forums.marpirc.net

Score alone is by no means a correct way to establish who the best player is. It has been remarked that distance is more important than score. This is true but only applies to non-finished games and so far two players (Blost and François Daniel) did manage to get to the end of the game. So when it comes to finished games only the score settles the matter? Again, the answer is NO WAY. Everyone will agree, I hope, that the best player is the one who manages to score the more points by finishing the game and losing the less lives. Also very important is that the player does not repeat (voluntarily or not) last level of round 2. The reason for all this is quite evident: when you die you’re sent back to the beginning (or half) of a level, where you can earn points you had already earned and that the player that doesn’t die cannot earn: worse player gets more points as a result of his own ineptitude. This is sheer nonsense, isn’t it? Now, the current ranking (based solely on score) is: 1) François Daniel 339,900 2) Innuendo 261,100 3) Blost 250,900. I now intend to show the actual ranking is: 1) Blost 2) François Daniel 3) Innuendo. To begin with, Innuendo, unlike Blost and François, did not finish the game (died 4th level of round 2), so this automatically places him in 3rd position. François died 8 times (often at the very end of a level)
and repeated last level of round 2 twice, which enabled him to get an unwarranted amount of points (the fact that he apologizes for this is to his credit but does not change the facts). Blost, on the other hand, died only twice and did not repeat last level of round 2 (strictly speaking he did because he died at Beelzebub but that doesn’t really matter). There are no doubts, then, that he who showed off most skill and should therefore be awarded 1st position is Blost. He can only be surpassed by someone who scores EITHER more than his 250,900 by dying no more than twice and not repeating last level of round 2 OR less than 250,900 by dying less than twice and not repeating last level of round two.

<p>

This may look complicated (in fact it’s not) but is absolutely necessary or else the competition will inevitably turn into an embarassing farce...

--
m_nassivera@yahoo.it

It's certainly not complicated, I think most people will agree,
however the problem is with changing the rules after the competition
has started, I think that will cause a much bigger mess than just
using an unfair scoring system. This is something coordinators should
think about for the next Olympiad, as this reasoning applies pretty
well to all finishable games. Won't work for the leaderboard though...
too much trouble.

--
rpeng@usc.edu

Mmmm ... it looks like my 6 months old idea of rewarding someone
finishing the game with "1000000xnumber of lifes left" for this game
was not useless

--
plamat@club-internet.fr

I agree with you, Michele. But when I set the rules, I dont think
I'll play so badly... but for the next olympiads, make a scoring
system based on the lifes left will be fair. Now, we can't change the
rules, it will be more a farce than you said. Yes, today I win but
with another system, I'll play enough for try to win, too. You're
right but your question come to late.

<p>

I have a question for you. Why you haven't play with us ? You've made
score better than us, no ?

<p>

François

--
francois-daniel@libertysurf.fr

We must establish universal rules for this game (i.e. not only for
olympiads). If marp rankings are to be ordered according to score,
then Phil Lamat’s proposal (1 million for every spare life at the
end) appears to be the most effective solution. I would only modify
it in one respect: the bonus life found in a pot (the little knight)
should not count because it not always turns up and getting it is
just a matter of luck, not skill. Also, repeating at will last level
of round 2 should be banned (I managed to score 1,258,900 with that
method) or, alternatively, a marathon ranking should be added beside
the regular (“tournament”) ranking. If a player happens to arrive at
the end of the level without the magic weapon and is sent back to the
beginning, then the points he collects in the repetition of the level
should be subtracted from his final score.

<p>

François, I did not mean to be offensive when I said “farce”,
sorry... but I’m also sorry that Blost, who exhibited the best
gameplay, ended up third: this is what I actually meant.

<p>

Why haven’t I played with you? Well, the main reason is that I wasn’t
happy with your decision to use mame55 as this suffers from too many
bugs and slowdowns. I think that for official competitions the last
final version should be used (in this case 0.36 final, which is very
stable), unless of course the roms are changed (which is not the case
of Ghouls) or a given game is only available on later versions.

<p>

Anyway, congrats to you, Blost and Innuendo, for you are all very
good Ghouls players

<p>

Michele

--
m_nassivera@yahoo.it

Perhaps, 3 lifes only can be a good thing. Sorry Michele, If I'd know
for 36 Final, It will be accepted. I take 0.55 because it's the last
release and because I haven't seen bugs or slowdown on it. My goal
was only a challenge betwin all the best players. I'm very sorry you
are not with us.

<p>

Francois

--
francois@libertysurf.fr

Not to downgrade Phils 6 month old dream, however i have a doubt.
With a scoring bonus of 1000000 per life left: it is easy to score
(for confirmers) since you just look at the lives left but you still
have to worry about ban repeating of levels.

<p>

I'd say if you award a big bonus 1000000 for those who do not die at
the end of finishing, and a lesser bonus 7500000/500000/250000 (for
those who lose 1/2/3 lives during the game but still finish): this
would solve both the problem of leeching (since you have to die to
repeat a level thus losing your bonus) and the problem of the bonus
pot since you do not gain any extra bonus by getting the bonus knight.

--
churritz@crash.cts.com

Hello Michele. Thanks. I´ve tried with all my skills to make Brazil
first, but like in soccer, lose to France again. I need to practice
more. While this, you found a new rival on Ghouls´n Ghosts. And I
need to beat that 3.600.000 in Goblins. Ramatan, you´re a very good
player, congratulations for your gnga inp.

--
funit@bol.com.br

Chad, the real leeching problem is last level of round 2 and you
don't have to die to repeat that level... Anyway, special rules for
this game are a long-felt desideratum, so please let's vote...

--
m_nassivera@yahoo.it

hmm, i forgot about finishing and repeating with out the special
weapon. And it would be grey area to penalize repeating the second
level more than once if there was no chance to get the weapon
(granted there are many it's possible to legitimately miss the
weapon...) I have no clue.

--
churritz@crash.cts.com

I know this sounds stupid, but if someone repeats the last level of
round two, then why don't you just subtract the points they got from
repeating it?

--
JoeyL21988@yahoo.com

Joey:I don´t think its a stupid idea at all. Why not give it a try?
<p>

Regards QRS

--
qrs@telia.com

Yes, the idea sounds good. But poor confirmers They must see the
inp more than once. Because, they don't know if the player made a
loop the first time they see it And die by time after killing the
Bee for leeching is accepted

<p>

François

--
francois-daniel@libertysurf.fr

The idea of subtracting the points one earns in the repetition of
last level of round 2 was suggested in my second message above. I'm
only glad other people thought of the same thing.

<p>

Yes, calculating a score in accordance with the rules proposed here
may sound like a tiresome task but it's mandatory. If necessary, I
can offer my help in this matter.

--
m_nassivera@yahoo.it

Oh, hehe. Didn't even realize that Michele I had the idea
myself, so I didn't steal it, so we both are thinking alike

--
JoeyL21988@yahoo.com