Ok, here we go
The percentage idea is a total loss, due to the fact that it strives you to push for that one more point needed to get the first and 10 points. Case in point, current rivalty *I know that's not spelled correctly* with 10yd fight vs84 between me and gameboy, we have pushed that score back and forth from 20,000 to now over 80,000 in just a few days, if the percentage plan was in effect, we would have stopped a long time ago, willing to accept 100 and close to 98 for the two scores.
Secondly, clones are part of the territory, you live with them, you learn from them, and try to get better by them. The current plan, Chris(Zwaxy) is perfect, keep it up.
From another Chris to another Chris.
Cheers.
--
cparsley1@hotmail.com
To hit all of yesterday's posts at once
Moderator: Chad
-
BeeJay
On the other hand, if someone posts a significant increase on your
score you have more to lose by not answering back with a new
recording of your own. So although it might reduce rivalry if your
score is close to theirs, it increases that desire to beat someone
who's score significantly more than you.
<p>
But maybe you're right - why would you struggle for a few more in-
game points if it's only going to increase your leaderboard points by
2 or 3 points?
<p>
BeeJay.
--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz
score you have more to lose by not answering back with a new
recording of your own. So although it might reduce rivalry if your
score is close to theirs, it increases that desire to beat someone
who's score significantly more than you.
<p>
But maybe you're right - why would you struggle for a few more in-
game points if it's only going to increase your leaderboard points by
2 or 3 points?
<p>
BeeJay.
--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz
-
Gameboy9
Hmmm... that's a VERY good point Chris! We wouldn't have made all
those takeovers if it weren't for ten points. I wouldn't have
contested you when you took me over by 250 points that one time back
when 34,000 was the high mark if a percentage scoring rule was in
effect. I would score about 99, and you would score 100... no
problem. Ditto for my `cloud 9` score. I probably wouldn't work on
taking the high score over when I was beaten by... ironically... 250
points... I would take the 99 and the opponent would take 100. What
would I work on? How about that 1,000 point score that was SEVERLY
demolished by some 272,000 points in Galaxy Fighter?(I do not give
names because I did not get permission to use them... don't wanna get
in trouble... I'm a sensitive guy...
)
<p>
But how about a comprimise? Why don't we show BOTH the regular
scoring system AND the percentage scoring system(however you want do
it... I don't care.) on the same leaderboard page? IN ADDITION - why
don't we use 'paperboy rules' and use a 'grand slam' leaderboard -
where we take percentages of both leaderboards, and the one with the
most points that way is the true champion of the MAME action replay
page?
<p>
The first idea in the previous paragraph I think would do quite
well... the second one is just a suggestion...
<p>
Thanks for reading my thoughts on this perspective.
--
goldengameboy@geocities.com
those takeovers if it weren't for ten points. I wouldn't have
contested you when you took me over by 250 points that one time back
when 34,000 was the high mark if a percentage scoring rule was in
effect. I would score about 99, and you would score 100... no
problem. Ditto for my `cloud 9` score. I probably wouldn't work on
taking the high score over when I was beaten by... ironically... 250
points... I would take the 99 and the opponent would take 100. What
would I work on? How about that 1,000 point score that was SEVERLY
demolished by some 272,000 points in Galaxy Fighter?(I do not give
names because I did not get permission to use them... don't wanna get
in trouble... I'm a sensitive guy...
)<p>
But how about a comprimise? Why don't we show BOTH the regular
scoring system AND the percentage scoring system(however you want do
it... I don't care.) on the same leaderboard page? IN ADDITION - why
don't we use 'paperboy rules' and use a 'grand slam' leaderboard -
where we take percentages of both leaderboards, and the one with the
most points that way is the true champion of the MAME action replay
page?
<p>
The first idea in the previous paragraph I think would do quite
well... the second one is just a suggestion...
<p>
Thanks for reading my thoughts on this perspective.
--
goldengameboy@geocities.com
-
Chad
dang that's right. If the percentage thing was in effect then i
wouldn't be playing curvebal everyday trying to figure out how Phil
got 23 runs to snag those 7 pts away! i'm not very sensitive, btw
<p>
I still think there is a problem with clones, although what ever we to
to change how they are score it will be flawed. I don't really think
of clones as the same game, i think of them as another machine in the
arcade to get a high score on, but with the current system it does
reward people who happen to be good at clones, which is unfair but
since i happen to be good at a few i don't mind.
--
churritz@cts.com
wouldn't be playing curvebal everyday trying to figure out how Phil
got 23 runs to snag those 7 pts away! i'm not very sensitive, btw
<p>
I still think there is a problem with clones, although what ever we to
to change how they are score it will be flawed. I don't really think
of clones as the same game, i think of them as another machine in the
arcade to get a high score on, but with the current system it does
reward people who happen to be good at clones, which is unfair but
since i happen to be good at a few i don't mind.
--
churritz@cts.com
-
Aquatarkus
Hi Chris, glad to see some new 10 Yard Fight players
<p>
You could look at it this way instead... why improve a first place
score?
<p>
With a medallion system, it might cement the position a bit but
that's all. You are usually better off working on a new game, even if
you can only claim second or third because it's worth points. If you
get bumped out of first, then the extra work has pretty much gone to
waste.
<p>
On the other hand, with a percentage system improving a first place
score makes the other score entries worth less than before, pushing
your rival's leaderboard rank down. You also gain security, because
even if someone else takes first you'll still get some credit for the
extra work. Like perhaps, someone tracking down clones...
<p>
Aqua
--
aquatarkus@digicron.com
<p>
You could look at it this way instead... why improve a first place
score?
<p>
With a medallion system, it might cement the position a bit but
that's all. You are usually better off working on a new game, even if
you can only claim second or third because it's worth points. If you
get bumped out of first, then the extra work has pretty much gone to
waste.
<p>
On the other hand, with a percentage system improving a first place
score makes the other score entries worth less than before, pushing
your rival's leaderboard rank down. You also gain security, because
even if someone else takes first you'll still get some credit for the
extra work. Like perhaps, someone tracking down clones...
<p>
Aqua
--
aquatarkus@digicron.com
-
Pat
True, you're talking about a situation where the top two players in a
game are battling it out for 2-3 pts. Well, if you're after a World
Record then you WILL work hard for that top spot and grab those points
(maybe more). If one player doesn't want to push the other then
either the game sucks, is boring, has been completely mastered, or is
not worth trying for a record.
<p>
You also forget about all the average to above average players out
there. Say I can play well at tens of games, but usually the best I
can do is 4th. Under the current system I get NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO!!!
<p>
You are in the minority with your position on clones. How do I
benefit from a version of PacMan where the only thing different is the
title PuckMan? Come On! Why play 10 different versions??? You reach
the pinnacle solely by playing and learning from the original.
--
laffaye@ibm.net
game are battling it out for 2-3 pts. Well, if you're after a World
Record then you WILL work hard for that top spot and grab those points
(maybe more). If one player doesn't want to push the other then
either the game sucks, is boring, has been completely mastered, or is
not worth trying for a record.
<p>
You also forget about all the average to above average players out
there. Say I can play well at tens of games, but usually the best I
can do is 4th. Under the current system I get NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO!!!
<p>
You are in the minority with your position on clones. How do I
benefit from a version of PacMan where the only thing different is the
title PuckMan? Come On! Why play 10 different versions??? You reach
the pinnacle solely by playing and learning from the original.
--
laffaye@ibm.net
-
Chad
Not to praise the current 10,3,1 setup anymore than it has to. Clones
and second place scores that come very close the first are still an
unfarity. but it's good for marp storage saving to let the 4th and
below players get ZIPPO, since i doubt many people download even 3rd
and below scores to watch them. I would like to see an additive
percentage score with some sort of clone trimming instead of the
averaged alternate percentage score zwaxy has now.
--
churritz@cts.com
and second place scores that come very close the first are still an
unfarity. but it's good for marp storage saving to let the 4th and
below players get ZIPPO, since i doubt many people download even 3rd
and below scores to watch them. I would like to see an additive
percentage score with some sort of clone trimming instead of the
averaged alternate percentage score zwaxy has now.
--
churritz@cts.com
-
Angry
I've put some additonal thought into using a percentage based system
for the MARP leaderboard, and think I have come up with something
that will work out well for everyone.
<p>
The biggest gripe I have with the percentage system is that it really
takes the wind out of my sails in bettering a score, if I already
have 99 points earned on a game. The current leaderboard gives a
strong bonus to the player in 1st place... a 7 point edge for EVERY
1st place that he/she holds - this makes me strive to get back into
1st place when my score has been beaten (okay - I haven't been
fighting as much lately... but that's for another thread).
<p>
The downfall to the current leaderboard seems to be that players with
4th place scores and lower are not rewarded with ANY points. This
takes away from some good players that may play LOTS of different
games - a different approach to moving up the leaderboard.
<p>
My idea for a percentage based leaderboard is this: 1st place gets
an even 100% for the score. 2nd place and below earn their
percentage of the top score - minus 25%. This means that if you are
in 2nd place by only 50 points, your percentage will be 74.9% or
something similar. (Percentage could easily be adjusted to any
percentage, even 10% or 50%) If a players score falls below 25% of
the top score, the player will not be rewarded with any leaderboard
points for that score.
<p>
This still reaps a large reward for the player at the top of the
hill, and gives the 2nd or 3rd place players better reason to knock
him down. This also keeps the *perfect* score games (ie Bowling)
intact, as the first player to get the perfect score gets 100 pts,
and each subsequent player gets only 75 pts.
<p>
Okay, my two cents is up to about a dollar now. Any other ideas?
<p>
=Angry=
--
greggg@ix.netcom.com
for the MARP leaderboard, and think I have come up with something
that will work out well for everyone.
<p>
The biggest gripe I have with the percentage system is that it really
takes the wind out of my sails in bettering a score, if I already
have 99 points earned on a game. The current leaderboard gives a
strong bonus to the player in 1st place... a 7 point edge for EVERY
1st place that he/she holds - this makes me strive to get back into
1st place when my score has been beaten (okay - I haven't been
fighting as much lately... but that's for another thread).
<p>
The downfall to the current leaderboard seems to be that players with
4th place scores and lower are not rewarded with ANY points. This
takes away from some good players that may play LOTS of different
games - a different approach to moving up the leaderboard.
<p>
My idea for a percentage based leaderboard is this: 1st place gets
an even 100% for the score. 2nd place and below earn their
percentage of the top score - minus 25%. This means that if you are
in 2nd place by only 50 points, your percentage will be 74.9% or
something similar. (Percentage could easily be adjusted to any
percentage, even 10% or 50%) If a players score falls below 25% of
the top score, the player will not be rewarded with any leaderboard
points for that score.
<p>
This still reaps a large reward for the player at the top of the
hill, and gives the 2nd or 3rd place players better reason to knock
him down. This also keeps the *perfect* score games (ie Bowling)
intact, as the first player to get the perfect score gets 100 pts,
and each subsequent player gets only 75 pts.
<p>
Okay, my two cents is up to about a dollar now. Any other ideas?
<p>
=Angry=
--
greggg@ix.netcom.com