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
The TJT
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Post by The TJT » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:05 am

Show me a player with 0 1st and 800 2nd places then....

User avatar
Barthax
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:13 pm
Contact:

Post by Barthax » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:52 am

I voted "no" as there is no option for 'disband leaderboard'. Note: people will still be curious as to how many people have firsts, etc, but I see no need in calling it a "Leaderboard" as the "contest" is across a very uneven playing field. To put it in unrealistic but simple terms: a brilliant Gauntlet player would easily beat a brilliant 005 player. In the cases of the tournaments held, a Leaderboard is very appropriate, so the work put into the leaderboard script(s) is not lost.

Also, if you are going to have a table which indicates who has what number of places / percentage, why not have multiple views to satisfy everyone? The percentage gains for the alphabet uploaders, the olympic style for those seeking perfection & I can just ignore the lot. :D

Who has the best position for Mahjong games? (Who cares!) ... but it could be built in.

Rat
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 8:49 am
Contact:

Post by Rat » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:16 pm

I think the current system is fine.

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

Post by Francois Daniel » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:30 pm

Rat wrote:I think the current system is fine.
And if you vote No, that don't mean the current system will be stay, but change in a very bad and elitist system.

CAUTION for all those who vote. Read all the topics. This poll is not for pass to Olympic System or Stay with the current system. It's a poll for pass to Olympic System or Change the LeaderBoard's point system.

Francois

LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm
Contact:

Post by LN2 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:32 pm

The TJT wrote:Show me a player with 0 1st and 800 2nd places then....
I know with that simple kind of system I likely wouldn't submit many 2nd and 3rd place scores which still might be great replays and of value for some to watch.

Also, for some games where you know you likely can't get the top score, or don't care to do a semi-marathon to reach the top score, no one else will likely even bother submitting scores for that game again.

I still can't believe the total 180 from the step #1 poll.

We have gone from wanting a point system or a possible cut-off after 3rd, 5th or 7th place to a system where first place is really about all that matters.

The simple 10-3-1 system is 100 times superior to this 1-0-0 system.

The only time second or third places mean anything under this proposed simple system is for breaking ties...oh wow....quite rare near the top of the leaderboard.

Yeah, someone else gets 3.3+ million at pac-man entering one of the top 10 scores of all time set on the game and 2nd place at MARP and they get essentially NOTHING for that on the leaderboard.

Here, let me get great at space invaders so I can get a cheap 30-40+ first place scores just from that 1 game and it's tons of clones.

Whoever also masters that game but has second place for them all won't get squat.

Please guys, let's at least be reasonable here and in the simplest extreme at least use the 10-3-1 system.

User avatar
tar
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 9:25 am
Location: ohio u.s.a.

Post by tar » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:41 pm

LN2
The simple 10-3-1 system is 100 times superior to this 1-0-0 system.
yes

LN2
Please guys, let's at least be reasonable here and in the simplest extreme at least use the 10-3-1 system.
YES

is there a fillibuster option ?

LN2?
what can we do
yesterday i voted for number 2 option .
[img]file:///C:/WINDOWS/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/CDIJ2LMJ/cache%5B3%5D.jpg[/img]

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

Post by Buttermaker » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:20 pm

tar wrote: [img]file:///C:/WINDOWS/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/CDIJ2LMJ/cache%5B3%5D.jpg[/img]
Unfortunately we can't access your hard disk.

User avatar
QRS
Editor
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:33 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by QRS » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:47 pm

If the public wants this system, the public will get it. Nothing more to argue about. Right now it looks like a nice change from my personal point of view, but I may be proven wrong. Maybe we all are to conservative here? It can be nice with a change and time will tell if it really is a good system or not.

If it will be proven to be worse than before, and the public wants to change it back or inprove it further, there is nothing that will stop that either (After discussion and new votes of course). Just give it some time so we can see its advantages/disadvantges in action so to speak. Maybe a few months ->1 year?

The world will not end and afterall it is just a leaderboard right? :P

And yes, It looks quite clear to me wich system that will win :)
QRS

User avatar
SprintGod
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Over there
Contact:

Post by SprintGod » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:51 pm

LN2 wrote:I know with that simple kind of system I likely wouldn't submit many 2nd and 3rd place scores which still might be great replays and of value for some to watch.
I considered submitting a 2nd place score once, but decided that I'd be unable to live with myself.
LN2 wrote:Also, for some games where you know you likely can't get the top score, or don't care to do a semi-marathon to reach the top score, no one else will likely even bother submitting scores for that game again.
The London Marathon is on Sunday. I think I might watch it.
LN2 wrote:I still can't believe the total 180 from the step #1 poll.
Total 180... that sounds like a snowboarding move or something.
LN2 wrote:We have gone from wanting a point system or a possible cut-off after 3rd, 5th or 7th place to a system where first place is really about all that matters.
You mean 'we' as in you and everyone else? Ah! So you want this system too! Have a smiley! :)
LN2 wrote:The simple 10-3-1 system is 100 times superior to this 1-0-0 system.
This is an opinion, not a fact. Facts are things like "I ate a full pack of jaffa cakes last night".
LN2 wrote:The only time second or third places mean anything under this proposed simple system is for breaking ties...oh wow....quite rare near the top of the leaderboard.
I don't wear ties.
LN2 wrote:Yeah, someone else gets 3.3+ million at pac-man entering one of the top 10 scores of all time set on the game and 2nd place at MARP and they get essentially NOTHING for that on the leaderboard.
How about self-satisfaction? Sigh... it is a sad, sad world when people won't do something for nothing...
LN2 wrote:Here, let me get great at space invaders so I can get a cheap 30-40+ first place scores just from that 1 game and it's tons of clones.
Whatever happened to Dolly the sheep anyway?
LN2 wrote:Whoever also masters that game but has second place for them all won't get squat.
Squatting benefits the gluteus maximus, abductors, adductors, hamstrings and quadriceps. I don't see what that's got to do with MARP though.
LN2 wrote:Please guys, let's at least be reasonable here and in the simplest extreme at least use the 10-3-1 system.
Is it teatime yet?
Gavin Ward

User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2481
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:28 pm

QRS wrote:If the public wants this system, the public will get it
"MARP is a self-regulating community"
QRS wrote:Right now it looks like a nice change from my personal point of view, but I may be proven wrong.
It's certainly not the system I would have chosen, but it would eliminate the evils I feel emanate from the current leaderboard.
QRS wrote:If it will be proven to be worse than before, and the public wants to change it back or inprove it further, there is nothing that will stop that either
True.
QRS wrote:Maybe a few months ->1 year?
Let's schedule for 8 months and 17 days from today. :wink:
QRS wrote:The world will not end and afterall it is just a leaderboard right?
=D>
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image

User avatar
MrBunny
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 4:32 pm

Post by MrBunny » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:02 pm

Looks like I move up the board, so I would say Yes, but I want to see more than just me submit to the games I have 1st place on, and Olympic system would probably not be very conducive to 2nd and 3rd place uploads anymore.

User avatar
SprintGod
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Over there
Contact:

Post by SprintGod » Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:34 pm

hmm... I still haven't said anything constructive in this topic...

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if improving your leaderboard position is the only reason for submitting a recording then it shouldn't be submitted at all.
Similarly, just because a recording does not improve your leaderboard position doesn't mean that you should not submit it.
The leaderboard is not MARP, it is nothing more than a tool for tracking players in relation to each other.

You all know that I'm right, and anyone who says otherwise is a complete berk. :D
Gavin Ward

User avatar
***PL***
Editor
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 9:37 pm

Post by ***PL*** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:40 pm

This new LB trend is most disturbing. It is not representative of the MARP community or interests of MARP. Not a care for the "little guy" for not finishing first! If you want to be elitist then submit only 1st place INPs to TG.

The position that a simple majority 50.01% changes the leaderboard is wrong. And furthermore, to flip around results from Poll #1 and completely ignore Polls 1 & 2 to quickly "end the issue" is ludicrous!

You haven't expanded on the results of Poll #2, which by the way was 53%, so YES we are sharply divided there.

You haven't even thought about various techniques people use. Players that only look at recording #1 don't care about techniques or learning from other lower scoring replays. This is a recording repository, not a friggin' 1st place scoreboard.

Heck, why don't we move all 2nd - 99th place INPs to deleted? That is what you are proposing with 1-0-0 scoring.

You haven't considered other scoring systems, OR even entertained Olympic related ones such as medal type scoring (1-1-1).

What a shame! Sad days ahead for sure :(

User avatar
DaviL
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Italy

Post by DaviL » Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:51 pm

I hate 1-0-0 olympic scoring.
Yes, I can have a better position on leadership but I don't care. Most of people play and send inp for fun. Ok, no points for low scores, but the idea of points only for position 1 really sucks.
Do you want an elite site ?
Well, this can be the death of Marp.

User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2481
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:27 pm

Pat wrote:This new LB trend is most disturbing. It is not representative of the MARP community or interests of MARP
8O
It is however, the MARP community making this decision.

As I've said (several times) before, it's not the system I would have chosen.
Pat wrote:The position that a simple majority 50.01% changes the leaderboard is wrong.
How so?
Pat wrote:And furthermore, to flip around results from Poll #1 and completely ignore Polls 1 & 2 to quickly "end the issue" is ludicrous!
8O
I'm gonna have to start repeating myself here:
Weehawk wrote:
*** PL *** wrote:This vote is simply for a 1-0-0 scoring system. I find it highly ironic that Poll #1 results show only 24% of MARPers wanted LB scoring based solely by place, which is exactly what this is.
in the last discussion Weehawk wrote:Anyway, the community has already voted for a system where points are scaled relative to a score's percentage of the first place score, which this system just now proposed would not be in accordance with.

Unless overruled by Zwaxy, I am going to proceed with the results so far.
in response Zwaxy wrote:That vote was for "Do you prefer that the awarding of leaderboard points for a submission be based on percentage of the high score, or solely on place number?". The newly 'SprintGod' system proposes that we don't award leaderboard points at all, but merely sort by number of 1st places, then number of 2nd places, then number of 3rd places. This isn't a point based system, and nothing like it had been proposed at the time of the first poll. The first poll assumed we would be awarding leaderboard points. The community hasn't voted on whether we should award points or not.
And so we are voting. I thought we would get it out of the way and resume the process. I honestly did not think this would pass when I started it. I thought it would get off to a fast start like the last poll and wind up losing by the end of the week.

Now I'm begnning to think it will pass. I find this turn of develpoments a bit stunning, but it's the community's decision.
You haven't even thought about various techniques people use.
Who is "you"? If me, then how dare you presume to know what I've thought about. You're being "ludicrous" now.
This is a recording repository, not a friggin' 1st place scoreboard.
Well, now you're making sense. It's not a tenth place scoreboard either.
Pat wrote:Heck, why don't we move all 2nd - 99th place INPs to deleted?
You just answered that.
That is what you are proposing with 1-0-0 scoring.
:D
Now you're being ludicrous again.
Pat wrote:You haven't considered other scoring systems
You haven't been paying attention.
Pat wrote:What a shame! Sad days ahead for sure
For people who think there is no reason to participate at MARP except for the leaderboard, yep.
:-({|=
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image

Post Reply