So it looks like we are restarting the tinychat versions of online NES Tetris competitions! I don't have all that much to say this second on the topic but I think having a thread here as a clearing house of info would be a good idea, especially for those less involved in the whole facebook thing. Anyway, we don't have a new day set yet, but it will be put here. Our recent one was planned day of and still managed to get 8 or 9 people, so that was pretty cool to see. I'll just keep editing this top one with when the next meeting will be. We usually use tinychat and the link will be here when its made (we used to just hijack harddrops but can prolly make our own) Also here are the ancient scores, with the 15ths as well (although the 15th scores cannot be remembered all that well) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...hxNW9KdmE1SlE4bmVRNnZEMnc&usp=drive_web#gid=7
I like your idea of an online competition! How did the participants proved their scores? For example, there are no old scores? Unfortunately, I play so far no NTSC...
Proof is had by virtue of all the games being streamed by video in a Skype like fashion such that we all can see if we wish. Sometimes when multiple people are in one house only one will have the video, but no one would lie for another so that too works. Usually I had had people enter their own scores on the spreadsheet linked. I think you are not seeing scores simply because we did not have them in the most recent one on the 15th. But if you click on the other tabs at the bottom of that file you will see older ones with scores in all portions of the competition.
I think what will really set this thing off is to keep records and rankings. Wins/losses records and some sort of comrehensive (but not overly complicated) ranking system. That would mean we would need to standardize the type of competitions we have. Or at least part of the competition standardized--like the play three on 18 portion. For instance, I think Ben won the play three on 18. So he would be 7-0. I think I got second, so that puts me at 6-1. Last place would be 0-7. That would be a rolling record. So next time if Ben got last in another group of eight, he would be 7-7. So the rolling record would be part of the ranking, and overall average scores would be another part of the rank. And maybe the ranking should be seasonal (reset after the "major events" in April and October?...or perhaps annually after CTWC?) so that you can get a clean slate once in a while. Imagine the drama: "If Bo places at least third overall or averages a score of at least 620k, he will re-take the number one player in the world spot!" ...or something like that And imagine how much confidence that would give you going into CTWC being a top-ranked player in the world in live competition!
I like where you're going with this josh...only thing that might throw a wrench in it is the fact that different players show up at different days. ..so someone who shows up every single time would be rewarded with more victories and a higher ranking when someone who shows up say once a month but is better than most will never catch up....i propose we do it like tennis majors....maybe twice a month have normal tourneys with points awarded for place within the tourney. ..and have majors once a month or so worth double the points for whatever place you get...1st will get 10. 2nd 8 etc etc....just an idea???
Standardization and long term rankings would be a good idea. I think everyone was pretty happy with the last thing right? 3 18's bracket 30 minutes of 19 If we just stick with that long term then we form rankings based on that. We do need a way that does not penalize a person for being there as it would just throw things off too wildly. so we could do similar to what Josh suggests only change it a bit. All of them can be ranked, although the bracket rankings get a little muddied where amongst those put out in the same round together. The 7 number josh is using I think comes from the number of people present... This too would change from week to week. Maybe we score like golf so the winning number never changes, nope... there too we artificially hurt the losers who might have a bad day on a day with a lot of people there. So here's my final idea There is just always a max of 7 points for the winner 0 for last place in each part of the competition. If there are more than 8 or fewer, we just mathematically determine what that number is, like someone in 5th place while there are 12 people would get 4.083 pts in that round that day. The math I'm using is a 0-7 scale 5/12= 41.6666% 41.666%x7= 2.916. 7-2.916 = 4.083. It seems a little messy I know but it would fix the problem of different week yielding different numbers for what are really different outcomes. Then we take each number from each competition and total them. then for every week you happen to be there... we average them
If you really wanted to throw attendance out the window, then ranking could be based on win percentage and average score. The percentage would throw the amount of attendance out the window. But I think attendance should be a factor. If, say, Lance and Otasen show up for 75% of the events, and are on top of the overall leaderboard, I don't think it would be fair to rank Howard at #1 if he showed up for just one event and and got lucky and won it all. The more you play, the more truly your performances reflect how good you are. But lets forget about rankings. Lets talk individual events, and the overall winner of that night's events. I should think that if there are three different competitions, your overall score for the evening should be based on that. So using the reversed point system that Bo brought out for CWTC, let's say eight people show up. First gives 8 points, last gets 1 point. You get 3rd in 18's, fourth in the bracket, and 2nd in 19's. So you would get 6, 5, and 7 points respectively for a total of 18 points. And I would offer that winning an individual tournament or maxing out should be worth worth 2 extra points.
Interestingly josh, I agree entirely. But also stand by what I said entirely, hahaha. Happily we can continue to debate how to score thing whilst having more and more. But I agree there must be a certain critical mass prior to a rank being solid enough. I also think that I wouldn't want to have ranks hurt meaninglessly from a single absence. So its an interesting question. Maybe we just hash it out as a larger group through audible speech in the next. Either way, some weighted combo of the 3 things over time, somehow, seems to be an agreement so far
You could count the average of the player's top N attendances, where N is the median attendance among all players. That way, if there have been 10 events, but most people have only attended 5, the one person that has attended all 10 won't be unfairly advantaged compared to the majority.
