This is the last chance for members who we have not heard from yet to voice their opinion. I am concerned that this decision is being made by such a small subset of the membership, but we cannot reach through the Internet and pull it from you by force.[/size]
This thread started barely 36 hours ago, so if you're truly looking for some opinions on this issue, I think more time is likely going to be required. My guess is that the average MARPer isn't here every single day - especially on weekdays for those in the working world - so if you really want meaningful discussion, it may take some time.
Or more time may not elicit any more opinions - who knows.
I think maybe a different perspective may be helpful. I've been around MARP for 5 or so years and was part of many of the early tournaments. I've left and returned a few times. I consider myself an average player, if even that. I'd love to spend more time MAMEing and MARPing, but life and job interfere for significant periods of time.
Many of the responses to this issue seem to be of the "screw 'em if they're not great players" variety. I can tell you from the perspective of an "average" gamer that this perspective sounds pretty elitist. Perhaps that is the intention. I realize that the rules state that only impressive, etc., scores should be uploaded, but not everyone is capable of spending 8 hours a day playing games and perfecting their skills. Those "casual" gamers may be just as interested in participating in MARP as the die-hards.
So, the issue basically boils down to this: who do you want to be involved in MARP? If you want only the elite gamers, then pursuing the top-3-or-nothing type scoring systems makes sense, because it's going to cause a significant number of "average" gamers to become disinterested in MARP. If you want to maintain the interest of those people who don't live or die MARP, then a little flexibility makes better sense.
That being said, I'll address your proposals. First, correct me if I'm wrong, but the MARP leaderboard is already a combination of props 1 & 2. The total points represents #1 and the leaderboard points also displayed (but not used in the ranking) represents #2. So, essentially, a vote for #1 or #2 is a vote for the status quo, with #2 merely being a change in the way the data is sorted.
Prop 3: I think top 3 is too restrictive. Again, if you're looking for the elite, it's ideal because that's what you'll get. If you want to keep everyone else interested and contributing, top 5, 7, or even 10 makes more sense.
Prop 4: See Prop 3.
Prop 5: See Prop 3. Prop 5 works if you want to keep average gamers interested and submitting.
Prop 6: Essentially a simplified Prop 4. I like this one, as well.
My preference is Prop 6, followed by Prop 5 & 4, respectively. Prop 6 seems a lot easier to implement, but 4-5-6 all offer a better system for those who want to limit the number of "fluff" uploads.
Prop 6 would also eliminate the current issue of one person getting 100 pts for a world record score and second place (albeit far behind #1) getting 3 pts or whatever. I think the current system could discourage people from playing/submitting a game with an astronomical 1st place score for exactly that reason.
I wish that more people had/would voice opinions on this issue, because it would be nice to see what more people think, especially those outside the core die-hard group of forum members. (No offense!)
Maybe - if possible - you could give the members the ability to decide which method they want to see individually. Then, those of you who want to only include the top 3 scorers in the point totals could do so. The rest of us who don't have a lot of top 3 scores, but would still like to contribute/participate in MARP, could see how we rate using a more flexible range of scoring options.
Edit: one last thought - I agree with the poster in the other thread that said that MARP wouldn't have anywhere near the submissions it has were it not for the leaderboard. People are naturally competitive and are drawn to sites like this for that reason and that reason alone.
leaderboard.
