Ideal High Score table system.

Drum · Post by **Drum** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:26 am

I want shmups that say how many games you've played and give your average score. Any ones out there like that?

shmuppyLove · Post by **shmuppyLove** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:51 am

Sometimes different tables for different ships is absolutely necessary.

Blazing Star is the best example I can think of; the scoring mechanics are completely different between certain ships, and you really can't compare scores between them.

Speaking of Batrider/Bakraid (and Garegga?) - are there different tables depending on the level order? I know in Bakraid especially, there are paths that maximize scoring potentional because of the combo system. And other shmups where there can be different paths (Darius etc).

Anyway, this post kind of got away from me, so I'm slowly going to back away from it

.

.

.

DrInfy · Post by **DrInfy** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:30 am

Despatche wrote:I did not misunderstand your very clear demands and questions. It's clear that the purpose of this thread was to complain and to see if others agree with that complaining. You claim that this particular opinion means you find it hard to get particularly excited about competition; it really doesn't make any sense, but I've tried to explain why that happens and why it's not such a good idea as best I can.

The thing about "multiple modes, one difficulty" is that all of those "modes" are meant to be different "difficulties". Mushi, for example: Original is "normal", Maniac is "hard", Ultra is "hardest"; that was a large part of the design, and most people really like that. Particularly, going up not only increases difficulty but also complexity, generally. A similar system are the "Normal/Advanced" modes that Armed Police Batrider and Battle Bakraid have.

Umh, now what am I demanding? That every scoreboard in these forums should be converted into a single table so that I would be more inclined to compete? Lol. Obviously when designing a game with only single scoreboard the whole game needs to be designed around this idea. The difficulty absolutely needs to be progressive so that even weaker players can at least clear early stages. Now am I demanding that games should be changed to having only a single difficulty? What exactly would be the point of that? I'm obviously going to send mail to Cave demanding that they should change all their games...

The whole point of this thread is to satisfy my curiosity. There's a bunch of other stuff in the shoot 'em up genre I'd be very interested to know too. Like whether people like bombs, how big they prefer their hitboxes, should grazing amount to scoring, are pickable powerups and/or score items fun etc. I decided to pick the question that I found the most interesting at the moment and let it loose. I thought it to be polite to state my own opinion when starting up a discussion and I really fail to understand how my opinion has turned into a demand (or demands) in your eyes.

Going back to the topic, Crimzon Clover utilizes the multiple mode, one difficulty system, but I must admit that I did not like that too much. The simple mode was kinda boring and the Ultimate was pretty ridiculous when the goal was pretty much to cancel every single bullet ever shot. I think I can however see the point as to why people like systems like that.

mjclark · Post by **mjclark** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:41 am

Actually this whole thread is based on the false premise that the leaderboards are constructed arbritatily by the person composing them.
In fact the leaderboards are constructed in response to score submissions so are simply determined by who's playing what.
The scores come first then the leaderboards follow so the OP question is completely unecessary.
The format of the boards is determined by the variety of scores that are submitted- just look at the hi score threads and you'll see what I mean. There are plenty of instances where someone asks "can we include this mode or this difficulty cos I've got a score for it" and the question of whether to have seperate tables for seperate ships is determined differently for each game by people who are familiar with that particular game.
As has been pointed out, this OP is just unnecessarily overthinking something which regulates itself.
Also if you're gonna try to pick a game to master and sink hundreds of hours of gameplay into, you won't be able to make that choice intellectually just based on scoring formats- there's got to be an emotional dimension that will motivate you to perservere through the plateaux and setbacks. In other words you've got to love that game- you'll know it when you see it and it wil choose you!

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:52 am

It's like you've set up a psychological barrier of intimidation that prevents you from enjoying these modes because there's so many of them.

nimitz · Post by **nimitz** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:04 pm

It seems no one pointed this out, lets call it lilmanjis syndrome.

Simply put, chances are (and by that I mean 99.99%) that you will *never* get the top spot in any of the multiple tables of Futari. Like many others before you, you fail to realize the amount of skill and effort it takes to have the top spot in *any* active highscore table on this forum.

So until you get the #1 spot in any active table, you can simply view that particular table as a shmupping absolute that you will never achieve, the exercise should be quite humbling too, as you begin to realize how good and dedicated some players really are.

Deca · Post by **Deca** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:24 pm

Just go for first on Tatsujin Ou

No seriously go check it out.

But yeah, my thoughts are pretty well in line with what Nimitz just said.

mjclark · Post by **mjclark** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:24 pm

nimitz wrote: ...lets call it lilmanjis syndrome..

lol

nimitz wrote:Simply put, chances are (and by that I mean 99.99%) that you will *never* get the top spot in any of the multiple tables of Futari. Like many others before you, you fail to realize the amount of skill and effort it takes to have the top spot in *any* active highscore table on this forum.
So until you get the #1 spot in any active table, you can simply view that particular table as a shmupping absolute that you will never achieve, the exercise should be quite humbling too, as you begin to realize how good and dedicated some players really are.

Very nicely put- overintellectualization is as much a curse as stupidity and much more irritating...

RNGmaster · Post by **RNGmaster** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:45 pm

DrInfy wrote: Going back to the topic, Crimzon Clover utilizes the multiple mode, one difficulty system, but I must admit that I did not like that too much. The simple mode was kinda boring...

What the christ, Simple Mode is awesome. You just try playing it high-rank and not dying or bombing.

dinosaurjerk · Post by **dinosaurjerk** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:05 pm

i need as many different characters and game moders per score board as possible, so i can sneak my way into the top 20 somehow. then people on the train who see me playing and say to themsleves yes, that man is indeed a true mediocrity at batsugun green label mackrel version matsurikei 1997 or whatever

Aliquantic · Post by **Aliquantic** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:29 pm

nimitz wrote:It seems no one pointed this out, lets call it lilmanjis syndrome.

Simply put, chances are (and by that I mean 99.99%) that you will *never* get the top spot in any of the multiple tables of Futari. Like many others before you, you fail to realize the amount of skill and effort it takes to have the top spot in *any* active highscore table on this forum.

So until you get the #1 spot in any active table, you can simply view that particular table as a shmupping absolute that you will never achieve, the exercise should be quite humbling too, as you begin to realize how good and dedicated some players really are.

While it obviously takes a lot of time and experience to get #1 especially in certain games, it's quite possible to become a strong contender in the vast majority of games, and the Futari boards are a pretty good case for that. It's an uphill climb to the top, to be sure, but it's not so bad to crawl your way up the leaderboards if you're playing semi-seriously (as a lot of relative newcomers have been doing recently).

So I'd encourage people who think they have the time and dedication to keep playing

Despatche · Post by **Despatche** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:47 pm

Crimzon Clover is yet another game that uses the "difficulties are modes" thing. You can't really generalize this kind of design.

I'll point out that getting lots of #2s or #3s is better than getting a single #1. That idea probably shut your brain down again, but there you go.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:10 am

Aliquantic wrote:
While it obviously takes a lot of time and experience to get #1 especially in certain games, it's quite possible to become a strong contender in the vast majority of games, and the Futari boards are a pretty good case for that. It's an uphill climb to the top, to be sure, but it's not so bad to crawl your way up the leaderboards if you're playing semi-seriously (as a lot of relative newcomers have been doing recently).

So I'd encourage people who think they have the time and dedication to keep playing

Yeah, I put a lot of effort (and replay study) into my runs but we're not exactly talking about Prometheus or MrMonkeyMan caliber stuff here and most of scores do have some pretty horrible mistakes. I'd go out on limb and say boards like DDP and Ketsui with 1 incredible score that will likely never be topped are actually in the minority so yeah, I'd hate to see people discouraged over quotes like that.

Aliquantic · Post by **Aliquantic** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:27 am

DDP has been equaled or topped by a few people (including Sikraiken) though there was some controversy in the past, and Ketsui has had a few brilliant scores from Asian players, so even those aren't unassailable for sufficiently dedicated players... I'd be scared by something like Tviks' 3m+ 6-5 score Tviks in Gradius III though

toaplan_shmupfan · Post by **toaplan_shmupfan** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:41 pm

I've played a lot of arcade games, and many were one game mode with multiple difficulties (operator selectable in the case of an arcade cabinet game), so that is what I voted for. Several of the console games do that too.

The advantage of having one game mode is being able to learn the fundamentals of the game. The advantage of having multiple difficulties is making the game harder. Having one high score table for each difficulty is more than appropriate, tracking the high scores per difficulty--and games such Raiden I, Raiden II, Thunderforce IV/Lightening Force do have separate high score tables for each difficulty setting. Even the way Raiden III does it--the high score is listed positioned based on its number, but has the difficulty bars next to the score. However, one flaw with that is having a #1 high score made on Very Easy or Easy that doesn't get bumped until another player beats that high score by its number, regardless of difficulty (so someone getting 10,000,000 on Very Easy is going to have the #1 high score position and the person that only get 6,500,000 on arcade will still have the lower score even though they used a high difficulty).

Too many game modes--I usually don't play variations of the games, again since I played a lot of arcade games. If the game wants to be classic, let it have fast aimed bullets. If the game wants to be manic, let it have dense bullet patterns from the start. If the game wants to be a hybrid of classic and manic--with fast aimed bullets but in denser patterns seen in Strikers 1945 II--that's okay too. I like one base game for all difficulties. However, I do not mind if harder difficulties add extra enemies or extra shot patterns not seen in the easier difficulties because it's still the same game mode.

That said, too many difficulties is also not so good. I have the PS1 port of Strikers 1945 which is really Strikers 1945 II. There are difficulty levels ranging from Monkey to Very Hard. Ignoring that even having a difficulty called Monkey may be belittling or offending a beginner player who decides to start playing at the Monkey difficulty--playing at Monkey difficulty is absolutely useless for learning the game besides knowing where the enemies are because most shot patterns are single or double shot attacks, and the game does not even get even slightly aggressive until stage 6. I would suggest that at the minimum, a new player to hybrid classic/manic shmups, they should start playing Strikers 1945 II PS1 at Easy difficulty--ignore Monkey, Child, and Very Easy. (Use the Original mode 1, I don't recommend using the Original mode 2 up and down wobble mode because of the weird screen acclerations and decelerations with that wobble.) Once they get to stage 3 or stage 4 on Easy (even with the random stage selection), switch to Medium or Normal. Normal is challenging enough for me, because I do not play that many manic style shmups. Experienced manic shumps players may opt to start right at Very Hard--I tried that once just to see how hard the Very Hard difficulty actually was and didn't even get past the first stage boss.

third_strike · Post by **third_strike** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:30 pm

I prefer tables that are constantly updated.
High score boards like Ketsui, Mushi Futari, Espgaluda II, EspRaDe, ... just keep me away because the manager updates happen each 3 months or more.
This is a shame.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:59 pm

third_strike wrote:I prefer tables that are constantly updated.
High score boards like Ketsui, Mushi Futari, Espgaluda II, EspRaDe, ... just keep me away because the manager updates happen each 3 months or more.
This is a shame.

restartsyndrome.com

DrInfy · Post by **DrInfy** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:10 pm

nimitz wrote:Simply put, chances are (and by that I mean 99.99%) that you will *never* get the top spot in any of the multiple tables of Futari. Like many others before you, you fail to realize the amount of skill and effort it takes to have the top spot in *any* active highscore table on this forum.

Oh, I'm quite aware how hard it is. Obviously I can't say how hard exactly until I've actually accomplished something like that, which is something I might never achieve... I'm not stupid enough to pick my first goal as the World Record of Dodonpachi for example (which in all honesty is quite ridiculously high). My first goal is to get myself on the leaderboard (40M in Dodonpachi). Having only one leaderboard seems to make this competition more interesting to me for whatever reason. Obviously there's also lot of things I like about the game itself, like how bombing and dying ruins your score. I actually tried Ketsui after it was recommended, but it had like -10px sized hitboxes which I felt was a bit too much. If I make a mistake I should die, not go through the bullets unscathed.

After reading toaplan_shmupfan's post, I started wondering about how different difficulties affect leaderboards. In a way it would be inspiring to have different skill classes where better players compete against better players and less skilled compete against less skilled players. After the lesser skilled player has done well in his own skill class, like "easy", he would move on to the "normal" difficulty and start competing with slightly better players and so on. The system works like this in pretty much every sport and even in most competetive video games (e-sports). In shoot 'em ups however, players like Heartbeam, Gus, Prometheus etc could just play easier difficulties once or twice and get better scores than the weaker players are ever going to get, which in turn will discourage the less skilled players from competing in the "easy" gategory. As there really is not going to be much glory in being the champion of "easy" difficulty and it being so damn hard to achieve, why would any lesser skilled players even attempt it?

Obviously I'm trying to change the rules on these forums or anything, just purely speculating, but I got this idea in my head that what if players could only be in one leaderboard? Let's say we have a game with typical "easy", "normal", "hard" and "very hard" difficulties. Any difficulty harder than the previous would have scoring potential in around 1.5x the easier one, meaning that very hard could score 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375 times more than what you could score on easy. However you can't reach that score unless you really know what you're doing. There would be 4 online leaderboards for each of the difficulties, but you'd only be in the one difficulty you scored the highest. This would basically mean that anyone good enough to clear the very hard, would not appear in any other difficulties, which in turn would leave the lesser players battling each other in the easier difficulties. This of course would mean that the better players couldn't really compete in the easier difficulties (unless they refuse to play the higher difficulties completely), but isn't that what every other competitive genre has been trying to do for years?

Aliquantic · Post by **Aliquantic** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:41 pm

DrInfy wrote:In shoot 'em ups however, players like Heartbeam, Gus, Prometheus etc could just play easier difficulties once or twice and get better scores than the weaker players are ever going to get, which in turn will discourage the less skilled players from competing in the "easy" gategory. As there really is not going to be much glory in being the champion of "easy" difficulty and it being so damn hard to achieve, why would any lesser skilled players even attempt it?

There's a LOT of theory shmupping going on here, but that part just stands out to me... there is nothing easy about getting excellent scores in easier difficulties (Touhou and Heartbeam) or mods (Futari I guess with Gus), since the easier survival just means increased competition for everything else. In a game like Touhou on Easy, where it's quite easy to perfect the game, grazing and bullet hoarding become huge factors, and after a few years the top replays are approaching perfection, so lesser-skilled players are simply not going to compete there (unless nobody else cares). And you simply cannot apply a fixed multiplier based on difficulty and hope to compare scores between difficulties, not without obtaining silly results.

And there's nothing easy about any of the Futari modes, the only thing is that there's no immediate barrier to entry as with Ultra, where you do need some experience to get anywhere with the mode. 1.5 Original requires no-missing and raising the rank to levels so high bullets break the laws of relativity, Maniac involves tricky chaining, milking, top notch scoring patterns and is still challenging to no-miss, Ultra is Ultra, and BL Original adds pointblanking everything to the basic recipe (BL Maniac is the most approachable of the lot, and BL God is no joke at high levels). A few other Cave games in particular are also very easy for survival, while still offering a lot of challenge for scoring (Deathsmiles 2 is the poster child there) and drew a lot of competition (check the Arcadia records).

It seems demeaning to say there is no glory in mastering any of those modes when there's skilled competition around you (and Futari is a brutal board for that, and Touhou has very high standards when you go to Royalflare), and frankly, if your current Dodonpachi score isn't even hitting 40m, I would stop overthinking and just play more

Alternatively, you could focus on games that are very hard to clear at all and ignore scoring; most older games work under that model, and there's always challenges in recent games too, not limited to Futari Ultra.

Erppo · Post by **Erppo** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:44 pm

DrInfy wrote:Obviously I'm trying to change the rules on these forums or anything, just purely speculating, but I got this idea in my head that what if players could only be in one leaderboard? Let's say we have a game with typical "easy", "normal", "hard" and "very hard" difficulties. Any difficulty harder than the previous would have scoring potential in around 1.5x the easier one, meaning that very hard could score 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375 times more than what you could score on easy. However you can't reach that score unless you really know what you're doing. There would be 4 online leaderboards for each of the difficulties, but you'd only be in the one difficulty you scored the highest. This would basically mean that anyone good enough to clear the very hard, would not appear in any other difficulties, which in turn would leave the lesser players battling each other in the easier difficulties. This of course would mean that the better players couldn't really compete in the easier difficulties (unless they refuse to play the higher difficulties completely), but isn't that what every other competitive genre has been trying to do for years?

I really have no idea what would be the point of this. To give worse players some false satisfaction of being ranked higher than they actually should be? All I can see this achieving in the end is taking away potentially interesting modes from people. As Aliquantic already said there, easier survival offers the possibility to focus more heavily on optimization so proper scoring will never be easy in a well designed game.

The scoreboards are just an accessory, you should be playing the games because it's fun.

DrInfy · Post by **DrInfy** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:18 pm

Aliquantic wrote:It seems demeaning to say there is no glory in mastering any of those modes when there's skilled competition around you (and Futari is a brutal board for that, and Touhou has very high standards when you go to Royalflare), and frankly, if your current Dodonpachi score isn't even hitting 40m, I would stop overthinking and just play more Alternatively, you could focus on games that are very hard to clear at all and ignore scoring; most older games work under that model, and there's always challenges in recent games too, not limited to Futari Ultra.

I'm most certainly playing, but I also like thinking and overthinking, perhaps even more than playing.

And in no means did I mean that the scores Heartbeam and Gus are throwing in on the easier modes are easy feat, or just the result of playing once or twice. However they would most certainly crush any score a lesser player would be able to get, by just playing once or twice.

To give worse players some false satisfaction of being ranked higher than they actually should be? All I can see this achieving in the end is taking away potentially interesting modes from people

Actually that's how most sports and e-sports work nowadays, by false satisfaction. It's more interesting to be 10th in bronze league Division Delta (starcraft 2) than the 303535th in the World. It's also more interesting to play in a local tournament for the championships than fight for the 15125th place for example. Obviously if people really enjoy playing and maximizing scores on easier difficulties, that would create a problem.

PROMETHEUS · Post by **PROMETHEUS** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:34 am

DrInfy wrote:
To give worse players some false satisfaction of being ranked higher than they actually should be? All I can see this achieving in the end is taking away potentially interesting modes from people
Actually that's how most sports and e-sports work nowadays, by false satisfaction. It's more interesting to be 10th in bronze league Division Delta (starcraft 2) than the 303535th in the World. It's also more interesting to play in a local tournament for the championships than fight for the 15125th place for example. Obviously if people really enjoy playing and maximizing scores on easier difficulties, that would create a problem.

Well I'm a Starcraft 2 "master" player and I can tell you all of us experienced Starcraft and generally RTS players strongly dislike that aspect of the SC2 ladder. That's not how "e-sports work" nowadays, that's how Blizzard, as a company, chose to make more money by giving false satisfaction to a mass of players against the will of the really competitive ones.

I had missed this topic previously but it is very interesting that this was being discussed because I have had similar concerns when looking at the way score tables are sometimes managed. A really bad thing that I've seen happening on the French forums is when a Cave ports comes out, someone will open a new topic for it, separate from the "PCB" one, even though it is the same damn game. Indeed, in the short term it attracts players who want to fill out that table and reach #1. But in the long run, I feel that this really deters attraction and competition because high score postings and discussions become split in 2, and because you can't easily get a vision of your actual rank among all players of the forum.

Generally I really dislike it when a high score thread has multiple tables, but in some cases this may to be better than splitting, like Mushihimesama's (debatable). When you're looking to get at the top you want to know which ladder you're climbing and where you stand. So I also dislike tables split by ship types.

I can see how some less experienced/involved players appreciate an easier shot at getting closer to the top of a table. I was never interested in that, even back when I was a new player. I don't think it's important for the community to please those players that way, because competition isn't important to them. Even if you're a bad/new player, if you are interested in competition, then the ladder, the performances and what you learn from the game is important, not the fake rewards. And those players truly interested in the competition, who aren't necessarily very good, are the true motors of the community and of the competition.

So I believe that making a single, clean, 1 difficulty, all ship types and all (identical enough) versions included, high score table for a game is best for keeping competition going as strong as possible in the community. It is ok to include smaller secondary tables at the bottom to show ship-specific tables for comparing trends and possible balance differences.

Paradigm · Post by **Paradigm** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:39 am

PROMETHEUS wrote:When you're looking to get at the top you want to know which ladder you're climbing and where you stand. So I also dislike tables split by ship types.

But those are all different ladders with different potential maximum scores, they need to be recognised as such.

PROMETHEUS wrote:I can see how some less experienced/involved players appreciate an easier shot at getting closer to the top of a table. I was never interested in that, even back when I was a new player. I don't think it's important for the community to please those players that way, because competition isn't important to them.

Well if it encourages more players to submit scores then that's a good thing, but I don't generally see this type of thing happening anyway, at least on here. I think one big plus point of having separated score tables is that it offers an incentive for the competitive players who do submit scores to experiment with various ships/characters and perhaps learn the game in a fairly different way (DDP chaining for example).

PROMETHEUS wrote:So I believe that making a single, clean, 1 difficulty, all ship types and all (identical enough) versions included, high score table for a game is best for keeping competition going as strong as possible in the community. It is ok to include smaller secondary tables at the bottom to show ship-specific tables for comparing trends and possible balance differences.

I'm on the other side of the fence, I think it's always best to separate score tables in to as many variables as need be. I don't think it promotes competition by keeping all scores in a single table, only the game itself can do that. Right now the DFK tables are pretty bare, but that's simply down to few people actually contributing with scores, the layout is as it should be. The Mushi Futari thread also separates most modes by character choice and yet it's one of the most active tables on here - it's simply a more popular game.

I think the Battle Garegga table is just about perfect. The main priority's the individual ship tables (each with its own WR listed) and you have the top ten overall scores at the top for quick reference. This definitely hasn't stifled competition since the Wild Snail table alone is bigger than most other games on here.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:52 am

So here is what I saw:

- being new here
- immediately starting a thread regarding score thread best practices
- getting disillusioned in a jiffy

Solution, spend more time and "understanding a game's highscore thread first, then criticizing it." Actually, you can just give up on that last part; the people running the score threads generally do know what they're doing.

The real problem (for me) with some of the Cave shooters is that no matter what setups you pick, you're basically confined to learning the scoring systems. I'd like to have the option of just dicking around and playing for survival (though it is important to note that even old survival-based shooters have this; Fire Shark from 1989 is great at herding you along little paths as you try to shoot down enemy planes and avoid their fire, especially if you play too cautiously).

PROMETHEUS · Post by **PROMETHEUS** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:53 am

Paradigm wrote:
PROMETHEUS wrote:When you're looking to get at the top you want to know which ladder you're climbing and where you stand. So I also dislike tables split by ship types.
But those are all different ladders with different potential maximum scores, they need to be recognised as such.

I think one big plus point of having separated score tables is that it offers an incentive for the competitive players who do submit scores to experiment with various ships/characters and perhaps learn the game in a fairly different way (DDP chaining for example).

There can be some value to that. But in the end, I think the one ladder that will motivate the best players to fight the best they can, and all the other players to watch with enthusiasm and get pumped to play better themselves, is the most general ladder, for the reasons I stated.

However I think this discussion revolves around psychological and social factors that may be too complex to grasp entirely and predict the consequences of. So I don't think I could say I really disagree with you :)

ncp · Post by **ncp** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:54 am

One high score table to rule them all. Well, usually.

Entirely different game modes having separate scores is fine if it merits having a sub-table devoted to it (like dangun feveron's time attack), but separating by ship type is lame. If you REALLY WANT TO you can just look at the ship types yourself and see how you stand amongst them, but at the end of the day your score is still lower than the others, and all the excuses in the world won't change that!

shmups.system11.org

Ideal High Score table system.

Ideal High Score table?

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.

Re: Ideal High Score table system.