forums.marpirc.net

DRN wrote:<I'm far too wrapped up in real life to sit down and sift through all these different percentage systems and formulas to find a different solution.

I imagine that MARP is hard enough to maintain without adding further complexity to the leaderboard equation. So maybe the best approach is to either leave it as is - I agree that there seems to be little reason to change it outside of some complaining about a small percentage of the MARP participants - or make it simple, like Proposition 6:

First five places get 10,7,5,3,1 pts respectively

tar wrote:[boxster: good work on asterock and delta race.

Thanks. Both were kind of a first shot, so I hope to improve significantly on them. Omega Race used to be one of my favorite games in the arcade (I used to be a lot better, too - I need a spinner!), and the Delta Race clone seems a little easier than the original.

From the invisible zwaxy post referenced by tar:

I also quite liked the "use the current system but make the 15% decay cumulative - 100%, 85%, 70%, 55%, ..." idea. That only awards points for the top 7 scores. That means the site can accommodate no more than 7 ABC uploaders before they start having to fight each other for points.

Even if the scoring does continue below 7th place, how many points are the ABC posters really getting for those uploads anyway? It takes an awful lot of 1pt, 2pt, 5pt, 7pt, etc., scores to make a significant dent in the standings.

As I mentioned before, if someone wants to play 1100+ different MAME games to improve his/her standing in the leaderboard, he/she probably deserves a little credit for perseverance, if nothing else.

Does that mean he/she should really be on the leaderboard? That's the debate, it seems. If the answer is no, the question then is if it's worth shaking up the entire system to account for a few posters.

DRN wrote:Are things that bad that it needs an overhaul, REALLY???

yep, this started in relation to ABC submitters who upload 20+, sometimes 50+ scores on the same day.

It then got into a tangent...mainly cuz of Buttermaker ...that the entire leaderboad needed overhauling.

ABC submitting has not happened even once the past couple of months.
Even when it did happen, it wasn't that huge of a deal.

I guess if you only want to look at the last 50 uploads, you just have to view the last 100 or 150 instead to see beyond the ABC submitter's to scores submitting just before that.

When most are what I would call insignificant scores for the games, it's hard to be motivated to confirm those scores....plus for a couple who want all recent uploads confirmed, they pressure themselves into watching all of them.

I think this situation would be helped if the MARP code simply limited the number of uploads in a 24 hour period for each member to 3 or 5.

Sure, over a year or so, the ABC submitter could still get 1000+ submitted and slowly but very surely climb up the leaderboard even with very few first or second place scores.

Again I say so what....it's obvious from the stats of the leaderboard why that person is ranked where they are.

Zwaxy already showed in the other thread resorting the leaderboard based on place points overall the top 20 still pretty much has the same people and form as the leaderboard sorted by percentage points.

From the current leaderboard, you can still easily admire someone for their number of first place scores etc. versus looking at their absolute rank on the leaderboard.

I know I was happy when I hit the 10,000 leaderboard point mark. It was a nice plateau. I didn't care exactly what position on the leaderboard I had then....just hitting the 10,000 mark was cool. Then later I hit the 100 first place scores mark. It didn't matter where I was on the leaderboard. It was a nice feeling to hit 100 first places.

Entering the top 10 was perhaps the only time where I was happy about my position on the leaderboard. You can see the top 10 on the screen at the same time...so just being on that first page was nice.

I woudn't be there if not for all those pacman clones. I actually still have some to achieve and submit scores for. hehe ...likely won't be anytime soon though for those.

LN2 wrote:yep, this started in relation to ABC submitters who upload 20+, sometimes 50+ scores on the same day.

It's people who break rule 2 l) really. ABCers are among those but not the only ones.

Well my experience of ABC submitters is that they get bored after a while and stop when they realise what a daunting task it is to climb the board. Climbing up the board when submitting 5 pointers here and there can take years! At first they don't realise this but they do after time and move on.

I'm not in favour of the people who ABC because they just take up server space in my opinion but I really don't think the situation is bad enough to warrant a complete re-design or removal of the leaderboard.

LN2 wrote: limited the number of uploads in a 24 hour period for each member to 3 or 5.

NOT even AN option
never never never
Let them upload to their hearts content
we love them

LN2 wrote:ABC submitters who upload 20+, sometimes 50+ scores on the same day.

never seen that many myself
Rick C. , well done on galaga .
How was the move?
Baltimore , Maryland ?
good I hope
peace
tar

How about an incredibly easy solution....

Let's assume, for a moment, that the ABCers are easily identified by nothing other than their average scores based on the current system.

For example, #1 - dj BBH's average is 64.6, according to the leaderboard.

Ok, so why not just add a minimum average qualification to the leaderboard? You don't get on the leaderboard unless your average score meets the entry point. (Determining the level would be a whole other debate, I'm sure.)

That seems infinitely easier to implement than rewriting the entire scoring process. It should also appease those that feel that ABCers shouldn't be on the leaderboard in the first place.

Is it perfect? Nope. But, I think it's better than some (not all) of the other alternatives discussed.

Would it resolve the ABCer issue, at least from the perspective of the leaderboard? It would seem to.

Buttermaker wrote:

LN2 wrote:yep, this started in relation to ABC submitters who upload 20+, sometimes 50+ scores on the same day.

It's people who break rule 2 l) really. ABCers are among those but not the only ones.

So, what's the real issue here - the leaderboard itself or the submission of sub-par .inps?

If the underlying issue is that people submit sub-par recordings, then changing the leaderboard would seem to be completely unnecessary and mostly unrelated.

It's like treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease. Changing the leaderboard may indirectly cut down on sub-par recordings, but it's not addressing the issue. Posters will still submit their recordings, good or bad, regardless of how the leaderboard is calculated.

That being the case, if you really want to change the culture, the only option would seem to be to implement some type of enforcement of rule #2. That's another issue entirely. Do you zero recordings under the guise of "bad performance"? Who then makes that determination?

Rule #2 has never been actively enforced, to my recollection. No one has ever been actively discouraged from submitting anything they want (nor should they be, in my opinion.)

If the real problem is how people interpret (or ignore) the rules, changing the leaderboard isn't going to change that.

boxster wrote:So, what's the real issue here - the leaderboard itself or the submission of sub-par .inps?

If the underlying issue is that people submit sub-par recordings, then changing the leaderboard would seem to be completely unnecessary and mostly unrelated.

I think the real issue is that there are too many poor recordings uploaded, and that a lot of these recordings are only uploaded because they gain leaderboard points.

If they no longer were to earn leaderboard points then I reckon a lot less ABC uploads would happen.

The idea of using an average has been discussed (and dissed) before, but your way of using it merely as a 'qualification' threshold is a good one. People won't be tempted to remove their 2nd place scores just to push their averages higher, since leaderboard POSITION won't be based on average score, but it will certainly discourage ABC uploaders because they won't be prepared to spend enough time on each game to achieve the required average to get listed.

Am I missing something, or is this the best suggestion yet?

Zwaxy wrote: Am I missing something, or is this the best suggestion yet?

I would like boxsters suggestion if the "qualification %" was high enough (maybe at least 40%).

I concurr, limit percentage to leaderboard scores, this however still may prevent someone from uploading a "for fun" inp, like the fire truck recordings which are hilarious and someone shouldn't remove these just to get into the leaderboard to get their average up.

We would need (eventually) another non counted leaderboard space to put recordings that even though their score is bad they have some value too, like tricks, unusuall cheats, fastest goals, and other fun things that don't get high scores. (me and zwaxy have been talking about something liek this and it has a chance to become real.)

diabolik wrote:I would like boxsters suggestion if the "qualification %" was high enough (maybe at least 40%).

I just did a little quick review of the leaderboard.

Out of the top 50:

# currently under 40%: 20
# currently under 35%: 14
# currently under 30%: 10

Chad wrote:I concurr, limit percentage to leaderboard scores, this however still may prevent someone from uploading a "for fun" inp, like the fire truck recordings which are hilarious and someone shouldn't remove these just to get into the leaderboard to get their average up.

But the point (as I see it) is to make the percentage easily achieveable by anyone who is trying. The occasional "fun" inp won't have too big an effect on your average, and you'll still end up qualifying for leaderboard inclusion.

We would need (eventually) another non counted leaderboard space to put recordings that even though their score is bad they have some value too, like tricks, unusuall cheats, fastest goals, and other fun things that don't get high scores. (me and zwaxy have been talking about something liek this and it has a chance to become real.)

Chad keeps throwing money at me. Eventually I will feel guilty enough about this that I will simply have to implement separate areas for separate types of recordings (fun / cheat / tricks / 2 player / regular / tournament / whatever)...

The 'cutoff' for having a "too low" average could come in only after a player has a certain number of recordings, too. New players should be able to immediately see themselves on the leaderboard, and shouldn't be penalised just because their first (few) recordings are low scores. But once they've uploaded 10 (say) recordings, if their average isn't up to scratch (whatever that means) they disappear from the leaderboard, with an explanation. This will discourage the persistant ABC uploaders without penalising or scaring newcomers.

Chad wrote:
We would need (eventually) another non counted leaderboard space to put recordings that even though their score is bad they have some value too, like tricks, unusuall cheats, fastest goals, and other fun things that don't get high scores. (me and zwaxy have been talking about something liek this and it has a chance to become real.)

Sounds like the thing I have been pestering Zwaxy about for a long time now