New Olympic-Standings style leaderboard

Discussion about MARP's regulation play

Moderator: BBH

Do you want a leaderboard in which members are ranked by first place recordings first, then by second places, etc..etc..?

Poll ended at Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:27 pm

Yes, let's settle this whole issure by implementing this simple system.
32
60%
No, lets continue with the process of deciding how leaderboard points are allocated.
21
40%
 
Total votes: 53

User avatar
Francois Daniel
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 8:11 am

Post by Francois Daniel »

Barthax wrote:1-1-1 structured (example at http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt )
A) 2-0-0
B) 1-0-1
C) 0-1-1
D) 0-0-0
No Olympic System as described in the llink give :
A) 2-0-0-0
B) 1-0-1-0
C) 0-1-1-0
D) 0-0-0-2

It's not the same because all places below 3rd are counted.

Beside I've think of another system :

Points will be given by the number of record for a game.
Exemples :
Game A (only 1 record)
Player 1 : 1 point

Game B (3 records)
Player 1 : 3 points
Player 2 : 2 points
Player 3 : 1 point

Game C (25 records)
Player 1 : 25 points
Player 2 : 24 points
Player 3 : 23 points
---
Player 25 : 1 point

Advantages :
- Popular games give more points (its harder to have 1st place in popular games)
- little scores will be always in the last positions, give only few points.
- It's no score-related. A very high score (as those of the great guys of Team2ch) don't kill competition on these games
- All scores will be counted
- New games grant only few points for the speed guys who want to have 100 points with little effort in the current system.

Inconvenients :
It's possible and strange to gain points without make anything because someone post a new score lower than mine.
It don't kill ABCuploaders (me ?) even if it lowered the interest to post little scores for points

Remember, the perfect system don't exist.

Maybe I missed something, but I haven't see a topic for suggest LB systems. Strange when we want to make a major change.

Any comments for my system are welcomed :)

Francois
User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk »

Francois wrote:Beside I've think of another system :

Points will be given by the number of record for a game.
An interesting notion, but would be subject to manipulation.

People could delete records to take points from others, submit recordings under different names to boost their own, etc...
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image
wuzel
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Poland - Lodz
Contact:

Post by wuzel »

SprintGod wrote:
Dax wrote:PL and LN2 are highly respected here.
This would be incredibly hilarious if I didn't know you were being serious.
MJS wrote:To sum up: I don't give a sh#t about the leaderboard!
Nor do quite a few people, it seems. I'm curious... perhaps we should have a poll entitled "Do you give a damn what happens to the leaderboard", or something to that effect. :D
yes it a public forum yes everyone can put his opinion in there but i m young with marp but i know how to behave
this 22 posts users cant be taken seriously i think
It's good 2 be here with U guys :)
User avatar
Francois Daniel
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 8:11 am

Post by Francois Daniel »

Weehawk wrote:An interesting notion, but would be subject to manipulation.

People could delete records to take points from others, submit recordings under different names to boost their own, etc...
Good point. I haven't think to that.

Francois
Buttermaker
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 9:06 am

Post by Buttermaker »

Francois Daniel wrote:Maybe I missed something, but I haven't see a topic for suggest LB systems.
Just scroll down a little in the regulation play forum. There are a couple of threads.
User avatar
Barthax
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:13 pm
Contact:

Post by Barthax »

Barthax wrote:1-1-1 structured (example at http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt )
A) 2-0-0
B) 1-0-1
C) 0-1-1
D) 0-0-0
Francois Daniel wrote:No Olympic System as described in the llink give :
A) 2-0-0-0
B) 1-0-1-0
C) 0-1-1-0
D) 0-0-0-2
Barthax wrote: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 earlier posting explained better. I left out the gory details for brevity. :)
User avatar
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:59 am
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow

Post by Mr. Kelly R. Flewin »

BBH wrote:The logical step is to implement ALL of them and give each player the choice of making whatever style they want to be their "default" leaderboard. But people are opposed to this too because they think it's not going to accomplish anything in terms of ranking players? Hello, none of these systems are perfect for truly proving the skill of players!

I've kept to the shadows on this one, not wishing to comment, but I must admit BBH, your idea does come as a solid, well thought out and logical idea and I do agree... implement them all! Short of us all going to some arcade in some part of the world and having it out in an all out Winner takes all tournament... on a variety of games... your statement of imperfect systems is quite correct.

Heck, implementing different systems might even increase activity at MARP in general if different players have different things to work for. There are a lot less recordings being uploaded these days, activity is way down... I don't foresee the olympic system singlehandedly solving this problem at all.
I also agree... it'd be a refreshing change and that could very well be what could jump start things again. I mean I've even lost the interest/fever I had a while back.. it's still there.. but it's floundering... it is sad to check the uploads site twice a day and only see maybe 2-3 new recordings in a day... sometimes 4 or so in 2-3 days!

And the other thing that strikes me as well, is how it took so long for any news of these polls to go on the front page [Thank you Zwaxy for taking matters into your own hands and doing what should've been done from the beginning]... I wonder if this poll would even exist if the first ever poll was mentioned on the front page and hence, alerted everyone to its existence in time to vote.


Kelly
Just a gaming junkie looking for his next High Score fix.
User avatar
Phil Lamat
Regulation Coordinator
Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 9:19 am

Post by Phil Lamat »

What about a cutoff for number of pages concerning leaderboard discussions ?
User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk »

Phil Lamat wrote:What about a cutoff for number of pages concerning leaderboard discussions ?
Should I start a discussion on it?

:wink:
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image
LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm

Post by LN2 »

I wonder how many voted for option #1 in this poll as a way to say let's end the leaderboard discussions and see this "simple" thing as a way out...even if it's not what they ideally would want.

This poll might have quite different results more following the step #1 and 2 polls if the following options were made instead:


1) I want an Olympic style leaderboard.

2) I want to continue to strive toward a revamped percentage or place points system.

3) I want it all to end....NOW


This poll lists options 1 and 3 together. Half or more of those voting for #1 might really be saying just the above listed #3.

I think out of all if this it seems most don't care enough about the leaderboard to care what it has really. Those that do care seem to lean toward something close to the current point system or the 10-3-1 type system also shown on the leaderboard.

Maybe we should just let this all die for now and just play some freaking games.

MARP is about participation. It's not about just being a world record type scoreboard which to me seems what an Olympic style leaderboard is suggesting....since any average gamer wouldn't be able to advance up the leaderboard much at all just from participating.
User avatar
Barthax
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:13 pm
Contact:

Post by Barthax »

How about a poll which states all the options - including "I want more than one leaderboard", "I don't want a leaderboard" and "I abstain from such frivolities".
User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk »

Well Zwaxy, the community has spoken.

It's up to you now.
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image
lippsman
MARP Serf
MARP Serf
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:29 pm
Location: Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Post by lippsman »

The sad thing is the actual number of votes. Maybe the lack of votes is a vote for none of the above.

Louie
User avatar
The TJT
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2479
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Post by The TJT »

That must be most votes in marp history though :)
User avatar
The TJT
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2479
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Post by The TJT »

Zwaxy, maybe you want to still keep 10-3-1 points shown also. It's nice to click 2nd or 3rd places of a player and get list straight away.


WRX2 should not be shown, they're a team (who like to play space invaders :>)

TJT
Post Reply