Shooting Game Tournament 2006

The Coop · Post by **The Coop** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:31 am

Rob wrote:I think Taito is the most deserving of their own week. Darius, Ray-, etc. Down with the "pity me, I'm a lowly horizontal shooter" week.

You really hate just about every aspect of shmups I like, don't you?

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:40 am

Rob wrote: Team Turbo are secretly border fleeing hippies, so this could work. Nemo??

I was going to holla at the Trizealot and DarkWolf, plus if Venom decided to play we would have our squad.

However, if they don't want to play I will join the Fake USA Team.

Leeram · Post by **Leeram** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:56 am

Edge wrote:A team should be at least 4 members, but I'd say should have 5-6 players on it. 7 might be too many again...

Ah I forgot, I wanted to reply on this before:

Leeram wrote: I don't think we should have 3 people playing each game from each team. I think all players should play and the top three scores be added together. That way everyone gets to play everything.
Yeah, I see your point there. Still I think it would be better with a "playing formation"(only 3 players of a team play each week), because...

If every member plays each week, the ones with the lower scores in the team 4th, 5th won't count at all. This may be a bit frustrating if you are not among the best players of the team. Because your hard efforts in trying your best won't be recognized if you aren't among the best 3 scores of your team.

On the other hand if we do it with playing formations, there is indeed the possibilty that a team won't let their weaker players participate, i agree. But since we are all nice dudes, I think we will be varying our team formation and won't ONLY think about victory. (I hope at least )

And if we let everyone in the team participate you will feel more as an important and intact part of this team. Because you know your score will count and can help the team, even if you are not among the best players.

That's at least the way I see this.

Also we could start to nominate certain games for each theme or voting for certain themes. I'll start with my 2 cents, might add some games later:
(please do only vote for games you'd really like to play on this)

Cave Week:
DoDonPachi, Progear

Takumi Week:
Giga Wing, Mars Matrix

Raizing Week:
Armed Police Batrider, Battle Garegga

Retro Week:
Star Force, Exerion, Xevious

Gradius Week:
Gradius 5, Sexy Parodius

Horizontal Week:
Thunderforce 3, R-Type Delta, Einhänder

As much as I'd like to do one of these:
"C64, Amiga or MSX"
I think that not enough could participate, because first these home computers aren't that popular all around the globe and also the emulation of these is pretty difficult. (Not impossible, but people might not like to bother with getting the emulation running)

So we are gathering the potentially interesting games for each theme. and then start a theme-specific voting thread for each week.

Please, whatever the rules are, count me in. There's two lists and I'm not in either of them

.

My suggestion was just a way of allowing anyone that wants to play in any particular week to play, I'm not really worried about formation or not either way has its own pros and cons. As long as I can play. I could beg, only pride prevents me from doing so!

namagomi · Post by **namagomi** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:12 am

Cave Week:
Ibara, Espgaluda Arrange Mode

Takumi Week:
Mars Matrix, Giga Wing 2

Raizing Week:
Batrider, Battle Garegga

Psikyo Week:
Space Bomber, Dragon Blaze

Retro Week:
Phoenix, Gyruss

Gradius Week:
Gradius 5

Horizontal Week:
Blazing Star, R-Type

Post by **Icarus** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:28 am

Might want to blitz through the thread again, Edge (or whoever) and grab all the names of confirmed participants. Quite a few people wanting to join but aren't listed yet.

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:32 am

Leeram wrote: Please, whatever the rules are, count me in. There's two lists and I'm not in either of them .

I am really sorry, I must somehow have forgotten to add you to the list.

Fixed it now.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:37 am

I was going to holla at the Trizealot and DarkWolf, plus if Venom decided to play we would have our squad. However, if they don't want to play I will join the Fake USA Team.

Edge, move Nemo to fake usa team thanks. Twe, is gaijinpunch or wanderer going to play?

You really hate just about every aspect of shmups I like, don't you?

No!

For the pain it is to get teams situated, might as well make this 6 weeks.

freddiebamboo · Post by **freddiebamboo** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:58 am

Shatterhand wrote:Regarding the score, maybe you should add the score of every member of a team who played the game that week, and divide by the number of people who played the game in that team - this way you have an "average" score for the team.

Just a suggestion, don't know if it's the best way.

This will be a good way to do things.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:10 am

i want to be in team crapshoot

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:20 am

Arghhhh.... I deleted my post by accident !!

Oh, no... Ok, I'll explain the score system once again....

The Coop · Post by **The Coop** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:32 am

Rob wrote:
The Coop wrote: You really hate just about every aspect of shmups I like, don't you?
No!

Are you sure? You've already spoken out against using 16-bit shmups and made fun of horizontal shmups. You're this close to not getting a Christmas card this year

Anyway, I'm in the US, and I'm still hoping to form either a "Thunder Forcers" or "Old Schoolers" team (whichever name would attract a few people). As for nominations...

Cave Week:
DonPachi (it's the only one of theirs I have

)

Takumi Week:
Giga Wing 2

Raizing Week:
Soukyugurentai

Psikyo Week:
Zero Gunner 2

Retro Week:
Xevious

Gradius Week:
Gradius 5

Horizontal Week:
Thunder Force IV

(or if they're used)

Technosoft Week- Thunder Force IV
Renovation Week- Gaiares/Granada

What about a week for 3-D shmups? A little After Burner, Thunder Blade, Galaxy Force II or something along those lines would be fun.

freddiebamboo · Post by **freddiebamboo** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:33 am

EDIT - Edges post changed!

EDIT - Its changed again!!!

cigsthecat · Post by **cigsthecat** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:34 am

Raizing Week:
Ibara, Armed Police Batrider

Psikyo Week:
Gunbird 2, Dragon Blaze

Cave Week:
Ibara, Feveron

Takumi Week:
Twin Cobra II, Mars Matrix

Retro Week:
Abadox

Also, I should be USA westcoast.

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:44 am

freddiebamboo wrote:EDIT - Edges post changed!

Well, I am still that opinion I wrote above. But I accidently edited this post instead of the first one. When I changed the team formations and entered my score system suggestion.

BTW:
I took a map and tried to divide the USA players east/west and middle, please tell me if I put you on the wrongsite...

So, now about the 3 player rule that bothered you, freddiebamboo:

Hmmm... I really see your point, so what would you suggest instead?
I am trying to think of another solution, though this was the best one I came too.

Maybe we should divide team UK into 2 teams? You already have 7 players. So if you take ill6 from the loser team, you could form 2 UK teams with 4 players on each team? Just an idea...

freddiebamboo · Post by **freddiebamboo** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:51 am

Edge wrote:
freddiebamboo wrote:EDIT - Edges post changed!
Well, I am still that opinion I wrote above. But I accidently edited this post instead of the first one. When I changed the team formations and entered my score system suggestion.

BTW:
I took a map and tried to divide the USA players east/west and middle, please tell me if I put you on the wrongsite...

So, now about the 3 player rule that bothered you, freddiebamboo:

Hmmm... I really see your point, so what would you suggest instead?
I am trying to think of another solution, though this was the best one I came too.

Maybe we should divide team UK into 2 teams? You already have 7 players. So if you take ill6 from the loser team, you could form 2 UK teams with 4 players on each team? Just an idea...

I understand how hard this is to arrange edge. I just felt that a lot of people wouldn't get to participate.

Maybe Icarus should organize the UK team?

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:58 am

So again, here is the score system I'd like to suggest. (the post i accidently deleted)

Edge wrote:
At the end of a week the teams get scores depending on the positions of their teammembers.
3 players of a team play on one game. The other teammembers leave this one out.

We will have a seperate highscore thread for each week (like we did on the Shmeets). During this week everyone posts his scores. If we had for example 10 teams. We had 30 scores in the end of this week, every position gives a certain amount of points for the team. In the case of 30 players I'd divide them like this:
Code: Select all
Tier 1	
 1st      60 pts
 2nd      50 pts
 3rd      45 pts

Tier 2	
 4th      40 pts
 5th      36 pts
 6th      33 pts
 7th      30 pts
 8th      27 pts

Tier 3	
 9th      24 pts
10th      22 pts
11th      20 pts
12th      18 pts
13th      16 pts
14th      14 pts

Tier 4	
15th      12 pts
16th      11 pts
17th      10 pts
18th       9 pts
18th       8 pts
20th       7 pts
21st       6 pts

Tier 5	
22nd       5 pts
23rd       5 pts
24th       4 pts
25th       4 pts
26th       3 pts
27th       3 pts
28th       2 pts
29th       2 pts
30th       1 pt
These points won't be earned by the player. They will be accumulated to their team score.
for example:

1. player A-A (Team A) 60 pts
2. player B-A (Team B) 50 pts
3. player B-B (Team B) 45 pts
4. player A-B (Team A) 40 pts
...

Now in the team ranking Team A had 100 pts and Team B 95 pts.

I also thought that the system Shatterhand suggested might be a bit too elitist. Since the weaker players are literally punishing the team's total score. (lowering it's average)

In the system I reccomended above (3 players for each game). It is not meant that always the same best 3 players of a team join a game. We should have mixed team formations. We might also have a rule that forces a team to use all their members. And no member can play 3 times in a row. What do you think?

EDIT:
Another solution would be summing up the best 3 scores of each team and comparing these total scores. This system might also be played with the "playing formation" rule. But I think an overall highscore table with the scores of the certain teammembers would be more fun.

freddiebamboo · Post by **freddiebamboo** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:12 am

I like your idea, but it may be too convoluted for a fun get together.

Elitism still happens when a team has to submit a score by a "weaker" member of the team.

But the UK will still kick everybodies asses, so who cares?!?!

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:23 am

So, do you guys would like this competition to start this monday?

Or would it be ok to wait until the start of next week, to have enough time to finalize the teams, get a poll on the first game going?
(I think it would be too early to start it this week)

EDIT:

freddiebamboo wrote: Elitism still happens when a team has to submit a score by a "weaker" member of the team.

That's also true. I am trying to rethink the score system once again, esspecially the "team-formation" system.

EDIT No2:

Well anyone interested to join The Coop on "Team Old Schoolers"?
A team of retro fans could work, fine.

howmuchkeefe · Post by **howmuchkeefe** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:47 am

Never played Thunder Force, but I am thirty years old. I'd be happy to join the Old Schoolers if they'd have me.

Post by **Icarus** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:48 am

Here's an idea.

Everyone competes. ^_-

There is roughly 60 players 'registered' to the smeet so far, which gave me an idea for ranking: allow everyone to play the first game (something simple but with a good score system to enable the table to be sorted easier), and once the final ranking for the first game has been completed, split the whole table into two parts, like so:

Code: Select all

Upper Table:
1st place
2nd place
3rd place
~~ to 30th place

Lower Table:
31st place 
32nd place
33rd place
~~ to 60th place

Now, you have two tables each with 30 positions. In the next game, the top 30 players all get points based on position - you can give the points based on the tier system like in the old smeet, or you can give inverse points (1st place gets 30, 2nd gets 29 and so on until 30th gets 1).

Now, since there are two tables, you can have some fun with the organisation. After the ranking for the second (and subsequent) games have completed you move swap the bottom ten of the upper table with the top ten of the lower table - just like in football, relegation and promotion. ^_-

Code: Select all

1st place
2nd place
3rd place
~~ to 20th place
--------------------------
21st to 30th relegated  <--
==============             | SWITCHEROO
31st to 40th promoted   <--
--------------------------
32nd place
33rd place
~~ to 60th place

This in theory encourages everyone to play at their best - the lower group all fight amongst themselves to get promoted and the chance to earn their team some points in the next game, while the upper group all play for points, and to avoid the drop. You could even have a seperate ranking of total points earned by player, as well aspoints earned by team. ^_-

Its a bit complex this system, and would require a lot of organisation and stuff. There are probably better, simpler ideas floating around. But maybe you can take some ideas from it...?

As for the start date, give it a bit more time to get all the score ranking and team stuff sorted, and to make sure everyone is still able to compete. ^_-

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:10 am

Icarus wrote: Keep it simple,

Post by **Icarus** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:11 am

Rob wrote:
Icarus wrote: Keep it simple,

That was before we picked up 60+ players. ^_-
Its just an idea anyway. Hopefully a decent solution can be found soon.

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:15 am

I have to admit these two tables sound exciting.

Though the original idea of the teams will get lost. As the teamsize 4-5 players was reccommended since not all teammembers can / want to participate in every game. And I found it an essential criteria to make the system capable of letting players pass on a certain game. That was at least my intention and main idea behind it.

On the two table systems the teams would loose on points if a player don't join a game.

I think people might drop out if they are forced to play every game (esspecially if they don't have an particular game)

To settle with a "team formation" system might be pretty tricky, I think.

I sumerize some of the basic ideas again, to compare them:

`

A: Everyone can play, average score of the team will be accumulated

pro: It doesn't matter how many team members join a certain game

con: People might feel bad for lowering the average, also the possibilty of tactical "not joining"

B: Everyone can play, best 3 scores of a team counts

pro: It doesn't matter how many team members join a certain game (3 at least have to)

con: If you are a "weaker" player, you may feel that your efforts were useless.

C: 3 selected players, forced playing formation change

pro: Every player gets a chance and will gain points for the team when he plays.

con: To complicated to keep track of the current formation situation.

D:Everyone plays, dividing players into two tables

pro: Everyone can play, two tables.

con: Players lose the possibility to pass on certain games.

Any other ideas?

EDIT:
spelling/grammar mistakes

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:21 am

So 1 team could have 5 players in point-earning ranks and another team with 0. And the next game they (0-earners) only have a chance to enter point-earning ranks in the following (third) game. Interesting though, but I think it has the potential to drub out competition too quick. That's to Icarus.

Edge: I like C, but B seems more doable.

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:32 am

Icarus wrote: In the next game, the top 30 players all get points based on position...

Well if we are going to use this system I'd suggest that the lower table should earn points as well. (Which had to be careful balanced, that it is not strategic more useful to stay on the lower table on purpose to easier earn points there).
But I think otherwise I pretty much agree with Rob that it is too much "the winner takes it all"-like.

Still I find the two tables pretty exciting and will keep this concept in mind for any similiar competitions. But I think it isn't suited for this one, which is more based on fun and online (which means no 100% reliability of all participants).

The Coop · Post by **The Coop** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:01 am

howmuchkeefe wrote:Never played Thunder Force, but I am thirty years old. I'd be happy to join the Old Schoolers if they'd have me.

Team Old Schoolers now has two members

I think option "B" is the best one. It allows someone who doesn't own the chosen game to bow out without screwing up the team score ("A"), and it'll make sure the whole rotation thing doesn't get knocked out of whack for each team ("C")... which is important since it seems no one will know which game's being played until it's nearly time to actually play it.

Besides, who says the "weak" player is always going to be the same one?

Also, perhaps it's not my place to say this since I'm not in on the whole organization team, but it's starting to sound like this thing's getting too complicated for its own good. Multiple tables? Team rotations?

Edge · Post by **Edge** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:07 am

The Coop wrote: Also, perhaps it's not my place to say this since I'm not in on the whole organization team, but it's starting to sound like this thing's getting too complicated for its own good. Multiple tables? Team rotations?

Everyone is on the organization team.

In the moment I think I am tending more to the option B.
C would also be very nice, but maybe too stressful and complicated. Also on B everyone who wants can play, but not everyone have to play...

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:17 am

Heh, did Twiddle want to be placed on the loser team? That team is too big anyways.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:21 am

Rob wrote:Heh, did Twiddle want to be placed on the loser team? That team is too big anyways.

I'm hoping to be first or second on the loser team

zinger · Post by **zinger** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:30 am

Another vote for a Taito/G.Rev week! :)