Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:05 am
Show me a player with 0 1st and 800 2nd places then....
Forums for MARP
And if you vote No, that don't mean the current system will be stay, but change in a very bad and elitist system.Rat wrote:I think the current system is fine.
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.The TJT wrote:Show me a player with 0 1st and 800 2nd places then....
yesThe simple 10-3-1 system is 100 times superior to this 1-0-0 system.
YESPlease guys, let's at least be reasonable here and in the simplest extreme at least use the 10-3-1 system.
Unfortunately we can't access your hard disk.tar wrote: [img]file:///C:/WINDOWS/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/CDIJ2LMJ/cache%5B3%5D.jpg[/img]
I considered submitting a 2nd place score once, but decided that I'd be unable to live with myself.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.
The London Marathon is on Sunday. I think I might watch it.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.
Total 180... that sounds like a snowboarding move or something.LN2 wrote:I still can't believe the total 180 from the step #1 poll.
You mean 'we' as in you and everyone else? Ah! So you want this system too! Have a smiley!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.
This is an opinion, not a fact. Facts are things like "I ate a full pack of jaffa cakes last night".LN2 wrote:The simple 10-3-1 system is 100 times superior to this 1-0-0 system.
I don't wear ties.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.
How about self-satisfaction? Sigh... it is a sad, sad world when people won't do something for nothing...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.
Whatever happened to Dolly the sheep anyway?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.
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:Whoever also masters that game but has second place for them all won't get squat.
Is it teatime yet?LN2 wrote:Please guys, let's at least be reasonable here and in the simplest extreme at least use the 10-3-1 system.
"MARP is a self-regulating community"QRS wrote:If the public wants this system, the public will get it
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:Right now it looks like a nice change from my personal point of view, but I may be proven wrong.
True.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
Let's schedule for 8 months and 17 days from today.QRS wrote:Maybe a few months ->1 year?
QRS wrote:The world will not end and afterall it is just a leaderboard right?
Pat wrote:This new LB trend is most disturbing. It is not representative of the MARP community or interests of MARP
How so?Pat wrote:The position that a simple majority 50.01% changes the leaderboard is wrong.
Pat wrote:And furthermore, to flip around results from Poll #1 and completely ignore Polls 1 & 2 to quickly "end the issue" is ludicrous!
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.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.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.
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.
Who is "you"? If me, then how dare you presume to know what I've thought about. You're being "ludicrous" now.You haven't even thought about various techniques people use.
Well, now you're making sense. It's not a tenth place scoreboard either.This is a recording repository, not a friggin' 1st place scoreboard.
You just answered that.Pat wrote: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 been paying attention.Pat wrote:You haven't considered other scoring systems
For people who think there is no reason to participate at MARP except for the leaderboard, yep.Pat wrote:What a shame! Sad days ahead for sure