Proposal to modify leaderboard scoring (pls read)greenspun.com : LUSENET : MAME Action Replay : One Thread
I'd like to propose a minor change to leaderboard scoring system. The heart of the problem lies when a new MAME release comes out and the immediate gold rush for points that follows. I'm suggesting a new MARP rule to have a minimum of three submissions for a game, before any LB points are given out for that game.
This in no way changes the majority of the 1/2 million + points already earned. Of course some players would see a decrease in their totals, but again the majority of MARPers would be unaffected. This would also be retroactive to day 1 as there are some older MAME games that do not have at least three scores.
Again, my point is that I don't think it's right to give out 100 points for a game where there was no (or only one) competing player.
Vote your opinion!!
-- Pat (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2000
If it aint broke then don't try to fix it!!
-- game guru (email@example.com), October 11, 2000.
Here's the answer to this (non-)problem:
For the first submission on a game, automatic score of 50 points. For the second submission, 1st place gets 100 points, 2nd place gets the DIRECT ratio (without the 15% scaling). Up to the fifth submission, the scaling factor is brought up by 5% each time (so 5% on the third, 10% on the fourth, and 15% on the fifth). After this, no change.
Why am I calling this a non-problem? BECAUSE.
-- Ashuime Rainflower (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2000.
I'll disagree with this idea for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, there are now a few thousand games in MAME and only a hundred or so competitors that could be seen as regular competitors here at MARP (less than a hundred, really). If you have to wait until three people try it, there could be a decent wait for any points on some games. The most recent example I can think of is Logic Pro 2. This game came out in .37b5, but is just now enjoying some competition. Granted, several games in that particular beta got lost in the shuffle because of the .inp playback problems, but I don't see the point of penalizing players who get to a game first for my second reason.
There are those at MARP who actually profit from the gold rush, and I don't mean the gold rushers. There are those who know who the weaker players tend to be, and exploit that knowledge now and then if said player is holding what seems to be a weak first, or if they have little competition for the crown on that particular game. That might sound cruel to some, but it's really just business as usual here at MARP. Raising the bar was always the point of this venture, if I remember.
And that brings me to the final point, one that pretty much mirrors Game Guru's sentiments. We have a leaderboard that works, and frankly I don't put any stock in it. We have Hisa-Chan down somewhere below 50th place and alphabet uploaders in the top ten. What score you have on the leaderboard is no indicator of skill, it's an indicator of how many games you can play. I don't think this kind of behavior needs to be reinforced by making groups of players come after games for the sake of everyone getting points for it. I can just see somebody registering three names at MARP and going to town.
I just don't think this is a good idea for MARP. Let the gold rushers have their moment of glory. They make themselves prey for the rest of the site. ;)
Cheers, Brian McLean
-- Brian McLean (email@example.com), October 11, 2000.
Saying the leaderboard measures how many games you play and does not measure skill DOES say the leadberboard IS broken.
I don't think this new proposed change will make much difference, it will simply not allow points for games that only one person plays, which are usually new games. I don't think that should hurt anyone who just wants to have fun, so i'm not against it.
-- Chad (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2000.
You know what I think I'm seeing out of this conversation? Back to 10-3-1. Yeah - 10 points for first, 3 points for second, 1 point for third.
I'll mention this though: with the exception of the averages of the scores(everyone deletes the non-100 pointers and we'd have about a 150-way tie for 1st) or raw scores(Stefano's 600 million point Mysterious Stones recording beats all) - it really doesn't matter what leaderboard you use - BBH will be 1st. If that's what the MARP is aiming for - I vote against it. 99 % chance not - but as far as I'm concerned - I must go with Game Guru - if it ain't broke - don't fix it.
Therefore - My vote shall be nay. GB9
-- Gameboy9 (email@example.com), October 11, 2000.
I should have read my last paragraph a bit more carefully. What I meant to say is that the leaderboard works for what it is, but how many points you have is ~not~ an indicator of skill. Nor is your average percentage. Skill is a subjective thing, and I don't feel statistics will ever tell the whole story.
But that's a bit off-topic. I've already said my piece.
Cheers, Brian McLean
-- Brian McLean (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2000.
I always thought this current leaderboard has no real signification. I think we should come back to the old good system ( 10 - 3 - 1 ), even if it doesn't give me advantage :-). But in that case, we could improve the attribution of points, giving points to a few more players. For example, why not using the Formula 1 points : 10 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
-- Lagavulin (email@example.com), October 11, 2000.
You know what, I am smiling... Remember when the discussion was to leave the medal leaderboard and head over to the percentage??? I was the lone wolf in the crowd to keep it where it was. Now, after some time has passed, voices in the crowd surface as to wanting it back. (but that's for another post)
About Pat's idea, the vote is Nay. Reason: Why penalize someone who totally rocks at a game? Example: We take like Han Hisa (I apologize for the wrong name, but I don't remember at this time) and some of his great scores. Those scores are such as they can scare anyone else off playing the game, thereby having less than 3 (or whatever number is set) players for the game. By Pat's suggestion, that great score gets 0! pts. Now, if there is a person making an easy first, It will get TAKEN AWAY from here, it's the way MARP has been, and will always be, weak players first, then the big boys step in and kill.
-- Chris Parsley (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2000.
I must agree with everyone else and say No to this, it's a very, very bad idea. Put simply, it discourages competition. If somebody has 1st on a game, why would you want to upload a weaker recording for it, when it's probably going to end up being more of a benefit for the player in first? So we end up getting less uploads. That's not a good thing.
I don't see why the "beta rush" is such a big problem. Like Brian said, if there are players that can beat the scores, then they will. Besides, there's already plenty of games ignored... I mean, there are free 2nd and 3rd place slots open on shocktrj. I didn't upload that recording for leaderboard points, I uploaded it because I love the game. I'm pretty much the only ST freak on MARP (the score hasn't even been confirmed yet). But I don't think we should act like it shouldn't exist and not give points for it... what's next, a suggestion that MARP only carry the "popular" games like Pac-Man etc.?
The current leaderboard system isn't perfect, but this sure as hell ain't gonna fix it.
-- BBH (email@example.com), October 12, 2000.
Actually, it's a very long time I'm not posting here at the board, but I keep on "lurking" anyway....
This time I think the issue is really serious, and I wish to add my voice to the choir of "Nay".
I totally agree with what Chris and BBH said. It will discourage competition....in the long period we'll have only 1 score x game, and it will worth 0 to the player.
Another issue to which nobody thought about: what would happen if all the scores below #1 are deleted...!?! Will the #1 score drop from 100 (or 10) pts to 0...!?! NO WAY!!!
-- Cicca (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 13, 2000.
I did not down to honorble 65th place but climb up from 330th.
I think now system is perfect.one problem is too few players join here.(but largest of the world).
after millions of players join,all scores under 15th place wewe not given any %points. even 1%points is honorble and top is worth not inferior than gold medal.
anyhow,invite many players...
my pipe dream B and C will be ignored??
master, please do change anything you want to do.I want to do is not change afterall.
-- LOSER!!! (email@example.com), October 13, 2000.
The best thing of all would be to remove the leaderboard completely, since earning # points for 1st place isn't a big deal after all... if I remember correctly, the aim of MARP is actually to store in its archive the best recordings available worldwide, not reward BBH, me or Hisa-Chan for having tons of points in the leaderboard or having an average score of 100 (and feel a better human being)...
Anyway, if you want to keep the leaderboard, my idea is to award 10 points for 1st place, 5 for the 2nd, 3 for the 3rd and 1 for the 4th. I never liked the percentage system (and I was away from MARP when it has been introduced, so I hadn't the opportunity to express my opinion). But I also like Lagavulin's proposal.
-- Rank-3 (` la japonnaise) (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 13, 2000.