"The Leaderboard"

[MrBunny]

How about a score of 20 to the first place of a game with 20 inp's, 19 for second place for a game with 20 inp submissions, etcetera, or a score of 8 for first place for a game with 8 inp submissions... etc etc

Sort of evening out the uploader who wants the one point for last place, since it gives another point to the scores that beat them, thus negating an increase in leaderboard points by multiple uploads, and encouraging uploading a higher score.

Even if you are in 20th place, you will soon upload a better score to become 19th, right? it gives you double your points to not be last in a game.

But in the current situation, probably every upload of 8th or worse is just getting 1 lb point, no reason to climb up 10 places on many games.

[LN2]

How about a score of 20 to the first place of a game with 20 inp's, 19 for second place for a game with 20 inp submissions, etcetera, or a score of 8 for first place for a game with 8 inp submissions... etc etc

Sorry, but that is so flawed I have to point it out.

So, your above states a first place score for a rom set that has only 5 scores submitted for it gets "5" points. Whereas a 10th place score for a game that has 20 scores submitted for it would get "10" points. This system would also further encourage people just to submit any score they get for each rom set...cuz each one unless totally in last place earns at least 1 point. others will like that also cuz each new score added for that rom set adds 1 point to all of those in higher places.

Yeah, that's fair....NOT!

Sorry, just wanted to nip that flawed system before someone else posted they like it.

[Mr. Kelly R. Flewin]

I've been barely around, posting wise, in the last few months... a few reasons being that I'm just changing phases again , lack of time, Decamame, Decamame Burnout! [From seeing the scores jump to such sickening levels that it'd take the 3 months to even reach them!] amongst other things.

But, I can honestly say, one of the things that has kept me coming back IS the leaderboard. It feels good to see my name ranked up there with everyone else and see where I stand. I will admit, I'm not the greatest player, more or less average, but I do try my best. Sure, BBH or someone else will come along and trump my score without even breaking a sweat, let alone even seeming to concentrate on the game, but that's because BBH and others just happen to be even more skilled then I, and that rocks, as I see it as a learning tool.

Sure, I have uploaded for a lot of games, and it's not the greatest of scores, but it also is a cool accomplishment to be able to watch my progress as I improve and watch the points not only add up, but my leaderboard percentile go back up as well to its former glory... even if it almost topped 50% only once.

Now, I will agree though, this Alphabet Uploading is just getting plain lame... very sad really... it's out and out sickening! I may have a M.O. for uploading to little known roms/clones/sets that virtually have no entries or there are only 2 entries... but! I also do my best to do as well as I can when doing so, as no one wants some cheese out victory to be held. Sure, someone else will come along and clean house, but then suddenly that rom/clone/set gets some attention by a pro and a possible challenge can come forth, much like the one with Balloon Fight that's ongoing.

I feel that people who are Alphabet Uploading should get a warning first, and if they continue, they should have their LB points zero'd... and it will be obvious when someone's AU'ing as opposed to just random submissions that aren't the greatest. But then I only see a handful of people doing this, compared to the majority who actually try, so there's hope.

Perhaps there could be a way where an option would appear that you must upload X number of recordings in the top 3 places before your scores will count for the leaderboard, and then you must maintain a specific amount of Top 5 places or so or else you're off the leaderboard listing?

As for the changing of LB points... I think everything there is best left as is. My feelings are, that if it's 100-50-25 or anything like that, then for a LOT of games, it'd be the truly gifted who'd get any points, and for some games, that creates a very unfair buffer to someone who's pretty decent, but not godlike. Granted it discourages poor scores, but it also discourages a lot of people as well.

I honestly feel this was one Pandora's Box that should never have been opened, but, true to the original, now that it has I can see the little ray of hope within.


Mr. Kelly R. Flewin

[Zwaxy]

BTW, to easily put your above into a formula:

pts= INT(your score/top score)*(100-[15*(n-1)]) where n is the place number.

This comes out to exactly what TJT states above.

That formula would fix a lot I think..and is a VERY easy change Zwaxy can do very quickly....which also is important IMHO.

The above change really isn't a change in the system...but really changes the effect where below 7th place gets 0 pts regardless of their score.

I don't like to be pedantic* but I think you'll find that your formula will result in negative leaderboard points for scores below 7th place.

That would certainly discourage people from uploading!


(*) I do really.

[Weehawk]

BTW, to easily put your above into a formula:

pts= INT(your score/top score)*(100-[15*(n-1)]) where n is the place number.

This comes out to exactly what TJT states above.

That formula would fix a lot I think..and is a VERY easy change Zwaxy can do very quickly....which also is important IMHO.

The above change really isn't a change in the system...but really changes the effect where below 7th place gets 0 pts regardless of their score.

I don't like to be pedantic* but I think you'll find that your formula will result in negative leaderboard points for scores below 7th place.

That would certainly discourage people from uploading!


(*) I do really.

Hmmm..I think that formula as written would return 100 for a first place score and zero for everything else.

[Zwaxy]

I feel that people who are Alphabet Uploading should get a warning first, and if they continue, they should have their LB points zero'd...

If any score below 7th place automatically gets no leaderboard points then the alphabet uploads will probably stop anyway.

Perhaps there could be a way where an option would appear that you must upload X number of recordings in the top 3 places before your scores will count for the leaderboard

I don't like the sound of that. I think limiting the number of recordings which can earn points is the way to go, whatever the number of places should be.

I just looked at the scores for 1942, to pick a random example. Look at this table. It shows how the leaderboard points would change if the 15% reduction is really 15% at each step, and also if the 'decay' is a fixed 10%. Most scores don't change at all. The only score that gets penalised badly is 6th place:

Code: Select all

pos     score name                    old   new    percent      new2  percent
---     ----- ----                    ---   ---    -------      ----  -------
1st  12358120 dj BBH                  100   100     (100%)       100   100% 
2nd  11998340 negative1                83    82      (85%)        87    90% 
3rd  11987600 Midas                    70    67      (70%)        77    80% 
4th  11975810 Krool                    60    53      (55%)        67    70% 
5th  11713960 QRS                      49    37      (40%)        56    60% 
6th  11538500 Gmitra                   41    23      (25%)        46    50% 
7th   1061940 JSW                       3     0      (10%)         3    40% 
8th    782760 Wonder@jvrm.net           2     0                    1    30% 
9th    622550 mickey@jvrm.net           1     0                    1    20% 
10th   479220 INNUENDO-DF@TeamBrazil    1     0                    0    10% 
11th   474710 GSH                       1     0
12th   339450 LeClaqueurFou@jvrm.net    0     0
13th   306290 Ray Atkinson              0     0
14th   236290 roncli                    0     0
15th   228490 Er Commissario Monnezza   0     0
16th   223780 Phil Lamat                0     0
17th   218260 Natuki                    0     0
18th   206480 Snoopy                    0     0
19th   204430 Tombstones                0     0
20th   203980 Dudu                      0     0
21st   191790 ROUGH                     0     0
22nd   172880 Curtain                   0     0
23rd   148250 Ravnos                    0     0
24th   138860 gamefreak                 0     0
25th    84550 Spaceman                  0     0
26th    69930 Chris Parsley             0     0
27th    68380 goan74                    0     0
28th    63130 Robby5150                 0     0
29th    39920 ZwaX                      0     0

It's hard to find a way to remove the incentive for people to 'alphabet upload' without also making the site too difficult for some people to score on at all.

[edited to fix the layout of the table]

[Zwaxy]

Hmmm..I think that formula as written would return 100 for a first place score and zero for everything else.

You're right. The original formal was written slightly wrongly.

I'm sure he really meant this:

pts = INT((your score/top score)*(100-[15*(n-1)])) where n is the place number.

[Weehawk]

I just looked at the scores for 1942, to pick a random example. Look at this table. It shows how the leaderboard points would change if the 15% reduction is really 15% at each step, and also if the 'decay' is a fixed 10%. Most scores don't change at all. The only score that gets penalised badly is 6th place:

But while the 8th place score may not seem much different on this single game (0 points instead of 2), multiply that by 900 (seriously....look at the leaderboard), or worst-case scenario the 4700 games that MAME supports and you're seeing the difference that is causing the dreaded "alphabet uploading".

[Weehawk]

I'm sure he really meant this:

pts = INT((your score/top score)*(100-[15*(n-1)])) where n is the place number.

And I'm sure he really meant:

pts = INT((your score/top score)*(100-[15*(n-1)])) where n <= 7

and

pts = 0 where n > 7

[LN2]

I don't like to be pedantic* but I think you'll find that your formula will result in negative leaderboard points for scores below 7th place.

That would certainly discourage people from uploading!

No, cuz I figured it was too obvious that you would have the code where if the result is less than zero then set it equal to zero.

ok, you just put it within an if conditional.

if (placenum>7) {
lbpts=0;
} else {
lbpts = int((yourscore/topscore)*(100-(placenum-1)*15));
}

[The TJT]

It's hard to find a way to remove the incentive for people to 'alphabet upload' without also making the site too difficult for some people to score on at all.

Yes, that's the actual problem. I think if you give top 5 players some lb points, then everyone is able to score something atleast...so many games at Marp, everyone is able to get atleast some top 3 or top 5 scores here...if they just practice a game enough. I don't see satisfaction in getting good lb points with knowing you are not playing the game well, that is just fooling yourself.

The real question is: What we want from leaderboard? Do we want it to show the "best" players on top....Or do we want it to be something you can get on top with only submitting much.

All my "solutions" are based on variations of 10-3-1 scoring or such...That favors first places, which should be the case imo. If you give top 5 places something like 100-85-70-55-40...That still favours those that just upload many recordings, because there are so many uploadable games at Marp that don't have so much competition.

Chris, do you think at my earlier post "solution 4" is doable? That might be little elitistic though...But it would make best players(if they play enough)to the leaderboard top. If that is we want leaderboard to be...

Thanks, Tommi

[LN2]

If you give top 5 places something like 100-85-70-55-40...That still favours those that just upload many recordings, because there are so many uploadable games at Marp that don't have so much competition.

Well, the solution there is to get better scores and competition for those games then. Any change to the leaderboard isn't going to address that aspect really.

I think in changing this leaderboard at games that have lots of established scores including ones from ABC submitters....like Zwaxy did with 1942 above.

if you look at scores for games that aren't really high scores, that's flawed in deciding how to change the leaderboard to set lb pts straight for those games. It's an issue for games without very high established scores. if a couple players then come along and set much higher scores for the game, the other scores naturally will fall back in what lb points they earn which is fine.

To only award points to just the top 3 seems too harsh. As you can see with 1942 scores above, 6 have finished the game. All 6 of those are great replays. if points were only awarded to the top 3, then perhaps we wouldn't have 6 replays finishing the game.

This example almost supports my earlier suggestion in the thread of having something like beyond the top 5, a score must be at least 50% of the top score to earn LB points....less than 50% of the top score and not in the top 3 or top 5 then it gets zero LB points. LB points could still be calculated using the current formula...just with that conditional check added to force assign zero based on that criteria.

This system would have it to where if a year from now there are 10 scores for 1942 submitted that all have finished the game, they all mean something. It's hard to just draw a line and say a 11.2 million score gets LB points yet a 11.1 million score gets ZERO.

For the aboev example it still would result in zeroing those just submitting a score just to get a couple LB points....without decreasing the accomplishments and LB points earned by all of those that completed the game.

[tar]

I read the posts
You all have valid points and ideas
But please , just stop !!
enough already , I cannot stand it !

[The TJT]

If you give top 5 places something like 100-85-70-55-40...That still favours those that just upload many recordings, because there are so many uploadable games at Marp that don't have so much competition.

Well, the solution there is to get better scores and competition for those games then. Any change to the leaderboard isn't going to address that aspect really.

I think in changing this leaderboard at games that have lots of established scores including ones from ABC submitters....like Zwaxy did with 1942 above.

if you look at scores for games that aren't really high scores, that's flawed in deciding how to change the leaderboard to set lb pts straight for those games. It's an issue for games without very high established scores. if a couple players then come along and set much higher scores for the game, the other scores naturally will fall back in what lb points they earn which is fine.

What? Maybe my reading is bad...
Are you talking about "solution 4" now?
All games are not so popular and competed for a fact. Mainly because some games just suck...

I was basicly meaning that 100-85-70 etc gives too much lb points. I like more for first place oriented system. Changing to 100-85... really does not change much, atleast for lb.

To only award points to just the top 3 seems too harsh. As you can see with 1942 scores above, 6 have finished the game. All 6 of those are great replays. if points were only awarded to the top 3, then perhaps we wouldn't have 6 replays finishing the game.

maybe that game was in a tournament and has many good replays.
I'm not sure how big a difference in gameplay 100k is at 1942...But I know that to get from 2nd to 1st does not give you really leaderboard advantage, and therefore discourage improving your position...leaderboard-wise thinking. Ofcourse main aspect for many a gamer to be the first is "honour". The scores are so close because of huge end bonus at the game. Scoring is not linear at 1942.

Also, this game is only one example, do you think all finished games should be given nearly 100% lb points? Can not make overall rules based on one example...Maybe all those games finished are great, but if you make gemeral rule based on that...You ought to give near 100% for all games first 6 places that have close scoring...Trackfld.zip etc

This example almost supports my earlier suggestion in the thread of having something like beyond the top 5, a score must be at least 50% of the top score to earn LB points....less than 50% of the top score and not in the top 3 or top 5 then it gets zero LB points. LB points could still be calculated using the current formula...just with that conditional check added to force assign zero based on that criteria.

Different games have different scoring. Thats is why your thinking is flawed
It's very easy to get 50% at trackfld.zip...yet 96k score requires much much more skill than 90k score. Also note that there must be atleast 20 players that have "finished the game"(one round), is it fair all 29 players get lb points.

Also opposite example to 50% suggestion... There can be a game where top score is just very high, like Galaga. If you want to give lb points for players who have 6th places, an exceptionally high top score prevents that, no matter how solid competitition there is after 1st place.

This system would have it to where if a year from now there are 10 scores for 1942 submitted that all have finished the game, they all mean something. It's hard to just draw a line and say a 11.2 million score gets LB points yet a 11.1 million score gets ZERO.

For the aboev example it still would result in zeroing those just submitting a score just to get a couple LB points....without decreasing the accomplishments and LB points earned by all of those that completed the game.

If you give 10 first places for 1942 good lb points, for finishing the game...Then you'll need to make same for other games too, like Trackfld.
Unless making different lb point system for each game

Friendly,
TJT

[LN2]

What? Maybe my reading is bad...
Are you talking about "solution 4" now?

I was talking about what I quoted from you there. I didn't look up if that was your solution #4 or #4977305

All games are not so popular and competed for a fact. Mainly because some games just suck...

Yes, so those should have NO bearing on what we do with the leaderboard. No matter what scoring the leaderboard has some games just plain suck so it logically follows not near as many will play it and thus not as likely to have a very high score as the top score.

I was basicly meaning that 100-85-70 etc gives too much lb points.

Let's solve 1 issue. The issue is changing the leaderboard scoring to reduce or eliminate the ABC submitters who seem to play each rom set a couple times and submit whatever score they happen to get on the game...even if good for only 1-2 LB points....just to accumulate LB points.

We like the guys even in 2nd place and 3rd and even 5th and 6th that are close to the top score. Whether they get 85 pts or 75 pts or 50 pts for second isn't the issue and reason we are discussing the scoring system of the leaderboard.

Use circus charlie as an example perhaps instead of 1942. If 6 players have 999,990 for score...and 7th place is 982,520, are you saying that 7th place score sucks to the point it deserves ZERO LB points? That is still an excellent score.

Ok, you could change that 50% criteria to 75% or even a higher number...it was the concept I was introducing...not the exact numbers to be used. Adjust them. I just threw out 50% as a figure. For most games, getting 50% of the top score is still a pretty decent showing.

if it wasn't for the ABC submitters I don't think we would be having this leaderboard discussion...so let's stick to that issue for now.

I like more for first place oriented system. Changing to 100-85... really does not change much, atleast for lb.

It's still 15 more points. If that isn't enough incentive plus getting that first place score...fine. it will still be enough for others...plus the competitve aspect.

In competing with you for Balloon Fight, it's competing to have the top score. It's not about those 15 extra LB points. I could be playing other roms going for points where I have zero and easily get 15+ Lb points versus competing at Balloon fight still...but I like the competition. My goal for that game is to reach 1 million. You see there is 1 more dot to the left of our scores....so I think it will show 1 million. It would be interesting to see....plus require a high level of skill to reach...likely nearly mastering the game at that point.

But I know that to get from 2nd to 1st does not give you really leaderboard advantage, and therefore discourage improving your position...leaderboard-wise thinking.

I don't think adding more weight to 1st place would change the competition for first place in most cases...especially cases like 1942.

You could end up strongly discouraging trying to get 2nd or 3rd place though if you devalue those much versus what they currently are. How many games do you see a top score that is nearly perfect or you might think is unreachable...yet you think you can get the second place score. That still might be enough for you to go for that second place score. ...similar for 3rd place. Devalue 2nd and 3rd place and suddenly for many games unless someone thinks they can get the top score they won't even bother trying.

That's sad if that happens IMHO.

This is all about the guys submitting tons of average or so-so scores. Those competing for second and third place if submitting only so-so scores likely won't stay in those places in the longer term.

Ofcourse main aspect for many a gamer to be the first is "honour". The scores are so close because of huge end bonus at the game. Scoring is not linear at 1942.

Of course....many games fall under this.

do you think all finished games should be given nearly 100% lb points?

No..and that is still the case with 1942 also. if it gets where 10+ have finished the game, the guy in 10th isn't going to be getting that many points even under the current system. if my calculation is correct even if 10th place was 99.999% of the top score, they would get 23 LB points. That's not all that bad.

That still is a replay showing skill though...to complete the game...so doesn't fall under the issue at hand here. Please get off this 1st-3rd place stuff and stick to the issue that has caused many to not like the leaderboard.

Different games have different scoring. Thats is why your thinking is flawed

hardly...ANY scoring system will be flawed when the game scoring system is flawed.

Nothing is perfect. Any scoring system will have certain games where that system just doesn't work for it.

The system we want to make is a system to discourage ABC submitting. It's not about anything else at this point. You have added 2-3 more aspects to it. It's making things cloudy.

It's very easy to get 50% at trackfld.zip...yet 96k score requires much much more skill than 90k score. Also note that there must be atleast 20 players that have "finished the game"(one round), is it fair all 29 players get lb points.

That system I gave won't work for every single game. ...but will it stop assigning LB points to the 100s and 1000s of replays submitted by ABC submitters with so-so scores for most games? yes it would.

Therefore that would be a possible solution.
Fine, maybe they still take a few Lb pts here and there on some games where it's easy to get 50+%....fine. That won't be enough to get them up into the top 10 or 20 though.

Also opposite example to 50% suggestion... There can be a game where top score is just very high, like Galaga. If you want to give lb points for players who have 6th places, an exceptionally high top score prevents that, no matter how solid competitition there is after 1st place.

Well, if there is only 1 masterful player of the game and no other masters exist...so be it. I don't think it's unfair at all in that manner. It awards that 1st place score for it's degree beyond all the other scores.

Your strict place system would give the same extra LB points of 1st vs 2nd place when 1st place is only 0.1% higher in score than 2nd place or when 1st place is a factor of 10 higher than 2nd place. That's not fair to that great accomplishment by the 1st place player.

If you give 10 first places for 1942 good lb points, for finishing the game...Then you'll need to make same for other games too, like Trackfld.
Unless making different lb point system for each game

All suggestions above I always have assumed are for ALL games. We want a SIMPLE system...not something so damn complex most are confused by it. So you want the same for each game... Yes, any system will be flawed for certain games. We are talking about a system that applies to most though and would stop encouraging ABC submitters.