forums.marpirc.net

Old (8 years old !!) discussion :
viewtopic.php?t=3232

1-
Now we've several ties, and scores are 30, 31 or 32.
I think we should change scoring, more related to the hiscore table ingame scoring, and so that we see other inputs than only inputs beating easily level 1 before losing aginst level 4-1.

See screenshot joined :
you see the game first rank players by (last) level beaten, then game difference, then time.
The formula I propose :
score = (level beaten)x10000 + (game difference)x1000 + (1000-time in seconds).

Example :
I join there an input showing a victory against level 2 (many tries before succeeding, the problem wasn't really to beat him, but to beat him with 1 credit, first input ever on marp to show that).
I've defeated him 6/1 in 7mn08s ;
my score would be 2x10000 + 5x1000 + (1000-428) = 25572

2-
I think we may also allow continue there (like in baseball or some volleyball) ; I'm pessimist to ever a see a victory against level 4-1 without time allowed by only 1 credit ; and being stopped in a middle of a set has nosense


Thanks for opinions on point #1 & #2

sounds to me to good to break ties.

Little quiz for Tommi and other 80's tennis fans :
here are initials from the game of players you play at different levels ;
are you able to find them all ?
(the hardest for me have been woman from level 1)

WOMEN
1 : L.M.
2 : H.M.
3 : C.E.
4-1: G.S.
4-2: S.G.
4-3: M.N.

MEN
1 : Y.N.
2 : J.M.
3 : S.E.
4-1: J.C.
4-2: B.B. (two solutions there, but picture of the player doesn't let any doubt)
4-3: I.L.

Funny to see that hardest level at Wimbledon is against I.L. who is well known to have always failed to win this tournament.
Personal satisfaction : J.C. is better ranked than J.M.
(and of course Y.N. who is the french touch of the game)

Dang, no matter how hard I try I can't come up with L.M.

WOMEN
1 : L.M.
2 : H.M. Hana Mandlikova
3 : C.E. Chris Evert
4-1: G.S. Gabriela Sabatini
4-2: S.G. Steffi Graf
4-3: M.N. Martina Navratilova

MEN
1 : Y.N. Yannick Noah
2 : J.M. John McEnroe
3 : S.E. Stefan Edberg
4-1: J.C. Jimmy Connors
4-2: B.B. Boris Becker
4-3: I.L. Ivan Lendl

Alessandro.S wrote:Dang, no matter how hard I try I can't come up with L.M.
WOMEN
1 : L.M.

I played video games the first half of the eighties, and tennis the second half.



In other 80's tennis trivia:

Young Boris Becker won Wimbledon in 1985 and again in 1986. If you watch footage of both, you will see a long-standing tradition had changed in 1986. What was it?

Yes, it's Lori McNeil ;
I wonder why game designers choose her, she's the only one of the list who have never won any Grand Slam tournament

Weehawk wrote:Young Boris Becker won Wimbledon in 1985 and again in 1986. If you watch footage of both, you will see a long-standing tradition had changed in 1986. What was it?

Final on sunday instead of saturday ?

Phil Lamat wrote:

Weehawk wrote:Young Boris Becker won Wimbledon in 1985 and again in 1986. If you watch footage of both, you will see a long-standing tradition had changed in 1986. What was it?

Final on sunday instead of saturday ?

No, something that would be more obvious just from watching play.

Players allowed to wear something other than white and/or allowed to have sponsors advertising showing on their clothing?

Just some wild guesses from a bored BeeJay, I haven't bothered to try and find any YouTube vids or anything!!

Cheers,
BeeJay.

BeeJay wrote:Players allowed to wear something other than white and/or allowed to have sponsors advertising showing on their clothing?

No, in the mid 80's they were still sticklers about the players wearing predominately white attire. I think that was relaxed later.

BeeJay wrote:Just some wild guesses from a bored BeeJay, I haven't bothered to try and find any YouTube vids or anything!!

Well, here's Kevin Curren destroying John McEnroe in the semis in 1985:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzxLmTzMc9g

And Becker defeating Lendl in the finals in 1986:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjybAKwYqAg

White->Yellow

Zhorik wrote:White->Yellow

Yes, in 1986 they finally joined the rest of the world in switching from white to yellow balls.

Lori McNeil - can't even remember watching a single game by her, ever. By the end of the year I'll be turning 40, I guess it's the beginning of the end

My favorite Wimbledon match as a Lendl-hater in the '80s was his defeat with Pat Cash

I re-up this thread as lately I've started to play this game and checked how it works. I think that the rule proposed for calculating the score (see the first post of Phil Lamat) has a failure , coz who wins better at the first level will be forced to skip some levels.

That is:

- let's suppose that I win 6-4 or 7-5 or 7-6 (at the tie break) at the first level. The game will let me try the second level (still not hard to beat), so if I'll beat again the level, losing instead at the further one, I'll be able to score 2*10.000.

- a different thing will happen if I win 6-1 or 6-2 at the first level, as I'll be forced to skip level 2 (the game assumes that I would beat it) and try level 3. Also this thing will happen if I win 6-0 at the first level, as I'll be forced to skip levels 2 and 3 (the game assumes that I would beat them both) and try level 4-1.

Now, as the further levels are harder and harder, probably I won't beat the level I have been forced to try... but most likely I would have beaten the previous one(s) that I have been forced to skip instead.
The issue is that if I'll lose with a higher level, no trace of the previous level(s) assumed to be beaten will be kept at all, so it will affect the score calculated with the proposed rule. In fact, if I beat the first level 6-4, I'll regularly have the chance to play level 2, still not hard (so I may collect a score 2*10000+...), whereas if I beat the first level 6-0 I'll have to try level 4-1, that is not at all a piece of cake (so if I'll lose, I'll collect only 1*10000+....).
Basically, as "continue" is allowed, I would have better to beat always the first level with a small games difference, so I'll have the chance to play all the levels and collect a higher score (last level officially beaten * 10000).
I think that the rule should be reviewed or not allowing to continue the game or considering in some way for the score also the skipped levels.
Besides, I'd like to ask if a player would be allowed to start with a level higher than the first or if he's forced to start from the beginning.
Many thanks.

I know the problem, with these stupid skips there isn't a perfect scoring.
The one chosen was to reflect the in-game scoring, but you're right : playing lamer in lv 1 actually helps getting a better score if you win level 2 or 3.

Maybe :
score = (level where you lose -1)x10000 + (game difference in last match played)x1000 + (1000-time in seconds).
?

Examples :
6/0 skip skip loss = 36000+
6/1 skip 6/4 loss = 32000+
6/2 loss = 14000+

I think that this new rule would be ok. Is it possible to vote for it?