Hmmm... there appears to be no cohesive reflection on the different 'leaderboard' options that are being mentioned.
To present what I hope to be something cohesive, here are the options that have been banded about most (some logic has been applied to those posts that use very little description):
%-based with no modification (TG system)
%-based with 15% tail-off (MARP's current system)
%-based with 3rd place cut off, no modification
%-based with 3rd place cut off, 15% tail-off
1-0-0
1-1-1 total
1-1-1 structured (example at
http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt )
10-3-1 (badly displayed on the current leaderboard)
So, four players play the same game and achieve scores of A) 100, B) 90, B) 80 and C) 70. Under the above systems, they would gain the following leaderboard points:
%-based with no modification
A) 100
B) 90
C) 80
D) 70
%-based with 15% tail-off (current system)
A) 100
B) 85
C) 70
D) 55
%-based with 3rd place cut off, no modification
A) 100
B) 90
C) 80
D) 0
%-based with 3rd place cut off, 15% tail-off
A) 100
B) 85
C) 70
D) 0
1-0-0
A) 1
B) 0
C) 0
D) 0
1-1-1 total
A) 1
B) 1
C) 1
D) 0
1-1-1 structured
A) 1-0-0
B) 0-1-0
C) 0-0-1
D) 0-0-0
10-3-1
A) 10
B) 3
C) 1
D) 0
---------------------------
The same four players then play a second game with the same results, the leaderboards would become:
%-based with no modification
A) 200
B) 180
C) 160
D) 140
%-based with 15% tail-off (current system)
A) 200
B) 170
C) 140
D) 110
%-based with 3rd place cut off, no modification
A) 200
B) 180
C) 160
D) 0
%-based with 3rd place cut off, 15% tail-off
A) 200
B) 170
C) 140
D) 0
1-0-0
A) 2
B) 0
C) 0
D) 0
1-1-1 total
A) 2
B) 2
C) 2
D) 0
1-1-1 structured
A) 2-0-0
B) 0-2-0
C) 0-0-2
D) 0-0-0
10-3-1
A) 20
B) 6
C) 2
D) 0
-----------------------------
The 1-1-1 structured doesn't show up too good in the above example, so assume that the same four players are have game-placings as follows:
A) 4-2-2
B) 4-1-3
C) 3-2-2
D) 3-2-3
The table would appear as:
A) 4-2-2
B) 4-1-3
D) 3-2-3
C) 3-2-2
Players A & B have the same number of 1st places, so the placing is decided upon the number of 2nd places. Both A & B have more 1st places than C & D, so they are ahead of C & D. Players C & D have the same number of 1st & 2nd places, so their positions are determined by their 3rd places positions. In the current (semi-live) example,
http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt , all placings are useful when upper placings are tied (scroll down to the bottom to see better). Note that a "1-1-1 structured with 3rd-place cut off" would not show any individual after the 612th place (correct at the time of writing) - anyone without a 1st, 2nd or 3rd placing.
My only conclusion is "1-1-1 structured" is not the same as "%-based with 3rd place cut off, 15% tail-off"... I leave all other conclusions to other people.
