I think you should keep the testing line in the search string- it's interesting to see all the scores squished into one... and who's good for one piece of games, like you can see who's winning the a's, the b's etc. :)

Thanks for reading my comments :)

-- Gameboy9 (goldengameboy@geocities.com), June 19, 1999

Answers

Well i very much like the new scoring changes (even though i'm now much lower than i was, hopefully if i get enough play time i can build :)

One comment one clones, gathering all the clones together is a decent way of reducing multiple clone scores. However this method basically turns the scoring game into finding the weakest clone to get the highest score. trog (not trogp), pacman-fast(not pacman) will be the only scores trying to better themselves since you don't get any benefit for playing pacman to try to beat a pacman-fast score!

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 19, 1999.

Chad, this is true, but what can I do about it? It doesn't seem fair to award equal points for lots of identical clones, I don't want to have to judge which clones are identical and which aren't, so I have to either ignore clones, or treat clones as if they are the original game (which they mostly are, trogp and *-fast excepting).

Chris.

-- Zwaxy (zwaxy@bigfoot.com), June 19, 1999.

Like i had mentioned a while back, the best way of grouping together clones with out a jury of allow and deny clones, is to take a percentage of how many clones there are and only reward the 1rst place clone the maximum of that clone percentage and not 100. so if there is three clones and you get 100 on one clone, you get 33.333 pts.

do you remember? maybe it wasn't such a good idea then, and still isn't? I still think it's the least of all clone scoring change evils. It does make the scripting and searching a bit complicated, each search result will have to know do a search for all clones to get the correct score, but it looks like you're about to do this anyway... :)

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 20, 1999.

Oh no! It's the Return of the Clones!

This is a really BAD IDEA to lump clones together with the original game. I'm really anti-clones but if they must count, then they should count on their own like the original or lumped together with other clones for the same game. My total score is now less than 1/2 of what it was 4 days ago!!!! This is because a clone hi score beat out my score in the original by 33%. Then in another situation, the original game can be marathoned whilst the clone cannot. That's B.S.!!

To make things fair: the originals should count by themselves as this is THE authentic version, and the clones should be lumped together. If there's four clones, then someone should HAVE to get top score in all 4 to equal the original 100 pts. In other words, take the score for a clone game and divide by the number of clones for that game to arrive at number of leaderboard points. This seems more reasonable!

-- Pat (laffaye@ibm.net), June 21, 1999.

Again, it is wrong to give any clone/parrent a benefit because what could be called "the origonal" in one arcade, was not the origonal in another part of the world. All clones and parrents should be divided equally.

If you just lost half your score, then you proly aren't playing as much as you should :), since if someone can beat your "origonal" score on a clone, and you are good enough at the origonal to retain half your points, then you should be able to beat their score in the clone version.

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

My problem with Chad's suggestion is that if pacman has 10 clones, and I was great at pacman, I'd have to upload 11 great recordings to get my 100 points. Whereas somebody who was great at a game without clones would only have to upload one recording. That seems to me to be unfair on people who play cloned games in the same way that the previous system was unfair on people who didn't!

For the most part, clones are the same as the original games, aren't they? So trogp and trog are different, and some clones are easier than the original game - maybe I should make exceptions for some games? I really don't know what's fairest to do.

Chris.

-- Zwaxy (zwaxy@bigfoot.com), June 21, 1999.

darn zwaxy hiding his answer/responses at the top :)

yes, i agree the needing to upload 10 recordings to get 100 pts is bad. Maybe, for some clones with larger number of recordings we can make the maximum score larger (200) to reward stamina. But, i still think if you like a game and you are good on it, you should be able to play all the clones and do well in each of them. I have no trouble playing bagman clones all day, as does BIL playing galaxian clones :)

Also, you usually don't have to make each of the clone recordings your best effort, just well enough to beat the top score, it seems most people are somewhat humble in that if they see that Mr.B already place a very high score in one of the clones, people aren't as likely to beat a lame Mr.B clone score which is on another clone, since Mr.B will proly upload another recording to beat it if it is beat.

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

Phffffpt!

I'll make it even simpler.

Pick one version of each game to be the official version. Discount the others. Vote on it if there is a controversy.

Why should Puckman and Pacman count as two games? They are almost identical. I don't want to play 3 dig dugs which are all the same, because it is redundant!

In the case of sf2 it's a bit harder to decide, but you could allow ONE original sf2, ONE sf2 champion edition and ONE sf2 Hyper Fighting.

This is the way I do it for Twin Galaxies. I don't think it's fair for someone to get 3 bites at the apple just because there are 3 clones, and another person only gets one. Dividing the points among the clones sounds really convoluted.

Remember the reason there was 3 Joust ROM revisions was because the game let you scab points big time. Easy solution: Always use the newest ROM revision!

My 3 cents

-- Mark Longridge (cubeman@iname.com), June 21, 1999.

Speaking as someone who lost a shit-load of points due to my excessive playing of cloned games I think the new system is fine and dandy.

Gyruss is Gyruss regardless of which version or even if it was Venus.

Galaga is Galaga. Yes the turbo firing version is easier, the gameplay is different but so what. People will soon learn which game is the easiest to score the big points on and play that one.

Galaxians - what more can I say. Galaxian, GalMidw, Galap1 are nigh on identical in gameplay. Yes SuperG and GalTurbo, galapx etc change the gameplay but if you're good at one, you're generally good at all of them.

Why should Bil and me get more points just because Galaxian is one of our favourite games? Why should the Krogmesiter be gifted points for every new Galaga clone that gets added (and 2 more recently did)?

Even though I have lost a truckload of points I still think that converting all the clones into a single 100 point race is the best way to stop unfair advantage for those of us who happen to like the clone games. Yes, even if I didn't suck at Pacman I would still have this opinion.

Just in case my sarcasm is not obvious enough, the next paragraph is typed with tongue firmly planted in cheek: ;-p

What is the difference between multiple clones of galaxian and multiple clones of fighting games. Just because they have different names should someone get 100 points for KOF94, KOF95, ... and all the rest of the neogeo crap fighting games !!!!!!! After all if you're good at one crap neogeo fighting game, why should you get bonus points for being good at all the crap neogeo fighting games. They're basically all the same - just learn the new moves to use on the new enemies and then the game is no different to any other of the fighting clones...... eh BBH.....

BeeJay.

PS: Now I wish the next 7 hours of work would hurry up and finish so I can get back home and back into another Galaxian session because I see Bil has just reclaimed the scores I took off him last night.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 21, 1999.

-- snip --

"Even though I have lost a truckload of points I still think that converting all the clones into a single 100 point race is the best way to stop unfair advantage for those of us who happen to like the clone games. Yes, even if I didn't suck at Pacman I would still have this opinion."

Let me clarify this paragraph in my previous posting. When I said converting all the clones into a single 100 point race I was inferring converting all the clones and the original game into a single 100 point challenge. Nada, zip, end of story. The 'original' is often not the version that someone cut their teeth on in the arcades so to use the 'original' as a separate game would give an unfair advantage to those who had this as the game they cut their teeth on.

Welp, I'll get off my soap-box for now and go do some more work.

BeeJay.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 21, 1999.

The problem is that is NOT the simple way to do it. does zwaxy want to store which clones are good, which clones are latest versions, which clones are excluded? This complicates things when new clones pop up in each mame version, so we have to have some sort of vote, for every mame version that comes out to dispute which clone is included and not? The selective clone system would work but there is too much controversy involved in keeping track and making a proper vote for which clones/origonals to be points getters.

The simple answer is to group clones togehter, in some fashion, there isn't really a good way to do it, but anyway is better than having a separate full score for each clone.

Is MARP a TG site?

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

BJ snuck in a reply (so i want to state my rebuttal was to Mark L.s post) and this one is to BJ.

I would agree with a grouping of one game as all clones, but what do you do about pacman and pacman-fast (and similar games)? if you get 100000 on pacman, and then someone comes along and gets 200000 on pacman-fast (or an easier clone), do they deserve 100 pts and you deserve 50?

Also, the fighting games are Seriously different, totally different combos for the same fighter even on different games, yes they look the same, but they are different. (I do see where you're coming from, i was the first to hate the fighting games when they replaced a galaga machine in my old arcade, boo hoo :( but i've forgave them since i'm starting to like them. :)

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

Chad,

Pacman: Yes, if someone gets 200k on a fast pacman then your 100k on slow pacman gets only 50 points. The point being, if you're good on the slow version it won't take long to get good on the fast version and reclaim your points. If you want to see totally different games of Galaxian, try Galaxian and GalTurbo. Although the games look the same the gameplay required to get high-scores on them is considerably different and once you know how to play it, GalTurbo is the easier game to play with the least practice. You will possibly always be able to get more on the Galaxian/GalMidw/Galap1 versions with practice because GalTurbo is very unforgiving on mistakes.

As far as the fighting games go, my point was that even though they are 'totally' different games, the techniques you learn on one are useful on the other game as soon as you learn the new combos to use. I was merely trying to infer that they are effectively almost as much clones as GalTurbo is of Galaxian - yes they look similar but the gameplay is significantly different until you learn the new moves to use on GalTurbo.... but you could extrapolate that to any vertical scrolling shoot-em-up, and horizontal scrolling shoot-em-up, any platform game, etc..... I am of course being facetious. ;-)

BeeJay.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 21, 1999.

Ok what about this, you get 100000 on pacman 99999 on pacmanb 999999 pacmanc. you get 100 75 50, 225 pts for pacman, If you're the top three scorer. you run into the duplicate scores problem, when you're really only good at "pacman".

yes, now i see you had mentioned once you know the combos the fighting games are the same :) and i was about to say well if you're good at galaxian might as well merge spaceinvaders/spacefirebird/galaga/galaga plus all in the same game :) i still would argue each fighting game has it's own little differences and differnt ways to jump and beat opponents that you can't use over and over again.

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

Chad,

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.

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.

BeeJay.

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.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 21, 1999.

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

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?

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

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

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.

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. :-)

BeeJay.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 21, 1999.

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.

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.

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 :)

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

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.)

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

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.....

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.

BeeJay.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 21, 1999.

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).

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.

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

"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."

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).

JoustGod

-- JoustGod (pinballwiz1@msn.com), June 21, 1999.

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 POTM 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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), June 21, 1999.

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

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.

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?

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?

Aqua

-- Aquatarkus (aquatarkus@digicron.com), June 22, 1999.

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?

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.

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...

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?

Chris.

-- Zwaxy (zwaxy@bigfoot.com), June 22, 1999.

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!

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.

-- Pat (laffaye@ibm.net), June 22, 1999.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Mark

-- Mark Longridge (cubeman@iname.com), June 22, 1999.

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

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.

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.... ;-)

BeeJay.

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

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

SuperG is definitely the hardest by far.

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.

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.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 22, 1999.

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?

-- Chris Parsley (cparsley1@hotmail.com), June 22, 1999.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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

BeeJay.

-- BeeJay (bjohnstone@cardinal.co.nz), June 22, 1999.

I agree with the great NZ'ander Bee Jay, lesser of two evils to leave clones as their own game. Everyone has their strong point, and the real mark of a champion will be to be able to come across to someone's else's side and knock them off. Grouping clones makes certain game styles less meaningful than others.

-- Chris Parsley (cparsley1@hotmail.com), June 22, 1999.

I do prefer to have clones separate from original, so to give more chances to other to challenge "leaderships" in "families" of games. After all, clones are slightly different from original games.

As far as the 15% first place bonus concerns, is this an official value, I mean, will it be always 15%, or MARP will have 101 (100 bonus values + the original 10-3-1) different leader boards!?! I think this has to be decided once for ever.

Tony

-- Cicca (cicca@writeme.com), July 01, 1999.