forums.marpirc.net

***PL*** wrote:What a shame! Sad days ahead for sure

Sentences like these only confirm that people are morons. They believe that their opinions are absolute, and thus present them as if they were facts. You cannot argue with people like this as they are closed to the views of others.

I wonder if you even bothered to read my last post...

Weehawk wrote:Not at all. He would currently be 400th out of 837.

Still ridiculous if you ask me.

The TJT wrote:Show me a player with 0 1st and 800 2nd places then....

DUDE!, I said "Hypothetically"

SprintGod wrote:hmm... I still haven't said anything constructive in this topic...

And I wasn't holding my breath waiting.

SprintGod wrote:Well, as far as I'm concerned, if improving your leaderboard position is the only reason for submitting a recording then it shouldn't be submitted at all.

SprintGod wrote:Similarly, just because a recording does not improve your leaderboard position doesn't mean that you should not submit it.

SprintGod wrote:The leaderboard is not MARP, it is nothing more than a tool for tracking players in relation to each other.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

SprintGod wrote:You all know that I'm right, and anyone who says otherwise is a complete berk

I have nothing to add.

Dax: If someone is capable of getting that many 2nd place scores, then they are certainly capable of getting some 1sts. This proposed system would provide a bit more motivation for them to get off their arse and stop settling for second.

Edit: Or rather... get on their arse and stop settling for second, I certainly don't play whilst standing up

Now what I'm gonna say is just from a leaderboard perspective. While reading it you always have to remember that the leaderboard is not the essence of MARP.

Competitions on individual games get a new meaning. Right now if somebody beats you in a game and you lose 15 points it means basically nothing. You can just mass-upload for hundreds of points instead of having to improve to get your old place back. Because of that competitions will start that would've never happened with the current system. Players will produce new and better recordings. That will improve their skills and give everybody better replays to watch.

Right now if the person right in front of you on the leaderboard is 200 points ahead you can just mass-upload for 201 points. If somebody has two more firsts than you on the Olympic leaderboard and you have more second places you can do this: Take one of his first places away from him. Then you're tied in firsts but you move ahead because of the tie-breaking second places. I'm sure this will piss your oppponent off and he'll try to get his first place back. This will produce new and better recordings, get a new competition going and improve the skills of the players.

Francois mentioned that a cut-off system will take the fun out of his leaderboard competition with Mickey. The Olympic system will make these competitions better because beating your rival at the games he's good at and/or in front of you is significant.

The "Must see recordings" thread has 39 posts and 2627 views. That is an absolutely incredible ratio. Try finding another thread with such a ratio. This proves that a significant number of MARP users come here to watch great replays. Finding good recordings to watch is much easier with the Olympic system because you got the players who prodce these inps on top of the leaderboard. I mean if you play soccer/basketball/tennis/whatever you'll be watching those sports on TV because you like watching the best and you might even learn something from them. It's the same here at MARP.

The quantity factor is gone with the Olympic system. Or does anybody really think that Er Commissario Monnezza with his 7.7 point average deserves to be ahead of DaviL (88), DAN.jp (97.8), MORENO-DF@TeamBrazil (96.4), infac00 (73.9), Luja (84.9), Retro-B.jp (100), P@Team2ch.jp (90.1) or ZEK.@Team2ch.jp (99.2) (just to name a few)? Or does anybody wanna tell me that Er Commissario Monnezza has contributed more to MARP than bandit@Team2ch.jp (100 point average) because he uploaded 625 inps and bandit only 10?

There are games where the first place absolutely demolishes the rest of the competition. If you have a 2nd place in such a game it has no meaning for the leaderboard. With the Olympic system it will mean something in cases of ties. Also with the old system the fact that the player in first place put up such a good recording doesn't mean anything for his leaderboard positioning in terms of beating players for leaderboard points. His opponents can just mass-upload for more points. He just gets 100 points whether he's ahead by 1 or by 1 million points. With the Olympic system he has a first place that nobody can take away from him. His leaderboard competitiors will have to find other games.

The Olympic system is the best that could happen to MARP. It's even better than removing the leaderboard.

The current system with its significance on quantity does MARP nothing good. The Olympic system will improve MARP in all aspects.

MrBunny wrote:I want to see more than just me submit to the games I have 1st place on, and Olympic system would probably not be very conducive to 2nd and 3rd place uploads anymore.

People who want to submit something for a game they actually enjoy playing will submit whether MARP has no leaderboard, the current one or the Olympic system.

And don't be surprised if you're gonna lose some of your first places soon because now that first place actually means something for the leaderboard.

***PL*** wrote:Not a care for the "little guy" for not finishing first!

If somebody wants to watch the "little guy's" replay he will download it and watch it. What does that have to do with the leaderboard?

You haven't considered other scoring systems

Right, we've only been talking about them for a month.

Sad days ahead for sure

Yes, but only for mass-uploading, quantity before quality, leaderboard-only players.

DaviL wrote:Most of people play and send inp for fun.

Nothing is stopping anybody from doing that. MARP is NOT the leaderboard.

Well, this can be the death of Marp.

This is the rebirth of MARP.

Buttermaker wrote:Francois mentioned that a cut-off system will take the fun out of his leaderboard competition with Mickey. The Olympic system will make these competitions better because beating your rival at the games he's good at and/or in front of you is significant..

Yes, with Olympic System, my little competition with Mickey will be more interesting. I've only 2 first places more than him. And I'm sure Mickey will be fight for kick my ass

Buttermaker wrote: If somebody wants to watch the "little guy's" replay he will download it and watch it. What does that have to do with the leaderboard?

I often watch beginers in Arcade, because they often found some unknown tricks without even take care of them

Francois

SprintGod wrote:Dax: If someone is capable of getting that many 2nd place scores, then they are certainly capable of getting some 1sts. This proposed system would provide a bit more motivation for them to get off their arse and stop settling for second.

Yes they certainly are. However my point was to illustrate how rediculous this proposed system is. That 1600 2nd and 3rd places has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your LB position is asanine to say the least. An individual with one 1st place and nothing else would be ranked higher than the imagined player above. Come on guys. Am I the only one who sees how completely unbalanced this is?

For me the leaderboard is nothing more than a useful guide to see who is actively participating here at MARP. A chart to plot the coarse of your own activity. At least the current system makes some mathematical sense. Even the old system of 10-3-1 made more sense than this one as Rick pointed out. Inputting this system will basically make the leaderboard obsolete and inaccurate to me. Ill no longer use it as a way to guage how well Im doing here since it basically discriminates against any player that places below 1st.

This system all but abolishes what the leaderboard is suppose to be. Which it seems is what most players want anyway. I say rather than implement this bogus system we just remove the leaderboard altogether.

Dax wrote:For me the leaderboard is nothing more than a useful guide to see who is actively participating here at MARP.

How about checking this page occasionally: http://marp.retrogames.com/index.cgi?tu ... score=with

SprintGod wrote:The leaderboard is not MARP, it is nothing more than a tool for tracking players in relation to each other.

Yes, but it's certainly a PART of MARP.

...changing how a part of MARP works could easily translate into serious changes and damage for how MARP works overall.

This simple system in this poll wasn't discussed or suggested at all in the previous discussions. We had many other options etc. many were interested in.

...so given all those previous discussions and the results from the step #1 poll, how on earth did we get to the results we have now for this poll?

it makes no sense to me. Is this poll being biased somehow? Have half that voting for a point based system in step #1 and 2 where they suddenly have switched and don't want it now?

It seems to me the "simple" move based on this would be to just have a poll to decide if the current leaderboard sorting should be the default method of sorting or if the "points" from the 10-3-1 system should be used.

Forget revamping it now based on this poll. Many proposals in those discussions were interesting proposals. It seems all of that was for nothing.

What happened this past week that changed everyone so drastically?

LN2 wrote:Yes, but it's certainly a PART of MARP.

So are you, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

LN2 wrote:...changing how a part of MARP works could easily translate into serious changes and damage for how MARP works overall.

Quit being so goddamn negative.

LN2 wrote:This simple system in this poll wasn't discussed or suggested at all in the previous discussions. We had many other options etc. many were interested in.

...so given all those previous discussions and the results from the step #1 poll, how on earth did we get to the results we have now for this poll?

The idea wasn't suggested until shortly after the results of Poll #2. People seemed to like the idea, so it was decided that a poll should be created for it. It appears that you still haven't read the topic in question.
viewtopic.php?p=27543#27543

LN2 wrote:it makes no sense to me.

Now you know how we feel when reading your posts.

LN2 wrote:Is this poll being biased somehow? Have half that voting for a point based system in step #1 and 2 where they suddenly have switched and don't want it now?

Now you're accusing people of rigging the poll because you don't like the result. This system was suggested after the second poll had finished, so no-one had even considered it before then.

LN2 wrote:It seems to me the "simple" move based on this would be to just have a poll to decide if the current leaderboard sorting should be the default method of sorting or if the "points" from the 10-3-1 system should be used.

Forget revamping it now based on this poll. Many proposals in those discussions were interesting proposals. It seems all of that was for nothing.

This poll is not going to be nullified no matter what you do, so stop suggesting as such. Either say something intelligent or say nothing.

LN2 wrote:What happened this past week that changed everyone so drastically?

I happened.

Wow! Really must read your posts tomorrow, over 20 seconds...

Anyway,maybe 10-3-1 system is better, but that can be still kept in the lb....

Now everybody read qrs post...
and weehawk post...

maybe we try............see.......maybe good, maybe not....only time will tell..... I can not see in to the future, sorry.

Why we have so many voters now?

TJT wrote:Why we have so many voters now?

Probably due to the mention on the MARP splash page.

I thought someone was going to do that for the previous leaderboard polls, but I didn't think to check or remind anyone, so I'll bear part of the responsibility for that.

Dax wrote:

The TJT wrote:Show me a player with 0 1st and 800 2nd places then....

DUDE!, I said "Hypothetically"

Sorry, my bad.... I don't understand two words....

1.Dude?
2.Hypothetically?

1. Is that the dean martin from movie with john wayne?
2. That is something not fact?

hehehe

Well, it's certainly been interesting reading the various opinions and viewpoints about the structure of the leaderboard. I think what it really comes down to is that different people use the features of MARP and the leaderboard in different ways. I'm not sure who originally suggested it, but somewhere in this thread I believe someone suggested keeping track of multiple types of leaderboards. I can't believe it would be all that difficult to implement several "views" of a leaderboard. Have one that does the proposed "1-0-0". Have another that shows "10-3-1". Have another that shows the current system. And so on. All should be easily accessible from the main "leaderboard" page. Which one is the default? Ideally, it should be the logged in user's preference. Then people can use whatever leaderboard that suits their needs.