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: 2473
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Post by The TJT » Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:09 am

Zwaxy wrote:I was curious to see what the leaderboard would look like using this 'olympic style' system, so I wrote a script to work it out.

The script currently updates a text-only version of the leaderboard every 15 minutes. You can see it here:

http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt

Comments?
As I see it, this system DOES move quality players up and quantity down.

Here are some "winners" of the new system:

Destructor 14 to 6
Novice 19 to 5
Caseh 42 to 17
Skito 55 to 36
Davil 60 to 23
Mike Myers 78 to 39
Moreno-DFG@team brazil 79 to 42
retro-b.jp 83 to 32 (100%)
gavin ward 89 to 40
zek@team2ch 95 to 24
Don Hayes 123 to 74

I myself would be rising from 35 to 13, and would be separated only by few first place scores from the top10...There might be a real battle to get into top10 because some very close positions near top10. I find that motivating and exciting.

I assume this applies to more middle range lb positions also, better players do get little up.
It also seems that at middle range lb-positions there will be MUCH more competition with this system....getting from position 60 to 30 is only 10 number one scores!!!!!
So I don't see this killing the competition, but making it more alive.

Who is to say these players do not deserve to rise up rankings? How can Novice rise from 19 up at current system, if he wants to have high-standard inps...without submitting many so-so 2nd or 3rd place scores. Or same with many players who want to submit good scores instead of many so-so scores. Maybe some of these high-risers don't have many 2nd or 3rd place scores...BUT many of these players have GREAT first place scores, they are not only playing for a first place, but are submitting first place score that is in class of it's own.
So you can see that these guys could have gotten MASSES of 2nd 3rd place scores with same effort they put in their stunning 1st place score.

Some "losers" at the suggested system:

Frankie 3 to 27
Timmykins 9 to 43
Kelly Flewin 20 to 84

All these 3 players have quite many 2nd place scores, little unfair for them to go down so much....But why not play a little more of those 2nd and 3rd place score-games...as the competition is tight in the middle of the new system, they should be able to rise higher very soon again...if they add just a little more quality to their 2nd place recordings.
Shame they made so much "unworthy" scores also...but I assume they did have fun doing it. (not that others had fun watching them, hehehe :oops: )Wouldn't it be more fun to play lesser games and get first places on games you really like?...not playing only for lb points.

Game guru 24 to 113 (avg 10.1)
OZZ 52 to 147 (avg 23.9)
Mickey 57 to 238 (2-16-28-277. avg 14.8.)

These are "typical" quantity uploaders. Hope I don't offend you, but I'm not sure if they really should be so high at leaderboard.

Er commissario monnezza(vaz, long time away from marp now)
56 to 294 :lol: (1-6-51-567...avg. 7.7)
Sawys@jvrm 199 to 426
Wonder@jvrm 45 to 175
dave kaupp 66 to 204
.
.
.
.
There are few of these kind of downgoers...
I feel sorry for you. Do you think you should be high at leaderboard?
Are proud of all your inps?

----
So in all I think this system would make more competition, and would also have more to do with reflecting skills of a player.

I hope I did not offend anyone, these were just examples of changes at lb position, I did look at the number of 2nd and 3rd places. I did not look at players gamelist itself, where a 5th place can be a good score, or 1st place can be between easy and excellent.

TJT

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

Post by Buttermaker » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:12 am

SprintGod wrote::D
I take my hat off to the saviour of MARP.

Wait a second, I don't have a hat...

boxster
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 8:57 pm

Post by boxster » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:25 am

LN2 wrote:I view the leaderboard as the players who have CONTRIBUTED the most to MARP. This doesn't mean the top listed ones are necessarily the best players, but that they have overall contributed more.

...To list the 10 first places above someone on the leaderboard with 9-50-50 is ridiculous.

That system would seem to also discourage many from even bothering competing for a game unless they can beat the top score.
You nailed it, LN2. Someone who submits 20 .inps for 5 unique games and their clones would be rated higher than someone with 19 1sts and 500 other submissions, even if all of those other submissions are in the top 3, 5, 7, whatever.

We should reward people for contributing to MARP and not just if they're #1. As you stated, getting rid of the leaderboard will no doubt discourage a lot of people from submitting anything but #1s.

Is that what we really want? Maybe to many people it is. It's the ultimate form of the elitist attitude that has been discussed in the other related threads.

User avatar
Blost
MARP Serf
MARP Serf
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 4:37 pm
Location: France

Post by Blost » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:39 am

Zwaxy wrote:I was curious to see what the leaderboard would look like using this 'olympic style' system, so I wrote a script to work it out.

The script currently updates a text-only version of the leaderboard every 15 minutes. You can see it here:

http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt

Comments?
Could you do the same with the clones removed?

User avatar
The TJT
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2473
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Post by The TJT » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:49 am

Boxter, I see the point. But there could be endlessly arguments and counter-arguments....Why not improve those not 1st place scores a little and get them up to 1sts....Do you upload other than 1st place scores only because of leaderboard...At other games 1st place is as difficult to get as other 10th place etc...
None system is perfect.

Blost,
Hmm, I wonder what my position would be without clones then :P
...But games that have many clones are many times classic games, where it's not easy to get 1st places..

User avatar
Chad
Tournament Coordinator
Posts: 4463
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 3:15 pm
Location: calif

Post by Chad » Mon Apr 12, 2004 12:35 pm

The TJT wrote: Hmm, I wonder what my position would be without clones then :P
...But games that have many clones are many times classic games, where it's not easy to get 1st places..
I like the cloneless Olympic system, only firsts 2nd 3rds in the parrent count. yeah there are tougher clones but i mean if you can get first in the parent, no matter how hard the clone is you can proly get first as well (err i.e. pheonix :) that system doesn't quite eliminate the mahjongg games but it's better than counting the clones for judging true grit (although not maybe inp "contribution")
-skito

boxster
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 8:57 pm

Post by boxster » Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:05 pm

The TJT wrote:Do you upload other than 1st place scores only because of leaderboard...
Yes. So does just about everyone else, I'd argue. There are exceptions to that, but looking at the top 100, nearly everyone submits much more than just 1st place recordings.

Why? Leaderboard points, obviously. Kill the leaderboard and you kill the PRIMARY motivation for most MARP uploads.

As I've said before, this discussion is at its base about what everyone wants MARP to be. If you want the involvement of only the best of the best, getting rid of the leaderboard will certainly accomplish that goal.

As someone else noted, we don't have a lot of participation in MARP the way it is. Eliminate the main reason most people submit recordings in the first place, and you'll cut down the participation even further.

Edit: typo

User avatar
SprintGod
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Over there
Contact:

Post by SprintGod » Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:26 pm

:D
Gavin Ward

User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2529
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk » Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:00 pm

boxster wrote:Why? Leaderboard points, obviously. Kill the leaderboard and you kill the PRIMARY motivation for most MARP uploads.
8O
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image

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

Post by Francois Daniel » Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:20 pm

Chad wrote: I like the cloneless Olympic system, only firsts 2nd 3rds in the parrent count. yeah there are tougher clones but i mean if you can get first in the parent, no matter how hard the clone is you can proly get first as well (err i.e. pheonix :) that system doesn't quite eliminate the mahjongg games but it's better than counting the clones for judging true grit (although not maybe inp "contribution")
I agreed for a cloneless Olyimpci system except for some games where clone is clearly not the same game than the parent, like Bermuda Triangle and World Wars.

Francois

User avatar
***PL***
Editor
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 9:37 pm

Post by ***PL*** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:24 pm

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.

It should be considered that Poll #2 was flawed and its results may have been evenly split because, voting for item #1 contained proposals for BOTH placement AND percentage scoring...
Points should only be awarded to a given number of places for each game, or should be cut off if the points awarded falls below a certain threshold.
My point is that an incorrect assumption has been made that places is the way to go, and somehow this is not what people voted for in Poll #1. Before deciding anything, you really should continue from Poll #2.

Pat

User avatar
SprintGod
Button Masher
Button Masher
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Over there
Contact:

Post by SprintGod » Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:51 pm

:D
Gavin Ward

User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2529
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk » Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:15 pm

*** 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.
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image

User avatar
Dax
MARP Serf
MARP Serf
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:03 am
Location: Aloof

Post by Dax » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:13 am

Wow I always miss the craziest shit when Im away for a bit.

So let me get this straight: Hypothetically a player with NO 1st places, 800 2nd places and 800 3rd places would be ranked what? LAST?!?!?

What a great system. :? Sign me up for that one. :x

User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2529
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:40 am

Dax wrote:So let me get this straight: Hypothetically a player with NO 1st places, 800 2nd places and 800 3rd places would be ranked what? LAST?!?!?
Not at all. He would currently be 400th out of 837.

If he added a single first, he would move up to 290th.
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image

Post Reply