Seperating the posers from the actual champs

[mikegmi2]

Hey Tim cool to see you posting!  I watched you play for a bit on Sunday, saw you pull off some crazy wall jumps, good stuff.

Yea I agree with you, it would be cool to incorporate some sort of bounty or category for people that go all out...although I think it would be tough to do and manage...for some of the reasons Hank already mentioned.  Certainly do-able though, with a few added rules.

There's always the situation(s) where low scoring/high paced games can get ignored because most people just look at the final score. 

I didn't have much time to play in this last tournament, just a few hours on Sunday.  My best was 600-something k...I believe played at around a 1.05M pace.  Funny thing is I think I died twice before L4 in this game...but I wasn't restarting since I had limited time.

Anyhow welcome...and see you around the forums.

[mikegmi2]

Rather than a rule how about a bounty for the best average pace starting at level 5?

Now THAT is a suggestion I can fully support.

The specifics would have to be hammered out, but I think a pace bounty is actually a great idea.

Me too, Chris.

As for the details, there are 2 that immediately come to mind:

Future Death Point Values

As I see it, this is a non-issue.  If we're looking at a player's "final" pace (at the beginning of the stage where the final death occurs), the points from deaths 1-3 have already been determined.

Mid-Game Strategy Shifts

There will likely be a variety of opinions on this one.  How do you measure the "huge start, then run boards" approach of Player A, against the "warp to L05, then double hammer" strategy of Player B?

Personally, I like Hank's suggestion of using the least squares regression line.

This whole idea should encourage some lively debate, and deserves a thread of its own.

Would there be a cutoff for games being considered for this category?  For example, even if you had a huge pace going, if you didn't even make it half way through the game, it doesn't count? 2/3 of the way?

Judging between an 850k game that ended on 18-2 (1,049,300 pace ) and a 940k game that ended on 19-6 (1,048,800 pace)?

One made it slightly farther into the game, another had a slightly higher pace?  Who wins?  What if it's even closer?

[LMDAVE]

Wow, I haven't been visiting the forums as regularly as I used to and this is certainly an interesting thread.

Welcome to the forums Tim, I've always respected your game, and understand your KoK issues, but never understood your hatred towards Wiebe. Most here know him and know his game is beyond real, and he's proved it live many times.

As far as pace vs. actual score, that's something some off us have been dealing with for a while. Going back to KO1 where I flopped (but my pace was good), to KO2 where my top game was 847K but had that game reached the killscreen it would have been #3 in the tournament. Just like my personal best I've sitting on for 1 year. 1.026M dying on level 21-2. It would have topped Steve and Billy's current PB had I just finished those last few boards...and I've been living with that for one year now. Now my 1.026M is mixed in with those who caught up now.

But, in the end, it's my own fault for not duplicating the game after all this time. I can't explain it, it's frustrating, as much as we all understand pace, when it comes to tournaments, it just can't used. You have to give credit to the guy who actually finished.

LOL, we all remember the old tortoise vs the hair cartoon. Even though the rabbit was always faster, he couldn't finish.

[TheSunshineFund]

I relish being a DK nit. 

[stella_blue]

Would there be a cutoff for games being considered for this category?  For example, even if you had a huge pace going, if you didn't even make it half way through the game, it doesn't count? 2/3 of the way?

That's a good point, Mike.  I would probably recommend L12 as the bare minimum requirement for levels completed, although any choice is bound to be somewhat arbitrary.

Judging between an 850k game that ended on 18-2 (1,049,300 pace ) and a 940k game that ended on 19-6 (1,048,800 pace)?

One made it slightly farther into the game, another had a slightly higher pace?  Who wins?  What if it's even closer?

That's a much tougher one.  I anticipate 2 main arguments:

The Purist Point of View

Assuming the pace calculation has been precisely defined, and that both players have completed the minimum number of levels (or boards, or whatever), the higher pace wins, whether the difference is 200 points or 50K.  Using a baseball analogy, let's say Player A and Player B are in a tight race for the AL batting title, so close that their averages must be extended to 4 decimal places.  Player A has an average of .3428 (192 hits, 17 HR, 84 RBI).  Player B's average is .3426 (227 hits, 48 HR, 135 RBI).  Player A is the league batting champion.  The fact that Player B has more hits, and superior power numbers, is completely irrelevant.  Player B may very well be unanimously voted the league's MVP, but he does not win the batting title.

The "Too Close to Call, We Need a Tiebreaker" Point of View

If Player A has a higher pace than Player B, but the difference is less than XXX, a tiebreaker is invoked.  Player B wins the bounty if his/her score exceeds that of Player A by more than YYY, or has successfully completed at least ZZZ more stages than Player A, or both.

Personally, I favor the purist argument.  It may be brutal, but if the rules are clearly defined, it is what it is.  In my opinion, the tiebreaker parameters (XXX, YYY, and ZZZ) are too arbitrary and subjective.

[stella_blue]

I relish being a DK nit.

Ok, I think I've got it.

If the "pace race" ends up being a photo finish, let's award the bounty to whoever has a higher Kangaroo score (verified) within the past 12 months.  That should make everyone happy.   

Geez, why didn't I think of that sooner?

[mikegmi2]

Yea I agree with your "Purist" point of view for the most part...but almost feel like certain situations would have to be considered further.

I mean, if the cutoff is, let's say, 12-2, to be considered as an actual 'high pace' game...what if pace of 2 scores is within a few hundred or 1000 points...but one guy made it to 12-2, another made it to 20-2.  The guy that died on 12-2's pace was like 300 points higher than the guy that made it to 20-2.

Now what? = )

[corey.chambers]

I am sorry that you are upset about what happened to you. I empathize with you. I would not want that to happen to me. Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about what happened in the past. It happened. It had positive and negative effects. We must embrace the value that is there, the good that has been done, and forgive where we have been overlooked. But looking forward, what can we do about that?

First, we must get passed the old emotions and embrace the facts. I don't think there is a single person in this community that does not understand what happened, and who can truly appreciate the fact that you once held the World Record. This community is evidence-based and historical in all that it does. The history of the World Record is definitely recognized by us as noted in this blog spot post: http://donkeykongblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/donkey-kong-world-record-history.html.

Second, we will only draw negativity to ourselves if we beginning speaking in the manner as is contained in this original post. It is unclear what is meant by a submission rule. Are you talking about TG, or the High Score Lists that I manage, or the open tournaments?

Third, I don't think of the community as a blind cult following lies. I think of us as enjoying a game, and spending time together while doing it, making friends, and coming together for a common purpose. I created the High Score List because I wanted to support the hobby, I wanted the girls to look at names on the High Score List and say "hey, I see you are good at Donkey Kong". In reality, I wanted to support people who liked the game.  I didn't care about their pace, their high score, or their skill level. I cared about them and that is where it starts. Once I got to know people, and connect with them, I began to think of ways that I could help enhance their enjoyment of Donkey Kong. So I created the high score lists to help people track their progress, I created training videos to assist people with new ideas, I am creating a website to further give to the community as a whole. Serving people, making friends, enjoying healthy competition, encouraging one another... this is what I think we are about.

Thank you Corey, I didn't mean for the post to sound the way it did , then everyone including myself went on the defensive.............and old phobias were triggered again. I can see how it could be misunderstood.

What I was trying to say is how about a seperate catagorey or submission for high pacing games.
or bounty? That  way the people that want to go all out can do so. It takes some effort to really press for points........luck as well.....
13+ years ago ,with some skill ,..and interest that hardly anyone had for the game, running the boards was enough, but with all the good players that  have cropped up in recent years, using point pressing (or leaching) the bar is raised...........I don't see it getting much higher.......the end is near.

Thank you for your thoughts. One idea that Ethan and I have on the table until after the Kong Off and I get the new website off the ground is the idea of having player ratings. We have thought about having some different types of ratings such as tournament scores, or one on one challenges etc. That way, we could assess the stats of a game and use that, their high scores, etc, to calculate a player rating so that consistency will say more than a one time high score. It is still on the drawing board. This would help to show the overall ability and pace of a player more than a high score. The Rating idea may be time consuming and may seem impractical at present but if we were to work out a detailed, easy to use system, it may be very possible.

[stella_blue]

Yea I agree with your "Purist" point of view for the most part...but almost feel like certain situations would have to be considered further.

I mean, if the cutoff is, let's say, 12-2, to be considered as an actual 'high pace' game...what if pace of 2 scores is within a few hundred or 1000 points...but one guy made it to 12-2, another made it to 20-2.  The guy that died on 12-2's pace was like 300 points higher than the guy that made it to 20-2.

Now what? = )

Yeah, the more impressive game is a no-brainer, but I don't want to be the guy who decides where to draw the line.

[hchien]

would create many 'what if' scenarios.

The 12-2 idea is flawed.  You might as well consider it highest score at 12-2.  It's like comparing a half-marathon to a full marathon.

The idea of incorporating pace is not a bad one (as I said in my original post), it's the implementation of it that's a problem.  I wish the old TG forums were still up... I'd link to the discussion there.

[Fast Eddie]

i dont really think ranking based on pace vs getting further in the game/scoring higher can work, as it gets silly, like the examples above...

i think the best way this would work as a contest would be a simple straight up high score challenge, but your game must meet a L5+ level average to qualify, 55k is a good number...

 

[LMDAVE]

I'm against a "pace" contest. I guess if it's just a bounty for the fun of it, then ok, but not to have a ranking system for it.

Think of a 400m foot race. Someone can start off full speed and be ahead of everyone, and collapse before the end and say, "If I would have finished I would have had the world record". If you choose to play at a higher pace, you need to accept the fact that reaching the end is going to be a long shot, just as if you choose to run the boards, you have to accept your score may not be high enough when you reach the end. You need to find that happy medium (tournament pace) that gives you the best of both worlds.

[stella_blue]

I'm against a "pace" contest. I guess if it's just a bounty for the fun of it, then ok, but not to have a ranking system for it.

Agreed.  Everything I've posted in this thread is strictly within a bounty context.

If you choose to play at a higher pace, you need to accept the fact that reaching the end is going to be a long shot, just as if you choose to run the boards, you have to accept your score may not be high enough when you reach the end. You need to find that happy medium (tournament pace) that gives you the best of both worlds.

Regarding the WCQ tournaments, this pretty much sums up everything that needs to be said.

[Xermon54]

I am an actual champ, I actually "earned" my place in the games history

... by running boards.

Haha, thanks Chris, that just made my day ;-).

I understand kok was a pain in the ass for you, but if you start hating on Steve Wiebe openly, people will start hating on you. Period. I don't think of anyone that actually "hate" or even "dislike" Steve Wiebe (no homo).

Everyone is free to play at the pace they want to play, and they have to deal with the probabilities of getting screwed while trying a big pace. At the Kong Off 2, I was a pussy and play at a barely 1m pace, while Jeff and Dean decided not to be a pussy and play at a decent pace. They took some risks by doing that, but they did very well, but it could've ended bad for them also.

And yeah, you were once the King of Kong with a score of 879k. From today's criteria, this score is now shit, and it's been proven that everybody that care a little bit about the game can score higher than that (no offense to you and to any other kill screeners, it's obviously still an achievement, but it's still shit in my opinion, haha).

That being said, you have the opportunity to start something new with Donkey Kong, Tim. It's now your chance to prove that you can be the best by today's criteria. If you can't prove that, then it might be because you were just a one hit wonder.

[tudose]

I'm against a "pace" contest. I guess if it's just a bounty for the fun of it, then ok, but not to have a ranking system for it.

Think of a 400m foot race. Someone can start off full speed and be ahead of everyone, and collapse before the end and say, "If I would have finished I would have had the world record". If you choose to play at a higher pace, you need to accept the fact that reaching the end is going to be a long shot, just as if you choose to run the boards, you have to accept your score may not be high enough when you reach the end. You need to find that happy medium (tournament pace) that gives you the best of both worlds.

i agree. i think tournament pace is a great way to put it. being able to spend months or even years going for a 1.1m-1.15m-1.2m+ score is a lot different than having 2 days to place within a qualifying tournament structure. i dont see the need to go for a 1.1m score when you know the score to beat is 1.02m in terms of qualifying but i have nothing against the people that want to play like that. ross probably couldve won(or VASTLY improved his chances of winning) this previous tournament if he had toned the pace down from 1.15m+ to 1.03m but thats just not his style. hes an absolute beast. thats how he chooses to play...

he was in the manhole last night playing live on an arcade machine and was on pace for the arcade WR at 15-6/780k when some retard fireball managed to sneak under his hammer. again he couldve toned it down and tried for a top12 score and qualified for ko3 that way, but thats just not the way ross plays. hes definitely one of the most entertaining players in the community when it comes to skill/pace and just being hilarious to watch