forums.marpirc.net

SprintGod wrote:Ooohhh! So you're calling me unwise, eh? Well there's a word for people like you, and that word is... something that describes you perfectly but I can't remember what it is. But believe me it's a helluva word!

So... do I get a prize?

I suppose you're right... but I don't know what mean ' Helluva '... Don't laugh, its true

Francois

Francois Daniel wrote:
I suppose you're right... but I don't know what mean ' Helluva '... Don't laugh, its true

Francois

"Hell of a..."

QRS wrote:

Francois Daniel wrote:
I suppose you're right... but I don't know what mean ' Helluva '... Don't laugh, its true

Francois

"Hell of a..."

So, tomorrow I'll post 26 scores of games beginning by Z, then the day after i'll make the same with Y...



Francois

Well, I think some members submit in order to obtain leaderboard points, else they would just submit first place scores and not bother with any other submission. They are encouraged to submit their best effort even though it is not in the elite. This provides playback to see differing methods of gameplay and improves all players knowledge of the game.

Also, when those members who care about leaderboard points are discouraged from submitting (a good effort but not in say, the top three), there is less of a chance of getting a recent wolfmame recording and more of a chance that a six-year old dos-mame recording which I can't playback for the fucking life of me is going to be the only submission worth watching, so I am fucking out of luck watching a good fucking playback of a good fucking game. Is that a good enough fucking argument for a 7th place cut-off?

Ya, I know you can say, just get yourself a fucking windows 3.1 operating system and say fuck it to any semblance of a secure mame version, but to that I say fuck that. Happy Easter everyone!

Mickey wrote:

SprintGod wrote: Bugger it all
I'd personally prefer it if points were scrapped completely, and the leaderboard was ordered on the number of 1sts, then 2nds, then 3rds, all the way down until you run out of positions.

It's the most intelligent proposal which was made since the beginning of this interminable discussion.

Aha.....I thought it was a Mickey Mouse idea.

OT:
You can't divorce Minnie just because you think she's crazy.

Francois Daniel wrote:- 25 marpers have vote and take decision for hundred marpers. For me, its something very strange.

in a previous thread Weehawk wrote: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.

Zwaxy wrote:

SprintGod wrote:I'd personally prefer it if points were scrapped completely, and the leaderboard was ordered on the number of 1sts, then 2nds, then 3rds, all the way down until you run out of positions.

That's a nice idea.

Your 4th place scores only count if you have the same number of 1st, 2nd and 3rd scores as the person you're trying to overtake. ABC uploaders won't be able to move very far, because their hundreds of 15th place scores won't help them get above anyone with a single decent score.

If I understand this method correctly a member with a single first place score (and no others, or the rest crap) would be above a member who had several hundred second place scores, but no firsts. Is that the way we would want it?

Anyway, the community has already voted for a system where points are scaled relative to a score's percentage of the first place score, which this system just now proposed would not be in accordance with.

Unless overruled by Zwaxy, I am going to proceed with the results so far.

I have read this latest discussion (and a lively one it was at that) and given the matter much thought. I am seeing two factions forming, one in favor of cutoff after third place, and one in favor of cutoff after seventh place, with several individuals in each group suggesting fifth place as a less desirable, but acceptable compromise.

I would like to let the community decide if this compromise is acceptable.

I tentatively plan to start a poll tomorrow proposing a cutoff after fifth place, yes or no. Should the compromise fail to win majority approval, a second poll would decide between cutoff after third or seventh place. The second poll wouldn't even have to wait until after the first was finished, they could run simultaneously. The results of the "third vs. seventh" poll would be effective only if the "fifth place compromise" poll fails.

Last chance for other opinions.

Weehawk wrote:If I understand this method correctly a member with a single first place score (and no others, or the rest crap) would be above a member who had several hundred second place scores, but no firsts. Is that the way we would want it?

Yes, why not? If he's capable of getting several hundred 2nd place scores then surely with a little more effort he can get a single 1st place score. He will then jump over all the other people with a single 1st place score and less 2nd place scores.

Weehawk wrote: Anyway, the community has already voted for a system where points are scaled relative to a score's percentage of the first place score, which this system just now proposed would not be in accordance with.

That vote was for "Do you prefer that the awarding of leaderboard points for a submission be based on percentage of the high score, or solely on place number?". The newly 'SprintGod' system proposes that we don't award leaderboard points at all, but merely sort by number of 1st places, then number of 2nd places, then number of 3rd places. This isn't a point based system, and nothing like it had been proposed at the time of the first poll. The first poll assumed we would be awarding leaderboard points. The community hasn't voted on whether we should award points or not.

Weehawk wrote:I am seeing two factions forming, one in favor of cutoff after third place, and one in favor of cutoff after seventh place

.
No, I think what we're seeing is that one faction doesn't want any cutoff based on places, whether it's 3rd, 5th or 7th, but since 'cutoff' won poll 2 they're suggesting 7th place as a compromise.

MARP has always been about friendly competition. The leaderboard is a way of promoting this competition by rewarding the winner of each small skirmish. Granted it's meaningless, but it seems to be enough to spur people on.

Weehawk wrote:I tentatively plan to start a poll tomorrow proposing a cutoff after fifth place, yes or no.

From what I've read (and I've not been counting) 7th place seemed to be the most popular. Why compromise further to 5th place, when the suggestion of using 7th place was already a compromise by all the people who don't want any place-based cutoff at all?

hmm ok so here are my two cent.

I would agrre on the count that one first place ranks higher than 1000 second places. Because that´s style used in the olympics. But that makes it a lot less intressting because no overall skills are required to become number one. which i think is really important when looking at 4500 game for the count here!

On the other hand a system used like maybe in the formula 1 would get us over all a larger variety of playbacks. For several reasons.

7 places is in my opinion more than enoughfor most games... And as said before I would rather give points for the places.

For example: 10-8-6-4-3-2-1

For comparrison formula one: 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

I wouldn´t give the first a lot more than second to honor it , rather than keeping the competition more an overalll performance count. Like I said to begin with.

guido

Weehawk, a suggestion:

Why not make a 3rd simultanious poll based on sprintgods proposition.
Simply asking...Olympic system -yes or no

Weehawk wrote: Aha.....I thought it was a Mickey Mouse idea.

OT:
You can't divorce Minnie just because you think she's crazy.

Say what you want about me, but please let my wife beside all of that.

The TJT wrote:Weehawk, a suggestion:

Why not make a 3rd simultanious poll based on sprintgods proposition.
Simply asking...Olympic system -yes or no

Seems fair enough.

Weehawk wrote:You can't divorce Minnie just because you think she's crazy.

I didn't say she was crazy, I said she was fucking Goofy.

Zwaxy wrote:

The TJT wrote:Weehawk, a suggestion:

Why not make a 3rd simultanious poll based on sprintgods proposition.
Simply asking...Olympic system -yes or no

Seems fair enough.

I agree too

And for those who think I post only for have little points on LB. This system will make me lose a lot of LB place I don't know how, but something like 50-60 places. And I'll vote for this system. So, let me in peace with your silly ABC's rule (except for jokes ^^)

Zwaxy wrote:

Weehawk wrote:You can't divorce Minnie just because you think she's crazy.

I didn't say she was crazy, I said she was fucking Goofy.

Excellent

Francois

Weehawk wrote:I am seeing two factions forming

SprintGod's suggestion came a little late but the people from both factions (including me) like SprintGod's system the best it seems.

How about this poll: Would you prefer a point based system with a cut-off or the Olympic system?

Based on the feedback in this thread I'd say the Olympic system would win easily and the leaderboard discussion could come to a happy end.

Mickey wrote:Say what you want about me, but please let my wife beside all of that.

I was giving you the straight line to a joke. Zwaxy gave the punch line in very small letters in his subsequent post.

And while we're at it.....why do you wear shorts, but no shirt while Donald Duck wears a shirt, but no pants....answer me that Mr. Mouse.

"It is the business of the future to be dangerous....."



AL ( who now has six staples in his skull.....bloody drunken people.....ouch..)