leaderboard changes - comments?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : MAME Action Replay : One Thread

I'm in the process of making a change to the leaderboard script.

Barry Rodewald (you know - that guy with loads of 2nd and 3rd place scores, but only five top scores) suggested to me that players should be given credit on the leaderboard for 2nd and 3rd place scores, as well as for top scores. His suggestion is to award 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 5 for 3rd, but that's open to offers.

I've made the change, and checked to see how the leaderboard was affected. Unfortunately, I discovered that for the last 4 days or so my script has only been saving the top 10 from the leaderboard, not the whole thing, but I've fixed that now.

Anyway, in the top 10, Krool has dropped 2 places, and Crash has dropped 3 as a result of the change. Some chap called Zwaxy seems to have done best out of the whole thing, for some odd reason.

Incidentally, Barry was 18th before the change, with 5 points (5 top scores) and is now (with the new system) in 20th place with 31 points. So it seems pretty fair to me, and it makes for a lot less tied positions.

How does it seem to you?

I guess Krool might have something to say... :o)

-- Zwaxy (zwaxy@bigfoot.com), July 17, 1998


Yeah, I'm up for it, lets try it.

If it doesn't work then go back to the original

-- dith (dith@europress.co.uk), July 17, 1998.

DAMN STRAIGHT i have something to say !!! how come i drop places ?! i also have a few non first place scores too...

why not give medals like in the olympics, gold, silver and bronze (so there are only 3 positions)...the points idea is cool, but what does it all mean ?

very convenient how Zwaxy dont get affected eh ?

-- Krool. (kellyq@ihug.co.nz), July 17, 1998.

You drop a couple of places because you have less 2nd and 3rd place scores than the 2 guys who overtook you.

I gain the most because a lot of my scores have been beaten into 2nd or 3rd place and I've never got them back.

Remember I used to be top of the leaderboard, and got knocked down off the top ten while I was writing a script for YOUR BENEFIT!!! :o)


-- Zwaxy (zwaxy@bigfoot.com), July 17, 1998.

I vote along with Krool on this one, while the overall points theme is interesting, it is difficult to see the actual number of top scores by any player.

I think there may be a solution that offers the best of both worlds:

4 different items counted for each player, Gold, Silver & Bronze, these would count the total number of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place scores for each player. A 4th column would count the total number of points based on the new system.

This way, you can see how many scores a player has, as well as sort the general list by the point total. Optionally, you can allow the viewer to sort the scores by any of the 4 columns.


-- Angry (angry@thq.com), July 17, 1998.

With the new system, would it be too much or a stretch to submit 2nd or 3rd place scores instead of 1st place scorers just to get points? LOL... It's a nice system, in my opinion, and I think it's better than the old system that honored only the best people.

-- Sports Dude (dorfaj3@worldnet.att.net), July 17, 1998.

I was going to suggest something along these very lines myself - although I was only going to offer 1 point for 3rd place. ;-)

It means games where one person is vastly superior can still be involved in right-royal battles for 2nd and 3rd spots. eg: Galaxian, Bomb Jack, Galaga, etc.

My next question is this, once a person scores a perfect 300 on a game like bowling no-one else can effectively beat them and so they are gifted 5 points for eternity. Would it not be acceptable for games that have "maximum" achievable points to allow others to "share the 1st place points" ?! What do others think about this ?!

Bearing in mind our current leader has perfect points already on 2 of the 3 BowlRama games, and both clbowl and capbowl are perfected out as well.

Just my $0.02.... (or should I say #0.02 ;-))


-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), July 18, 1998.

But - I *do* only offer 1 point for 3rd place.

1st == 5 2nd == 3 3rd == 1

I guess you're right about sharing 1st place points. Now - should they both get 5 points, or both get 2.5 points if there are 2 players on each first. And if 3 share 1st place, should they get 1.666666666666666667 points? Or what?

-- Zwaxy (zwaxy@bigfoot.com), July 21, 1998.

well, this new system works better for you if you play crappy at alot of games, no rewards for playing good... some ideas :

if you have 1st score you get a gold..2nd silver and 3rd bronze/tin/plastic....whatever...points wise g=8, s=4, ?=2 so that to get a 1st point score, you have to get 2 2nd points and 4 3rds...this makes it a little more even until everyone ups crappy scores on games that people have only played once...then its still a 2nd place score...

or even better, work it so that the lowest score is best, this is a mental idea, but it would have to work on a score in comparison to how many inps you have sent in. g=0, s=1 and B=2...so if youve sent in 10 scores, the lowest is 0! meaning you are 1st.... but then if someone has sent in only 1 score and its the highest, he too is also first...but then calculate how many replays sent in to show position on best lowest score...aaah, its all fucked sounding...

if anyone can decipher anything out of all this!.... GOOD LUCK...YOULL NEED IT!

-- Krool. (kellyq@ihug.co.nz), July 18, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ