New Olympic-Standings style leaderboard

[sawys]

Hi ! I just contribute in my vote to say NO to the new olympic system !

First :
I think it's not good for the players because when they obtain a lots of 2nd or 3rd place with a difference of 10000 points on the score they made (for a record of 10000000 or more), it's NOT normal that they appear in the leaderboard after the person who made a unique record on one game in the first place. The participation in the life of the Internet page must be rewarded.
When a record is made with the technic of leeching even if it is possible with the game and that you just obtain the 2nd place or 3rd place, the spirit of the gamers is lost.

Second :
Vote yes for this question is annoucing the quest for the place and not for the score.
I explain : I have 1 first place 2 second place and 1 third place.
If another player has 1 first place 2 second place and 2 third place.
My first objective is not to make a 1st place who is very difficult to do but make 2 records on the 3rd place to be better than the other.
Example : for the game nemesuk, the rank is
10 020 000 bandit@Team2ch.jp
364 900 Ken Okamoto
362 700 Alex Weir
It's easier to reach the 2nd and the 3rd place that to beat the 1st place.

Third :
In the actual system I know that if I want to have the most of points, I must make a big score to reach the 1st place.

Fourth :
The system of the points for each place own is good for the motivation of the players in the world. When you are a medium player and that you post a lot of score in MARP, you contribute to make life to the competition even if you are 200th!

Fifth :
I prefer the actual system but I think that the score is not the most important thing to reach and to obtain. And The system of the % of the 1st place is not so good. The points for the places is better.

Sixth :
For me the best gamer is the one who end a game with only one credit and the STAGE reached by a gamer is most important that his score.

The score must do the difference between the champion but the leeching is the shame of the gamer.

I remember the recent post who shows a leeching on a clone of space invader (Space Fever (color) [Game A]- spacefev-a by WRX2)
Ok to make the score honesty but not with this abominate technic. And I wonder why they don't continue after 100000 that is not 100000 but 99999 in the first tour and 00000 in the second.

Finally, I repeat my opposition in this system. I hope that the true gamers will change their mind and vote to make a good option. I think that I won't continue with MARP if the system is changed. I consider myself not as the best player but a good player who wants competition.

I needed to make my opinion for this answer who is the most important of the MARP topic and I apologize for my english that is not so good.

Kiss from France.

[Buttermaker]

I think olympic style will make marp more fun for me. Now I will target the players above me and try to play a few games I hadn't considerred before.

Excellent point. Another plus for the Olympic system.

[LordGaz]

If everybody have their own leaderboard scoring, there actually is no leaderboard, only a way to arrange player list.

Well said.

[LN2]

Quit being so goddamn negative.

What? The only negative posts I have seen in this thread are mainly YOUR posts which attempt to put down each and every person you are corresponding with.

Lighten up.

People will be more inclined to improve their performances for the games that they are best at instead of throwing out average performances for every MAME supported game, because that's the only way that they are going to move up the leaderboard.

In a few cases this very well might happen....which is good.

However, I think in many many more cases the result will be that competition for many games will cease unless the game is used in an even like the Deca or WCC etc.

For example, in February and March I played Ladybug a lot. I got decent at the game...not quite master level but what I would call a good player of the game.

I got where I was satisfied and submitted a score that was only good for 5th place...but still a decent score and earning decent LB points. Especially since I have a mac and play in macmame, it's worthwhile to upload so other macmame users have a replay for ladybug to watch.

If 5th place was worth ZERO, I likely wouldn't have uploaded that score and most likely would have just gotten tired of playing the game and moved on to another game...with no score uploaded.

Most members here I think like playing lots of games, not a few specific ones ad nauseum almost every single day.

There also are many games where the top score is an incredible score that unless you reach an elite level of playing the game is untouchable!

Donkey Kong is another good example here. The top score of 904k by Ben is the second best ever accomplished score for the game. If someone else scores 890k that would be the 3rd best ever score for the game...yet on this proposed MARP system gives you ZERO for the leaderboard.

So being the 3rd best player in the world for that game means NOTHING?!?! C'mon.

Why would anyone bother trying for a score in Donkey Kong with that system? If anyone goes for the score they likely would be doing it to submit elsewhere or for an event...just not for MARP itself.

Very few gamers can reach an elite level for more than a few games. Some can't reach that level for any game.

This simple proposed leaderboard seems to discourage the typical member and gamer here.

PL and a bunch of others have been in agreement with how I feel about it also. We all might have different ideas on how to score like a point vs place and where to cut-off etc. but it's all far better than an absolute all or nothing this 1-0-0 system has.

I also want to note at this time that any of the proposed leaderboard changes really won't affect my position on the leaderboard. The different systems vary me from only 3rd to 4th place or visa-versa on the leaderboard. I only point that out to make the point I am not discussing the views for personal benefit, cuz there is no benefit for me either way.

I am only thinking what is best overall for most members of MARP.

In the Olympics when they show the medal count the countries are NOT sorted based on #golds then #silvers only for breaking ties etc. They are sorted based on TOTAL medal count.

A country with 30-50-20 will be listed above a country with 40-10-5.

Overall that 30-50-20 country has won more than the 40-10-5 one.

I agree that some aspects of the current leaderboard are flawed like where someone with 700 5th place scores and no top 3 scores can have more LB points versus someone that has 50+ top 3 scores.

However, making a leaderboard where second and third are pretty much meaningless makes no sense.

[DRN]

ARE YOU MAD!?

Yes probably. I did say 'most' the competition, not all. Love it or loathe it the leaderboard is a big incentive for some people- fact (like eating a full pack of Jaffa cakes). I just think MARP would be a very quiet place with this new system in place (just my personal opinion folks)

if you don't give the Olympic system a chance we will never find out. And that would be a shame.

So please, let's give it a chance and see how it works out.

Well put Butter, I'll go along with that

[destructor]

I vote NO.

A lot of scores on MARP have TG settings or tournament settings. Some of them do not place on 1st position because for example there is lives limit. But they are many better from real 1st scores which sometimes show anything interesting or they are totally hopeless.

[***PL***]

If you want to try something new, use 1-1-1 Olympic scoring.

Think outside the box... No one ever said 1st had to be worth more than 2nd or third. Top 3 finishes are more meaningful than just Top 1.

And if I'm such a moron show me where this 1-1-1 (total medals) scoring system was discussed before???

[Buttermaker]

And if I'm such a moron show me where this 1-1-1 (total medals) scoring system was discussed before???

1-1-1 specifically wasn't, cut-off points were though. 1-1-1 = cut-off after 3rd. Some people want a cut-off, some don't, we argued back and forth. When SprintGod brought up the Olympic system both factions liked it a lot.

[Barthax]

END THE DISCUSSION - IMPLEMENT THE OLYMPIC, % & 10-3-1. GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE AND THEN SHUT UP!!!

So many of you are expressing views suggesting you are completely blind to others' opinions. It's like a very crowded LN2 vs. Novice thread!!

[sikraiken]

Why can't we just implement some of these ideas as a test and see how that goes? No one really knows how they will like something until it is in place. Generally people are biased towards their own opinion.

[Barthax]

Why can't we just implement some of these ideas as a test and see how that goes? No one really knows how they will like something until it is in place. Generally people are biased towards their own opinion.

The current leaderboard shows the % & 10-3-1 systems in place. http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt shows the olympic.

[sikraiken]

Why can't we just implement some of these ideas as a test and see how that goes? No one really knows how they will like something until it is in place. Generally people are biased towards their own opinion.

The current leaderboard shows the % & 10-3-1 systems in place. http://marp.retrogames.com/olympic.txt shows the olympic.

Ah, must have missed that. Thanks.

[SprintGod]

Quoting people is fun!

The only negative posts I have seen in this thread are mainly YOUR posts which attempt to put down each and every person you are corresponding with.

I only put down people when they say something incredibly stupid. Maybe these people are really intelligent, but they're certainly doing a good job of concealing it.

If 5th place was worth ZERO, I likely wouldn't have uploaded that score and most likely would have just gotten tired of playing the game and moved on to another game...with no score uploaded.

Time to repeat myself: "Just because a recording does not improve your leaderboard position does not mean you should not submit it." This is not a personal opinion, it is a solid fact. If you were paying attention then you'd recall that I also said that anyone who says otherwise is a berk.

So being the 3rd best player in the world for that game means NOTHING?!?! C'mon.

It means that they are not the best. If someone was to beat any of my scores, I'd be quite happy to accept absolutely nothing. I'd simply get on with beating them back. (I've been playing 8ball on and off for about 2 months now... Damn you WRX2! )

In the Olympics when they show the medal count the countries are NOT sorted based on #golds then #silvers only for breaking ties etc. They are sorted based on TOTAL medal count.

WRONG!
The official olympic committee website says otherwise:
http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/ta ... &OLGY=2000

Barthax: I always take other peoples opinions into account, but I am simply choosing to ignore the 10-3-1 and 1-1-1 suggestions, because then the leaderboard will not list anyone who lacks the skill to reach 3rd place in a single game. I believe that the leaderboard should at least attempt to display everyone with at least one recording at MARP, even though they are (and deserve to be) right at the bottom of it.

I will not completely support any point based system because it is always going to make certain recordings completely worthless in terms of the leaderboard.
With this system or one derived on it, every recording has at least some value, even though it may be tiny.

And I wish people would stop talking as if the leaderboard was so damn important. It's been said many times: The leaderboard is not MARP.
MARP would easily survive without a leaderboard, but all the competition would be isolated to individual games.

...which might even be a good thing, because then people will only submit for games that they actually care about.

[***PL***]

It's been said many times: The leaderboard is not MARP.

This may be true but changing the leaderboard WILL have an impact on submissions. As I said before MARP is a recording repository. MAME ACTION REPLAY PAGE...There is no mention of having to be at a certain level, but your 1-0-0 sends a very different message than what we have now or what is being proposed as 10-3-1 or 1-1-1 alternatives.

It doesn't make sense to have multiple versions - there can only be ONE default....

Problem #1 is you don't make MAJOR changes to MARP without majority consensus. We're all over the map with good ideas because there is no poll #3 based on prior thinking.

Problem #2 is you don't make a MAJOR leaderboard change like this without thinking it through. Remember coding needs to take place regardless of what gets decided.

1-1-1 = cut-off after 3rd

And NO, you obviously don't have a firm understanding of the issues if you believe 1-1-1 scoring is the same as cutoff after 3rd.

There are really three decisions that need to be made...

• SCORING: percentage OR placement
• CUTOFF: keep top x% OR top x places
• CALCULATION: actual leaderboard points (15% decay, no decay OR 10-3-1, 1-1-1, 1-0-0)

My point is by choosing a LB calculation method you are also blindly making choices for cutoff and scoring method and it impacts a newbie's initial perception of MARP. We are quite different from TG and have a different gaming audience and a LB change will affect those MARP relationships to some degree.

[SprintGod]

And NO, you obviously don't have a firm understanding of the issues if you believe 1-1-1 scoring is the same as cutoff after 3rd.

NO, you obviously don't have a firm understanding of the issues if you believe 1-1-1 scoring is not the same as cutoff after 3rd. Using that system, any recording that is below 3rd position gets absolutely nothing. At all. Therefore it is a 3rd place cutoff. The same goes for 10-3-1.

Both of those systems suggest that if you cannot make 3rd place, then you are not welcome at MARP.

The olympic system is NOT a 1-0-0 system. If you cannot obtain any first place scores, then you can STILL compete with others in the same situation. It can be more closely described as:
1st: 1
2nd: 1/x
3rd: 1/x²
4th: 1/x³
5th: ...etc
Where x is the number of MAME supported games plus one.

Edit: Deleted two blatant insults aimed at ***PL***, lets just say I don't like him