not April Fool's Day, but I feel like I'm getting a joke played on me.

Yes. Ahem. Sorry about that... Please wait while I try to catch up with you.

I like the 'olympic' system because:

1) it discourages worthless uploads. they gain the uploader nothing unless all his uploads are equally worthless

2) it allows competition at all levels. my friend and I can both be newcomers to MARP and can compete with each other to see who can get furthest up the leaderboard even if neither of us is able to get a 7th (or 5th, or 3rd) place score.

I dislike it because:

1) it makes anything but 1st place scores almost worthless as soon as a player has a reasonable number of 1st place scores.

2) buttermaker said he likes it. (only kidding!)

[Buttermaker]

It's also nice because it encourages people to improve their existing scores. If you have a lot of 2nd places for example you might wanna spend a little more time with those games whereas right now it might not be worth it.

That improves the quality of MARP's recordings, players and competition.

2) buttermaker said he likes it. (only kidding!)

I knew I should have kept quiet.

[mahlemiut]

2) buttermaker said he likes it. (only kidding!)

[LordGaz]

I dislike it because:

1) it makes anything but 1st place scores almost worthless as soon as a player has a reasonable number of 1st place scores.

That's the way it should be. When I first joined MARP I only uploaded first place scores. Inps other than 1st are almost worthless. For me, other placed inps are only looked at if I can't get the top one to play back.

Gaz.

[Weehawk]

I dislike it because:

1) it makes anything but 1st place scores almost worthless as soon as a player has a reasonable number of 1st place scores.

That's the way it should be. When I first joined MARP I only uploaded first place scores. Inps other than 1st are almost worthless. For me, other placed inps are only looked at if I can't get the top one to play back.

Gaz.

And yet you tried to cast a late vote for not having any cutoff for the awarding of leaderboard points.