Leaderboard Cut-Off: Discussion

Discussion about MARP's regulation play

Moderator: BBH

Leaderboard Cut-Off: Discussion

Postby Weehawk » Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:05 pm

It was even closer than I thought it would be, but the majority has voted in favor of cutting off leaderboard points after a certain place or score or something.

Most of the previous discussion has talked about simply awarding no leaderboard point below 3rd or 5th place, but otherwise using the same formula in effect now.

Should I simply start a vote for those two options or is there another idea worthy of support?

Discussion please.
John Cunningham (JTC)
Image
User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
 
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon

Re: Leaderboard Cut-Off: Discussion

Postby Mr. Kelly R. Flewin » Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:58 pm

Weehawk wrote:It was even closer than I thought it would be, but the majority has voted in favor of cutting off leaderboard points after a certain place or score or something.

Most of the previous discussion has talked about simply awarding no leaderboard point below 3rd or 5th place, but otherwise using the same formula in effect now.

Should I simply start a vote for those two options or is there another idea worthy of support?

Discussion please.



Well there AS prior discussion in the last thread about the options being a bit misleading... so that may be why everything was so close... but 1 vote from a deadlock.. wow...

But what I don't like about this proposal is the fact that there's a lot of games where the first 3-5 spots are really high... virtually having to master the game... this means if any player submits.. even if they come close to it, but just falls short.. they get no reward for their efforts... which I might point out, is VERY discouraging.

It's sad this poll and discussion even had to occur... I honestly figured removing the ABC uploaders would've been a lot easier, as there was only a few and they were quite obvious. [Regretfully most of the JVRM players... though there are a few good ones, like Sawys, who actually upload quality scores not worth 2 points]

Ah well... cut off at 7th place does seem reasonable... gives people a decent chance to actually get something if they fall short of godliness in some games [1942 comes to mind immediately.. or Wonderboy in Monsterland, which I do wonder if it should be split into 2 categories... one for normal completion and one for leeching completion... or if leeching should be outright banned..... but that's another thought for another day]

Well that's my 23 cents...


Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Just a gaming junkie looking for his next High Score fix.
User avatar
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow

Postby MrBunny » Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:52 pm

I would suggest a 7th place cut-off also.
User avatar
MrBunny
Button Masher
Button Masher
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 4:32 pm

Postby Buttermaker » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:32 pm

Cut-off after 3rd place is the only way to go.

Buttermaker wrote:
Proposition 4

Current formula (see Proposition 3) but cutting off after 5th place so that anything after 5th place gets 0

Not good. Too many chances for ABCers to get LB points.


Proposition 5

Places get percentage of score scaled down by a subtracted 15% for each place, that is:

1st place gets 100 pts
2nd place gets (percentage of first place score) * .85
3rd place gets (percentage of first place score) * .70
4th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .55
5th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .40
6th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .25
7th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .10

anything below 7th place gets 0


Zwaxy wrote:In time every game will have 7 decent scores for it, and the ABC uploaders will give up. Are we willing to wait for that?

No. Just think about the 100 (yes, 100) Atari clones added in a recent version. There are way too many games/clones in MAME for MARP to have 7 decent scores even for a fraction of all games. I also want those inps to not even get uploaded in the first place.

There are 4877 games in MAME .81u4 and more are getting added each week.

Cut-off after 5 would be bad. Cut-off after 7 is absolutely ridiculous.
Buttermaker
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 8:06 am

Postby Frankie » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:53 pm

MrBunny wrote:I would suggest a 7th place cut-off also.


I agree on this.
Frankie
Frankie
Editor
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:16 pm
Location: Denmark

Postby DaviL » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:11 pm

MrBunny wrote:
I would suggest a 7th place cut-off also.


I agree too.
User avatar
DaviL
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 6:16 pm
Location: Italy

Postby boxster » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:16 pm

I think 7th is a good cutoff.

There's really no point in stopping at 3rd, as the leaderboard already does that for one of the calculations.

Top 5 would probably be ok as well, but top 7 provides more room for submissions on popular games.

The super seven. :)
boxster
Button Masher
Button Masher
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 7:57 pm

Postby Chad » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:20 pm

7 isn't horrible, note when ties occur it would be the super 8 or super 9 or super 100 :)

** actually that would only happen if all 8 or 9 people tie 1rst i think, so that's good and rare enough, and then it would be time to archive it perhaps if it's that easy.
-skito
User avatar
Chad
Tournament Coordinator
 
Posts: 4463
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 3:15 pm
Location: calif

Postby diabolik » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:45 pm

I agree with Buttermaker on this one. Cut-off after 7th place is a bad idea. Cut-off after 3rd would be ideal. After 5th - not so good, but I would still be happy with it.
User avatar
diabolik
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:48 pm
Location: Finland

Postby Zwaxy » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:14 pm

Buttermaker wrote:Cut-off after 3rd place is the only way to go.

There are 4877 games in MAME .81u4 and more are getting added each week.

Cut-off after 5 would be bad. Cut-off after 7 is absolutely ridiculous.


Ridiculous in what way? I would be in favour of what was, I think, called proposition 5 - where:

1st place gets 100 pts
2nd place gets (percentage of first place score) * .85
3rd place gets (percentage of first place score) * .70
4th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .55
5th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .40
6th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .25
7th place gets (percentage of first place score) * .10
and anything below 7th place gets 0

It seems a lot of other people are in favour of 7 places getting points. Why limit it to 3? That makes the leaderboard out of bounds to the majority of players on each game. I really don't see what is to be gained by creating such an elitist atmosphere on the site.
User avatar
Zwaxy
MARP Founder
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:17 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby QRS » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:49 pm

Zwaxy wrote:It seems a lot of other people are in favour of 7 places getting points. Why limit it to 3? That makes the leaderboard out of bounds to the majority of players on each game. I really don't see what is to be gained by creating such an elitist atmosphere on the site.


I fully agree. I vote for a cut-off at 7th place.
QRS
User avatar
QRS
Editor
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:33 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby zlk » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:57 pm

It should be like the Olympics: if you do worse than 3rd place, you go home empty handed.
zlk
MARPaltunnel Wrists
MARPaltunnel Wrists
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 11:41 pm

Postby Buttermaker » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:13 pm

Zwaxy wrote:Ridiculous in what way?

Buttermaker wrote:
Buttermaker wrote:
Zwaxy wrote:In time every game will have 7 decent scores for it, and the ABC uploaders will give up. Are we willing to wait for that?

No. Just think about the 100 (yes, 100) Atari clones added in a recent version. There are way too many games/clones in MAME for MARP to have 7 decent scores even for a fraction of all games. I also want those inps to not even get uploaded in the first place.


Why limit it to 3? That makes the leaderboard out of bounds to the majority of players on each game.

Wrong.
Buttermaker wrote:There are 4877 games in MAME .81u4 and more are getting added each week.



Zwaxy wrote:I really don't see what is to be gained by creating such an elitist atmosphere on the site.

This has never been about elitism.


Weehawk wrote:My main concern however, is that it gives points (however few) to so many contestants that there is an incentive for members to upload recordings of little or no interest to the community, just for the sake of leaderboard points. (In violation of MARP Rule #2)
l) Submit only games that you feel are worthy of the notice of other MARPers, owing either to personal effort, or display of skill.



Buttermaker wrote:
LN2 wrote:Maybe they don't get that from the Olympics, but if you have an athlete from a country that only is able to send a few to the Olympics and that person gets 4th place they will likely be a hero in their home country....and get awards, metals etc. Just participating is often enough...

You just proved my point. If you have a great recording on 4th place you will be a hero (hehe) whether you get leaderboard points for it or not. Great recordings come to MARP because they're great and not because the uploader wants to move up the leaderboard.
Buttermaker
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 8:06 am

Re: Leaderboard Cut-Off: Discussion

Postby The TJT » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:26 pm

Weehawk wrote:.

Most of the previous discussion has talked about simply awarding no leaderboard point below 3rd or 5th place, but otherwise using the same formula in effect now.



Meaning that using 100% -85% -70% etc?

There was lots of discussion about changing those percents too...

for example 100-50-20
or
100-60-30-20-10

I don't like 100-85-70, because first place is something that should be rewarded, imho.


Otherwise I'm for giving only top 3 lb points(maybe top 5), if can not reach top3..then no pity points :) There are so many games to get at top 3places anyway.
Giving points for best 7 with currentformula would not change much, so many games there.

Will we have vote about cutoff point first, then vote about percentages awarded?

Thanks, TJT
User avatar
The TJT
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Postby DRN » Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:26 am

5th or 7th place cutoff is fine, preferably 5th.
Darren
User avatar
DRN
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:37 am
Location: Somerset, UK

Next

Return to Regulation Play

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron