forums.marpirc.net

Chad,
<p>

No you would still only score 100 points for PacMan in the same was
as uploading the top three scores for one PacMan would not give you
any more points.

<p>

ie: Zwaxy's script would only count the highest score you achieved
on any of the original/clones as far as points earning is concerned.

<p>

BeeJay.

<p>

PS: Remember I was trying to be facetious with my comment on the
fighting games - it was meant as a semi-humorous aside to the real
subject of this thread. Who knows, one day when I've nothing better
to do I might decide to spend some time learning some of these crappy
fighting games......... but I very much doubt it as I tend to only
play the games that I find enjoyable and fighting games are not my
cup of tea.

--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz

ok now i misread you twice about the fighting games (my mistake.)
<p>

If you do only best score counts you effectivley remove competition
for the harder clones and all the pacman set of games becomes one game
as the weakest clone (pacman-fast) Since, Who's going to upload
scores of pacman when they can only get more points if they upload a
pacman-fast score?

<p>

keep them galaxian inps coming (BIL is relentless, i have a feeling
once he's done he'll be back to spacefb again

--
churritz@cts.com

As far as pacman fast goes I'm presuming someone who truly knows the
pacman patterns is going to walk all over everyone else anyway
regardless of whether they use the fast version or not. Again, the
game that is the easiest will be the one that people will use - and
the fact that you only have to get one good score to beat all the
pacman variations may improve competition across a wider range of
games. I don't know how much longer I'll keep trying to beat all of
BIL's scores if I can beat one of them on one version. Then I'll
look to a different game and a different battle with a different
MARP'er.

<p>

As far as Galaxian goes - I get the impression BIL is going to
continue to beat me. His high score from the old days was 230K where
as my best back in the days when I fed "twennies" into the machines
was around 15k so I'm happy to be getting where I at now but that
doesn't mean I won't keep on trying to improve just that little
further past BIL's scores..... and that's what adds the extra level
of interest to the game and the extra level of frustration when
you're almost to their current score and then lose it.

<p>

BeeJay.

--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz

How will there wider competition this way? All i see is everyone
uploading pacman-fast scores and not many people bothering to upload
regular pacman scores, since eventually you won't get any score for
uploading a harder version of clone. I dunno about anyone else, but
i'd prefer to see the harder recordings get most of the upload time,
like a galaga version that only lets you fire one shot per minute or
a pacman at slower than normal speed (ghosts at regular speed) I
think that's where the true ingenuity of game play can be seen.

<p>

If we let the weakest clones be the victors, we'll never see
competingly better recordings of the harder clones. If there is a
maximum point level to reach on each clone (which will not be 100!),
then you still maintain all clones competitions. and Anyone who can
whip someones butt at one clone will be able to do it in all of them,
so why is everyone whining that they'll have to play a bunch of clones
to get deserved points. I don't see those people whining who play
every single clone right now. It increases quality of uploads, since
if you play pacman 10 times, the best of those 10 recordings (which is
in the opinion of each downloader) will be better for the greater good
than if that person only uploaded a pacman-fast clone, who i certainly
would rather see that person do a pacman-slow upload.

<p>

not that anyone is reading this long winded discussion, but i have
submited donuts m35rc1 screenshots to zwaxy who hasn't put them up
yet! just a nudge

--
churritz@cts.com

never mind, he did, i just hadn't seen any of them in the new uploads,
but they are there (saturn is one of them and it's there.)

--
churritz@cts.com

By wider competition I was meaning instead of a player recording 10
different pacman recordings they would record just the one they're
best at and then go onto different games.....

<p>

At any rate my main imputus to this thread is despite the fact that
I've lost 50% of my medal points and 45% of my percentage points I
still think that the current situation is better than we had
previously with all the clonez counting separately and I for one look
forward to moving onto other games instead of having to battle over 4-
5 different galaxians versions because they all affect my final score.

<p>

BeeJay.

--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz

Agreed, BeeJay. The current situation for handling clones is a much
better solution than the past in spite of the fact that it cost me
points also. But, it appears that you and I weren't the only ones
affected...so at some point it evens out to some degree (not entirely
evenly, I understand, but at least it's a more sensible approach).

<p>

Seperating clones and "originals" is fine by me with the current
system allowing 100 pts. for the original and 100 for the remaining
clones. If the original was tougher or easier than the subsequent
clones, then so be it. MARP players will eventually ferret out the
game that they prefer to run a score up on, whether it be the
original or clone.

<p>

Hopefully, this will indeed lead to more diverse score submissions as
you pointed out with the observation that:

<p>

"I for one look
forward to moving onto other games instead of having to battle over 4-
5 different galaxians versions because they all affect my final
score."

<p>

It definitely takes a lot of playing time to constantly defend scores
(as well as becomes a tedious task)in the instance that you happen to
be playing a game that has a bunch of clones. You can't blame anyone
for trying to submit as many scores on the clones as possible because
that's the way the system of scoring was originally set up and you
just simply try to maximize any opportunity that exists in the ever
vicious world of the MARP Leaderboard! Hmmm...opportunity...think
I'll join the little Battle Lane party soon (cheesy move, for sure,
but this is the kind of situation I'm talking about).

<p>

JoustGod

--
pinballwiz1@msn.com

i think you (BeeJay) will only record the game your best at but most
people seem to want points. (i dunno why? there's no money
involved... well i compete in the <a
href=http://members.tripod.com/~POTM> POTM</a> so i guess i understand
And they will make recordings in the weakest clone and eventually
edge all the worthy recordings/clones out of the points getting.

<p>

So, do they deserve the points where people who make a legitamate shot
at the hard clone (their one and only favorite one to upload) get
nothing after being edged out?

<p>

Having a scoring table for each clone, gives people who only like one
hard-clone a shot at getting points where they won't get anything by
being edged out by the easy clone scores. Inciting competition and
better scores? Yes, but only for the easy-clones, the hard clones get
toasted.

<p>

The 100/100 clone system might work, but then you have a dispute for
which clone is the original? I for one never played the "origonal"
clone of spacefire bird, (at least i remember) seeing the Gremlin sign
on my arcade. so is spacefb or spacefbg the original or clone? I
guess i've said this too much already but there are too many questions
if you start picking and choosing which clones to group where, you
also have the added overhead of adding to the marp database this
choosing method.

<p>

With the tabled clone method (i'm calling it now,) there is no
pickyness or cliches involved, every clone gets it's day and
competition with out having duplicate scores, yes you have to work a
little harder to get scores, but i argue this adds more total quality
to the system. less games to compete in (weaker clones) can only give
you lesser quality recordings?

<p>

ok i think i've given my 233.20 cents enough, i'll stop.

--
churritz@cts.com

Just once, I'd like to read one of these threads and not remember how weird I must be...
<p>

My approach to playing these things has tended to be all wrong for MARP, because I generally have to take one or two games at a time and run the scores up as high as I can before moving on to the next game. This does pretty well for long term score defense, but it's also a lot of why I don't have all that many leaderboard points - I'm not good enough to get worthy scores in a few tries so I can't do 30+ games a week. Each newly discovered clone leaves me with the choice of resharpening my skills on a game every three weeks or sending in a crap score, both of which I see as a waste of time.

<p>

I'd combine versions of the games for scoring, with certain chipsets seperated (slow/fast Ms. Pacman) or disqualified (Crazy Kong, Japanese Donkey Kong sets) where there are significant differences from the standard game. Who fucking well cares which bleeding label is on the damn game?

<p>

The only real arguments I have with Mark's view is the MAME team doesn't always make it the least bit easy to figure out which blasted version of a game is the newest, and what do you do with old scores when MAME adds a chip revision newer than all those emulated previously?

<p>

Aqua

--
aquatarkus@digicron.com

1. Somebody told me I could set this board up so my postings don't
always appear at the top of each thread, but now I can't find that
message. Who was it, and how do I do it?

<p>

2. Thanks for all the responses. When I was sat programming all that
clone merging code I began wondering whether anyone would notice or
care. It's encouraging to see that you're all as wrapped up in this
stuff as I am.

<p>

3. I'm confused about what's the best system of scoring to use. I'm
thinking that where I've split a game up into several categories (like
pacman and pacman-fast - like every game which has a hypen in its
short name, in fact - so far MAME didn't use any hyphens) I ought to
keep them as separate categories. Then all the pacman clones are
combined, with the winning score getting 100 points, and all the
pacman-fast clones are combined, with another 100 points for them.
This might not be the best idea, though, since then the hard clones
won't be played. Maybe just dividing the score awarded by the number
of (original + clones) like Chad keeps suggesting (and I keep
ignoring) might be best. It means that when a new version of MAME
adds a couple more clones to my fave game my score will immediately
drop, but I guess that would just be how it was...

<p>

4. How does that make you weird, Aqua? Do you agree that combining
the versions of clones means only the easiest clone will be played?
Or are the clones similar enough that 'easiest clone' doesn't mean
much for the most part?

<p>

Chris.

--
zwaxy@bigfoot.com

The more I think about the 100+100 idea the more I believe it would
work better. This means 100 pts are available for 1st on the original
as before, but then there's an additional 100 possible pts that is
split across all the clones. (Basically Chad's idea except that the
original is counted separately from the clones) It's pretty simple!

<p>

For those that didn't see my other append...
I suppose I'm a traditionalist, and believe that an original game is
considered an original for a variety of reasons notably for the
purpose of tracking records and historical significance. Perhaps it's
a programmer's original work and wants players to remember it as such.
That said, emphasis should be given to the original. You do that by
ignoring all the clones (not realistic) or minimzing the importance
(scoring and otherwise) of the clones. The extra 100 pts. distributed
amongst the clones would let those that have invested time and effort
into playing clones, be rewarded for their efforts. At the same time
it would be quite clear that the original is the prefered version for
leaderboard points.

--
laffaye@ibm.net

There is one other issue, and some of the original programmers of
the arcade games emailed me about it. It seems some of them are
upset that the emulator programmers are getting all the recognition.

<p>

A lot of the older games don't have the names of the original
programmers on the screen. What has this got to do with high scores?
Well, I know if I was one of the original programming guys, I wouldn't
want pirated versions of my game getting lots of recognition. After
all, a lot of the so called clone games are really pirated copies.
That means that someone hacked the title screen, and stuck there
name on it. (Of course, there are legitimate licenses as well). So
why debase the original guy's work? I would rather the original game
get preserved, not the copy. I don't have a problem with a European
version, a Japanese version and an American version all having
scores, as long as each one is distinctive. If not, pick one and be
done with it. How difficult would that be? Of course games like
World Heroes, World Heroes 2 and World Heroes Perfect are all
distinctive. Clearly this games should be treated separately. But that
is a far cry from digdugat, digdugnm and dzigzag. Namco developed
Dig Dug, and licensed it to Atari, then some moron pirated it and
called it Zig Zag. All 3 are identical, except some of the title
screens. As for Galaxian, I would say there are really 2 versions
to consider: Galaxian (Namco) and Super Galaxian, which was much
more difficult.

<p>

I think some of the licenses are really on the borderline. My
own personal opinion on it is that the original manufacturer's
version is more significant than the licenses, and most of them
are not distinctive from the original. I can't speak for Chris,
I'm just offering my own viewpoints. Chris as been gracious enough
to allow MARP to be sort of a feeder site for Twin Galaxies, and
at the same time remaining distinctive with it's own take on arcade
history. I only use scores which follow very strict rules, and then
only after asking the player first.

<p>

Ultimately the choice is Chris'. I do like the competition on MARP,
and let's face it, a dynamic site is more interesting!

<p>

I think there is room for more than one viewpoint here.

<p>

Mark

--
cubeman@iname.com

I've been thinking about Chad's idea as well and I'm starting to
prefer it with a minor modification.

<p>

It seems that a flat 100 for the original +100 for all the clones
would give and 'unfair' bias to a game that had only 2 clones. Then
each clone would be up for 50 points max whereas for Pacman each
clone would only be worth < 10 points max.

<p>

Perhaps we should come up with a figure of 100 for the original and
then say 30 points max per clone - or whatever number seems
reasonable. That would give clones a lower rating than the
originals, would reduce the overall points value for all the clones
but still give encouragement to play the clones for those who have
the time, can be bothered or are enjoying their current battle with
another MARPer - eh Bil....

<p>

BeeJay.

<p>

PS: Mark - I believe there are more than 2 distinct versions of
Galaxians.

<p>

Galaxian, GalMidw and Galap1 are definitely identical or close to.

<p>

SuperG is definitely the hardest by far.

<p>

GalaPx is significantly different to the original. It plays at a
similar speed, but the graphics and the enemy movements are different
and shots move in the direction your ship is moving adding a new
element to the gameplay.

<p>

GalTurbo - a significantly faster game than the original, faster
swooping enemies etc. Definitely a change in gameplay tactics and
significantly different enough to my mind to be considered a
'different' version.

--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz

T3's are lovely, work system. That last post is the exact reason why
clones should be left alone. Who is to determine exactly how much
value a game should have, and who is to determine what makes a game
enough of a difference to be deserving of it's own score, rather than
being grouped as a clone?

--
cparsley1@hotmail.com

I must be riding a see-saw I keep going from one side to the other in
my thinking.

<p>

You are right in some respects a game is a game is a game. Who's to
say it's any more an advantage to someone who's good a Pacman to get
lots of points from Pacman versus someone who's good at shooting
games getting lots of points in shooting games, versus someone good
at platform games getting lots of points in platform games, versus
someone good at fighting games getting shitloads of points from a the
ton of fighting games made since the older MARP crowd long ago
finished regularly visiting the arcades ?

<p>

Yes SF2 may be significantly different to Last Blade to those who've
played them, but to me they look like just another clone of a
fighting game. Then again, I can see significant differences between
some of the different variants of Galaxians.

<p>

I still think the percentage system is a big improvement over what we
had previously and perhaps we should see what happens over time as
regards the clones and who's benefitting from them. The other side
of the coin is if someone else comes along and starts taking the
clone scores off you, you spend a whole lot of time trying to get
them back instead of playing many of the other available games that
you may just be able to get some points from.

<p>

Maybe the best thing to do for now is to live with the clones as
separate games and see how things pan out as more newcomers arrive at
MARP and more games are added etc.

<p>

Well, I'll see-saw back out of here again and get back to some more
of my real work.

<p>

BeeJay.

--
bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz