My formula for whose the greatest of the Kongs.

[Josephjo]

Since there is no hard stop to the game, there is no theoretical limit on points as well.

I've heard that DK3 crashes at the 10 million mark on the score counter.

I guess we'll know that for sure soon enough when Barra gets there.

I know he's close.

[TheSunshineFund]

Since there is no hard stop to the game, there is no theoretical limit on points as well.

I've heard that DK3 crashes at the 10 million mark on the score counter.

I guess we'll know that for sure soon enough when Barra gets there.

I know he's close.

If he feels like it, I don't think any score is safe really, just a matter of time for the kiwi on this one I reckon. 

[CaptainJivePants]

Please fix the title.  Who's, not whose.   

[homerwannabee]

Since there is no hard stop to the game, there is no theoretical limit on points as well.

I've heard that DK3 crashes at the 10 million mark on the score counter.

I guess we'll know that for sure soon enough when Barra gets there.

I know he's close.

Except I got 13.9 million on easy settings. So not true.

[xelnia]

Well, I love charts and lists and Riley threads....so where to start?

1) There are people on Riley's list that don't have any submissions or official scores on anything but DK...so how they could they possible be among those considered as greatest of the Kongs?

2) Which of the 8 DK3 tracks should be considered for something like this, and why? All of them?

3) If you normalize by ranking and use DK3 Marathon on Difficulty 1, then the top 5 are Ben, Riley, Barra, ChrisP, and Brian Allen. If you use Difficulty 3 then the top 5 are Wes, Riley, Ben, Barra, and ChrisP. Which...wow...look at that...closely matches:

4)

https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=1994.msg32537#msg32537

[homerwannabee]

How are you normalizing the ranking Jry?  It seems the original idea was percentage of high score.  You seem to just be adding the rankings which is different.

[homerwannabee]

The reason I like my formula better because a person could have number one scores in three different games, and because they didn't touch one of the games, they get heavily penalized due to the ranking system.  Robbie Lakeman has two number one scores and isn't in your top five.  My formula takes into account his supremacy in two of the games. Mark Kiehl also gets screwed by this.
As for me, it doesn't matter what system you use.  I'm still top five in almost all of them.

Edit,maybe it would be better to have a max of 143 for the top number since Donkey Kong Junior has the least submissions.  That way, no game is given a huge advantage.

[wolfman24]

there really isn't a perfect way to do this

[xelnia]

How are you normalizing the ranking Jry?  It seems the original idea was percentage of high score.  You seem to just be adding the rankings which is different.

For each game: Rank ÷ Number of Players
Then sum of all four of those. A lower score is better.

The reason I like my formula better because a person could have number one scores in three different games, and because they didn't touch one of the games, they get heavily penalized due to the ranking system.  Robbie Lakeman has two number one scores and isn't in your top five.  My formula takes into account his supremacy in two of the games. Mark Kiehl also gets screwed by this.
As for me, it doesn't matter what system you use.  I'm still top five in almost all of them.

If you only consider some games and not others, then what's the point of a list like this? "Greatest of maybe some of the Kongs, or not, or whatever." is what you're talking about.

there really isn't a perfect way to do this

It's certainly no WSI.

[wolfman24]

there really isn't a perfect way to do this

It's certainly no WSI.
[/quote]

even WSI is terrible lul

[f_symbols]