I'd like to call TIMEOUT and plead that we should decide this with a 15-day vote. Whichever has the most interest should be implemented.

With each one of the issues, please tell us wheater you'll:

a. Fully Support this leaderboard idea. (3 points)

b. Half-Support the idea. (2 points)

c. Hate the idea, but will live with it(i.e. you'll stay) (1 point)

d. Hate the idea and leave MARP if it goes through. (0 points)

We can change the point values if you wish.

With each idea, if you vote A - C, I think you should mention any changes that should occur. Ideas proposed are:

1. Keep the leaderboard as it is.

2. Go back to a 10-3-1 system(or similar)

3. A tie is a tie is a tie - everyone gets same points.

4. If there's tie, the faster one gets greater points.

5. Have a cutoff(mention what it should be if you're A - C on this idea)

6. Give out points for a certain place(in the current instance, 3rd) or better regardless of the cutoff line.

7. Use the tournament rules(1st = number of recordings, 2nd = number of recordings - 1, last = 1 point)

8. Throw out the leaderboard all together.

9. Limit the number of recordings / day

Any other ideas?

My votes:

1. A

2. C(with the population, if we had to go with this, let's do 5th or better scores)

3. A

4. C

5. B(I think either 5 or 10 points are good.)

6. A(I think it should be 5th or better instead of 3rd.)

7. B

8. A

9. A(20 / day would be good here)

I feel like taking a test... at least we'll all get 100 % :)

-- Gameboy9 (goldengameboy@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999

Answers

1.B 2.B 3.B 4.C 5.C 6.C 7.C 8.A 9.C

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), October 29, 1999.

I am willing to call a hold while this vote is being taken, and here are my votes and why...

1. A (It seems to be the best of evils) 2. A (Adjusting it to be more people would be needed, like maybe 5 spots or something) 3. A (It takes the same work) 4. F (This is obvious, if the other gets an A, the opposite fails) 5. F- (This would get a Z- if such a grade is available, as where are we to determine what is work, and what is "lame" 6. B (It helps support competition in games where first is sooo far ahead) 7. D (Too hard to keep up for the servers, and that is why everyone is wanting to cut, isn't it?) 8. F (What fun would that be?) 9. B (I don't see any problem with this suggestion, actually I like it!)

-- Chris Parsley (cparsley1@hotmail.com), October 29, 1999.

1. Keep the leaderboard as it is. A - 100 point system is good as it is. Additionially, can we have Zwaxy remove the bonus for first by default?

2. Go back to a 10-3-1 system(or similar) B - I prefer 10-7-5-3-1, or better, maybe a top 10 like most machines. We'll work on the details later. Keep both though for all intensive purposes. Continue sorting by 100-point system.

3. A tie is a tie is a tie - everyone gets same points.

A/B - Depends on the game.

4. If there's tie, the faster one gets greater points.

B - See above.

5. Have a cutoff(mention what it should be if you're A - C on this idea)

C - I don't want a cutoff, but if you want one, make it adjustable on the leaderboard. Make all recordings count, but allow users to adjust the leaderboard to cut people off.

6. Give out points for a certain place(in the current instance, 3rd) or better regardless of the cutoff line.

B/C - Some scores don't deserve the minimum amount of points.

7. Use the tournament rules(1st = number of recordings, 2nd = number of recordings - 1, last = 1 point)

C - Too complicated.

8. Throw out the leaderboard all together.

D - No way...this is mainly why I stayed at MARP. I came here initially to flaunt the first recorded 300 on the 'net of Capcom Bowling...when the leaderboard was added, I stayed. If it goes, so do I. =)

9. Limit the number of recordings / day

C - I don't particularly enjoy being restricted, especially on new beta days. Also, Zwaxy's day is a bit whacked compared to the other users. =)

There's my say. I don't particularly like leaderboard discussions, but if I don't say anything, things I don't like will happen. =)

-- Sports Dude (shyboy820@aol.com), October 29, 1999.

Woohoo, voting! All right, I guess I'll put my two cents in.

1. A. It's peachy-keen as is, at least on my end of things. 2. A. Wouldn't mind a strictly medal-based system either. 3. A. Ties are just that, ties. 4. C. Beta rushes for easy-to-tie games are passe. :) 5. C. I'm not wild about it by itself, but I'm certainly not going to shout from the rooftops what a godawful idea it is and how I'm going to leave if anybody even ~thinks~ about implementing it. Were one put in, I'd say 10 points is a pretty fair cutoff. 6. A. I'm with Gameboy here, 5th place or better seems like a good guarantee of points. That, combined with the 10-point cutoff, is a solution that I think is satisfactory for all involved. 7. B. With several hundred gamers and growing, this is quickly going to become a monstrosity of a system. The leaderboard scores would be enormous, and everybody's score changes as soon as a new player joins up (if I'm understanding this idea correctly). Ugh. It's great for the tournament, but I think it should stay there. 8. A. MARP survived without it in the beginning, and it can do it again. Chris could certainly do with a lot less bitching from the players over it, I'll wager. 9. B. If it really is bogging down the server (and I suppose it is, there were times when I had several recordings to upload and I think I crashed it), then something needs to be done. But I was encountering problems with <10 recordings in one go, so perhaps 20 is too lenient. I'd go with 5, or even 3. Seriously, how many ~good~ games are you going to play in one day? :)

Thank you, that is all.

Brian

-- Brian McLean (bmclean84@hotmail.com), October 29, 1999.

Heh. Funny. Last time we had some kind of a vote going on as well. Nothing came from it. I am just wondering if voting does any good. After all, there hadn't been any voting the past few days, and Zwaxy decided to implement the cutoff. No matter how much we vote, Zwaxy will be the one who ultimately decides, maybe even regardless of the results of the voting.

And at this point it is not a question of whether people like the things listed here or not, it's a question of keeping the MARP servers from crashing all the time. It's a question of having a MARP that you may not like as much anymore versus having no MARP at all.

MySQL is not magic. It may solve the problems and it may not. But even if it does, it is going to take AT LEAST several weeks to convert everything from Python to MySQL. I think nobody here wants to see MARP down most of the time until then.

And since Zwaxy (and I fully support him in this) decides to make changes without waiting for a long-drawn discussion with a lot of threatening, whining, flaming, whatever, followed by a vote, maybe next time there is an issue, it should be taken up with Zwaxy first...

Ben Jos.

-- Ben Jos Walbeehm (walbeehm@walbeehm.com), October 29, 1999.

1. B

It's the best system that's been in place, but that's not saying a whole lot - it's only the second.

2. Sorry to split this one, but it's the only way my answer will make any sense.

10-3-1 or similar with large 1st bonus - D It's a bad, bad, idea to force a race for first place without more controlled conditions than MARP has, or maybe I should say more controlled conditions than MARP could possibly have.

10-7-5-3-1 or similar with less than ten places - C

12-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 or similar with at least ten places - B

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 or similar with at least ten places - A Probably the best system that's a political possibility. My personal preference is 25 places.

3. A 4. C I think ties should, in general, get equal points. I don't care all that much though, except for the ones that are practically impossible to lose and NEED TO BE DROPPED ALTOGETHER.

5. B (with 6)/C (without 6) 6. A 10% to 30%, with minimum scores through tenth place regardless (call it a Galaga rule?). This has as much to do with the load on anyone trying to follow the scoreboard as it does with the server. And in case anyone forgot or wasn't here yet, there were a few people pulling the A.D. bit while it was still 10-3-1.

or

(yes, it's out of order) 9. A - 10 per day I'd rather see this than a minimum percentage cutoff, especially since there's only an expiration date on tournament entries.

7. A/B/C - depending on ????

I don't know. It would sure as hell put a stop to the beta rush - 1st place worth 1 point :) But ... a strong first place score could get stuck with a relatively small number of points if people decide it's not worth the chase. Could be interesting, but a fixed number of places is probably a saner option.

8. No leaderboard - C The leaderboard is one of the unique features of MARP. As innaccurate as it may be at times, it's still a cool thing to have around.

Aqua

-- Aquatarkus (aquatarkus@digicron.com), October 29, 1999.

1 - B 2 - A ( with 10 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 like Formula 1 world championship ) 3 - A 4 - C 5 - A ( cutoff = 10 % ) 6 - A 7 - C 8 - D 9 - C

-- lagavulin (darre@club-internet.fr), October 29, 1999.

1.A 2.C (prefer 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1) 3.A 4.C 5.B (5 or 10 points) 6.A (top 10) 7.C 8.D 9.A (15)

-- Crash (crash@tcp.co.uk), October 29, 1999.

Just in case the results of our voting will make a difference:

1. A; 2. C (but if we do, 10-7-5-3-1); 3. A; 4. C; 5. A (10%, but keep the top 5 regardless of how few points. Once the servers can handle much larger amounts of recordings, I am indifferent towards a cutoff); 6. C; 7. C; 8. C; 9. A (5 per day).

-- Ben Jos Walbeehm (walbeehm@walbeehm.com), October 29, 1999.

OK, my votes are:

1) A. It good the way it is. although it would be nice if it were more configurable (ie: have a choice of 10-3-1, 10-7-5-3-1, percentage, or whatever).

2) B. See above.

3) A.

4) B.

5) B. Depends on the game.

6) A. Make it tenth, though. Particularly for a game that has a lot of recordings.

7) B. Better than 10-3-1, but it would be better if the top score for each game got the same points. (Don't know if that is what you mean or not)

8) C. No way!

9) A. Seeing as I usually only upload something once every couple of weeks anyway.

-- Barry Rodewald (bsr@hn.pl.net), October 29, 1999.

1. A (by this I mean no cutoff, period)

2. D (unless it is 10-9-8-7-6...) (when you think about it, percentage is still the best scoring system (10-3-1 will discourage new players from joining, as it is HARD to score in the top 3 on popular games)

3. A

4. D (unfair to players not using DosMAME that have to wait for new versions...this question should be struck down...no offense)

5. D (if above 5% and not justifiable by server/script requirements)

6. A

7. B

8. D ( like Sports Dude, this is one of the reasons I play here. You don't pull the plug on the arcade machine to reset the high score table, now do you?)

9. A (if the limit is at least 10 or +)

-- Q.T.Quazar (qan@home.com), October 29, 1999.

1A. Otherwise I wouldn't play some games for which the highscores are out of reach. 2C. I joined MARP after the change. But the effect will be the same as 1 3A. 4C. 5A. Cutoff at 0 points 6A. 7C. It means that when you are playing less popular games you will get less points 8C/D. It's the one thing I like most of MARP 9A. I do not manage to play more than a few games a day and only 1 or 2 a day with a high score that is enough to submit. So 10 a day seems to be more than enough

Greetings Martin van der Vis

-- MvdV (cypr135@knoware.nl), October 30, 1999.

1 b 2 a (with 10-6-4-3-2-1 f1 formula) 3 a 4 c 5 b 6 c 7 c 8 d 9 c

-- Phil Lamat (plamat@club-internet.fr), October 30, 1999.

1-B (still room for improvement--I think PRS is more accurate) 2-C (only if 25-24-23-22-...-1, so no one feels excluded) 3-A (last time I checked this was the definition of a tie) 4-C (no, otherwise it's off to the races!) 5-B (we're killing the CPU by showing scores with pics as the default) 6-B (why should players get credit for crap scores on new beta games?) 7-B (only would work for a small number of games that everyone plays) 8-D (just think, a lot of leaderboard discussions would also go away!) 9-C (don't restrict people--they'll be back tommorow with more anyway)

-- Pat (laffaye@ibm.net), October 31, 1999.

1 - A, 2 - B, 3 - A, 4 - C, 5 - A (10 points seems good to me), 6 - B, 7 - C, 8 - C, 9 - A (5-10 a day)

-- ^Cronos^ (javiog@teleline.es), October 31, 1999.

My votes:

1. A

2. C (like others i prefer 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1)

3. A (if win the faster no mamedos players are penalized

4. c (if win the faster no mamedos players are penalized

5. c (an example : if i do 100000 on 1941 i will be cutted but if i recorded it with a final version of mame probably it is more useful of a 10000000 recorded with a beta version that in some cases is very difficult to find (for example the win32 beta).

6. c

7. c

8. c

9. c

-- A.D. SAKURAGI (adeidda@newmail.net), October 31, 1999.

A fast vote in the middle of the night...

1C, 2C(add it as option), 3A, 4C, 5C, 6B, 7B(would be interesting how big the difference will be!) 8D 9D

-- rough (rough@c64.rulez.org), October 31, 1999.

Here my votes:

1. Keep the leaderboard as it is. - B (sort by 10-3-1)

2. Go back to a 10-3-1 system(or similar) - see 1.

3. A tie is a tie is a tie - everyone gets same points. - A

4. If there's tie, the faster one gets greater points. - D but I won't leave MARP

5. Have a cutoff(mention what it should be if you're A - C on this idea) - A (5% is too low)

6. Give out points for a certain place(in the current instance, 3rd) or better regardless of the cutoff line. - ???

7. Use the tournament rules(1st = number of recordings, 2nd = number of recordings - 1, last = 1 point) - D - too complicated

8. Throw out the leaderboard all together. D - I'll leave MARP !!!

9. Limit the number of recordings / day - B - could be an additional deterrent.

Cicca

-- Cicca (cicca@writeme.com), November 02, 1999.