Debate for WCC4 rules

Week Challenge Championship board

Moderator: NotMan

wuzel
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Poland - Lodz
Contact:

Post by wuzel » Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:26 am

destructor wrote:Look scores from wcc3:

Destructor ........ (27) 492600
Zteuer .............. (19) 414160
Dax .................. (19) 355640
Wuzel ............... (18 ) 358760
Nanni ................ (18 ) 345760
Exs .................... (18 ) 339620

Anybody use leeching on stage 1.
ofcures nobody use leeching nethod while recording 4 WCC3 but who is gonna protect MARP against leeching scores at fastlane 4 leaderboard??
no leeching 4 this game!!!!!! and 4 blasted also ;)
It's good 2 be here with U guys :)

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

Post by LN2 » Mon Nov 03, 2003 2:50 pm

this is hard to define for fastlane...cuz what if someone just leeches an extra 5-10k each stage...and ends it.

It's a very subjective call then whether they are leeching or not.

All you can do really is zero out obvious leeching cases where someone does amass tons more points per stage versus what someone just playing through the stages amasses.

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

Post by Dax » Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:53 pm

LN2 wrote: It's a very subjective call then whether they are leeching or not.
I draw the line just like its quoted in the rules. If the game has no special rules then the leeching becomes excessive if points can be gained in such a way that it becomes indefinate with little or no risk of dying. So if I stick to this mantra then the leeching in fastlane was acceptable. (Although I will always honor the boards wishes) Not only was there always a risk of dying when trying to leech but the level became more difficult the longer it was done. Plus this difficulty transferred to each successive level make it more difficult to progress further.

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

Post by LN2 » Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:11 pm

The subjective part in what you just quoted is the "risk of dying".

How risky prolonging a stage is where 1 player might find it quite risky cuz they tried it but suck at the game so can't do it...while others will find it only a minimal additional risk.

The fact you can get in stages 1-2 the points someone playing the game "normally" gets in 15-20 stages, I would find that as unacceptable leeching even if there is some element of risk playing stages 1 and 2 that long.

Also what I said was subjective is a gray area...someone getting 10k per stage ending stages almost as quickly as possible isn't going to be questioned for leeching. Someone staying on a stage for a long time getting 300k in 2 stages that normally would take around 15-20 stages without question is leeching.

The subjective part comes in between those 2. What if you can play through 2 stages and have 25k in points...yet another player has 30-40k after 2 stages? Now stretch that out over 15-20 stages and it adds up. You reach stage 25. They reach only stage 22 but have 50k more in points.

City Connection is another great example of this...although more clear....as the risk really increases beyond a certain time if you continue to try and leech in the stage instead of completing it. However, there is the ability to complete a stage scoring only 25k or score 100+k without much of a difference in risk the first couple of stages. Once you get past the first 4-5 stages the stages become difficult enough where the risk is high enough you pretty much have to work toward completing the stage.

It would be nearly impossible to know if the extra points they got each stage were just because they actually aren't as skilled in completing each stage so takes them a bit longer...thus more points to complete it...or if they were intentionally delaying completion a little bit to leech a little bit out of each stage.

That's the part I am saying even with special rules for banning leeching you have this very gray area for this game which at some point would lead to a debate and disagreement among players over what is _excessive_ leeching versus acceptable leeching or leeching with an acceptable level of risk of dying where it's ok to even excessively leech on a level.

SJK
MARP Serf
MARP Serf
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 11:28 am

Post by SJK » Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:28 am

To quote myself from a post in a different topic
SJK wrote:
Weehawk wrote:
Phil wrote:WCC4 will be back next year, and with some adjustments in the rules (for example each round could give first ranking points after 3 days (also rewarded by 10-7-5-3-2-1), then second ranking points at the end of 7th day as usual ... it would avoid last minute submission).
To debate later ....
How about a single bonus point per day to the highest inp submitted that day. (For a potential total of 7), That would give players some incentive to submit their best recording each day and penalize pretty seriously anyone who waits until the last day to upload anything.
what about the score which is in #1 of the day.. and not the best score uploaded on the day?
wouldn't this be better cause you wouldn't get people just uploading right at the end of the 4th night and again on the 7th?
- Smraedis

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

Post by LN2 » Tue Nov 04, 2003 11:03 am

That kind of system seems to award those that would have time to play the game each day and submit a score for it.

If someone else only has time on a couple nights that week then they are missing out on many of the available points that week.

That doesn't seem right.

I think all would announce their scores...just some don't want their inp available for free download and viewing by others...which then makes it much easier for them to beat their score.

For some games this really doesn't matter....but for other games...like a few used this past time have patterns, I wouldn't want someone watching my inp and just running the same patterns to get near or exceed my score.

That's a really cheap way to get a higher score IMHO.

However, I think it's good for the competition if everyone knows what the best score by others are for that week at all times. This could just be done via forum posts.


....or perhaps intentionally upload a crappy inp...but enter your best score to that point...then as you improve on it edit that score...then wait and upload the actual inp for it the last day or something.

That might be a nice compromise for some.

To have inps each day or 2 days during the week etc. just makes it that many more inps to review.

The ref(s) would have to be available each and every day to download all submitted inps just at the deadline since submitting new ones for the following day would replace the score of the previous day's runs.

All of that adds up to a big PITA IMHO.

User avatar
Weehawk
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2537
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:43 am
Location: Devil's Canyon
Contact:

Post by Weehawk » Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:45 pm

LN2 wrote:That kind of system seems to award those that would have time to play the game each day and submit a score for it.

If someone else only has time on a couple nights that week then they are missing out on many of the available points that week.

That doesn't seem right.
Yeah, that idea was just off the top of my head.

After a couple of comments like this I will agree that a bonus point each day awarded to the highest score thus far would be a better idea. This would encourage early play, but not penalize those who cannot play every day so severely, and would make the administrator's job much easier.

But I still feel that this is much better than doing one set of awards mid-week and one at the end.

Example scenario: Player "C" uploads the best recording on Day 1, and stays the best so far through Day 6. Then on Day 7, players "A" and "B" who had not previously uploaded submit first and second place scores, leaving player "C" in third.

Total points for the week:

Player "C"..........11 points (6 daily bonuses + 5 for 3rd place)
Player "A"...........10 points (first place)
Player "B"...........7 points (second place)

In this scenario, players "A" and "B" did not come out ahead by hiding their play, and that is what most members seem to want in order to make the competition as interesting as possible.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.
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 Nov 04, 2003 11:20 pm

Weehawk wrote:After a couple of comments like this I will agree that a bonus point each day awarded to the highest score thus far would be a better idea. This would encourage early play, but not penalize those who cannot play every day so severely, and would make the administrator's job much easier.

But I still feel that this is much better than doing one set of awards mid-week and one at the end.

Example scenario: Player "C" uploads the best recording on Day 1, and stays the best so far through Day 6. Then on Day 7, players "A" and "B" who had not previously uploaded submit first and second place scores, leaving player "C" in third.

Total points for the week:

Player "C"..........11 points (6 daily bonuses + 5 for 3rd place)
Player "A"...........10 points (first place)
Player "B"...........7 points (second place)

In this scenario, players "A" and "B" did not come out ahead by hiding their play, and that is what most members seem to want in order to make the competition as interesting as possible.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

I think this sounds like a good idea. It would definately solve the problem of hiding. It should also stir up more interest day to day, as there would always be points up for grabs on a daily basis.

I led fastlane and quantum up until the last day. And led many days in other games like uballoon and blasted. I would have stood more of a chance as would have others players had we been using this system. Of coarse things would have been different since no one would be hiding. But hey, thats what we're trying to solve here.

This method has my vote if a better one isn't suggested.

User avatar
destructor
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1969
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 9:38 am
Location: Poland

Post by destructor » Wed Nov 05, 2003 5:41 am

If the score has to depend from the quantity of free time and not from skills then for me this is without sense.
Example with player A,B,C is only theoretical. Player C never will be first if he has less time to play(in spite that there are the best skills). He only show his best method. And at end of round he will be on last position with 0 points.

User avatar
LordGaz
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:07 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by LordGaz » Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:40 am

destructor wrote:If the score has to depend from the quantity of free time and not from skills then for me this is without sense.
Players with more free time have an advantage anyway.

User avatar
destructor
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1969
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 9:38 am
Location: Poland

Post by destructor » Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:00 am

LordGaz wrote:
destructor wrote:If the score has to depend from the quantity of free time and not from skills then for me this is without sense.
Players with more free time have an advantage anyway.
In this situation the change of rules does not to make sense because it would give only additional advantages for players having more time. That is for players which have advantege already.

Post Reply