As I see it, this system DOES move quality players up and quantity down.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:
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 )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 (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.