Scoreboard capping - the theory

[spadgy]

Over in the Hi Scores area, as most of you probably know, some high scoreboards are capped; others aren't.

I thought a discussion of the pros and cons of high score table capping would be interesting.

I maintain a few boards myself, and don't cap them. I think that open high score boards encourage more people to play, and motivate discussion about the game. Uncapped boards, I think, are also more conducive to that good sense of community at those times when numerous people are submitting scores for the same game around the same time. Deathsmiles has been great fun in that regard, with many of us of all standards attacking the game together. In short, going without a cap means everybody's invited to the party, and the bigger the party, the more the fun, right?

But then capping sets a proper challenge, and subsequently the reward and satisfaction of making it on the board. It shines a light on the best players, and leads to a cleaner, tighter board. Perhaps you could even argue that capping encourages a deeper and more focused exploration of a given game's scoring mechanics that, with the collective effort of those playing the game, leads to a better understanding of the game for all of us. It's less of a pain in the arse to maintain too!

But I still feel I lean to uncapped boards (perhaps it's because I'm just not good enough!). What about you lot? Which is better?

[Icarus]

I never capped any of my scoreboards when I was still maintaining them. I personally believed that it allowed everyone a chance to get on the board (obviously), and if you saw where you placed immediately, it might give you motivation to move up the boards at a later date. Obviously your mileage may vary, but when I was back on the shooting games over a decade ago, the uncapped scoreboards on the Gamespy version of the forum motivated me to improve my game.

[Drachenherz]

Uncapped boards give even the last one of us last shmupicans the chance to... well, get on a scoreboard.

So I like it, naturally...

[BulletMagnet]

Methinks it kind of depends on the game - if it's a popular title that gets loads of score submissions (many of them inevitably one-time efforts from players who quickly move on) then it's kind of silly to keep a table 500 spaces long just because "you're supposed to" - for more obscure games it might be a better idea to keep things "open" and encourage people to try the thing out without worrying about if they'll "make the cut".

[Ed Oscuro]

Election board votes to allow Emanuel's score in

Capping the leaderboards probably saves the maintainers of boards like the Dodonpachi one from having to update five times a day. On the flip side, it probably is preventing me from ever being able to submit a score...well, maybe. I'm still trying.

[Drum]

Capping the leaderboards probably saves the maintainers of boards like the Dodonpachi one from having to update five times a day. On the flip side, it probably is preventing me from ever being able to submit a score...well, maybe. I'm still trying.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You are number two on the IGMO score board. That's no small achievement.

[Despatche]

Methinks it kind of depends on the game - if it's a popular title that gets loads of score submissions (many of them inevitably one-time efforts from players who quickly move on) then it's kind of silly to keep a table 500 spaces long just because "you're supposed to" - for more obscure games it might be a better idea to keep things "open" and encourage people to try the thing out without worrying about if they'll "make the cut".

This works, see also Imperishable Night and the Border Team

[Ed Oscuro]

Capping the leaderboards probably saves the maintainers of boards like the Dodonpachi one from having to update five times a day. On the flip side, it probably is preventing me from ever being able to submit a score...well, maybe. I'm still trying.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You are number two on the IGMO score board. That's no small achievement.

#1 on the Sen-Know board at the moment, too!

[linko9]

For super-popular games like DDP you need to have a cap; it's just not fair to expect the person in charge of the scoreboard to update every schmuk's "I-played-for an-hour-and-here's-what-I-got" score. Even with the 60 person cap on that board, it's one of the more active ones. That's the only real reason caps are needed IMO, and there probably aren't more than 20 games that are popular enough to really require a cap. I'd personally say the cut-off should be around 50 people per game; though obviously it gets tricky when multiple difficulties/modes/ports/ships need to be taken into account.

[Ed Oscuro]

every schmuk's "I-played-for an-hour-and-here's-what-I-got" score.

I have never done this, ever. Especially not for my Gekirindan score earlier today, or when posting a new highscore thread myself.

[linko9]

I think those score are needed for less active boards to get some competition started. For your DDPs and Gareggas, it would be a pain in the ass though.

[GaijinPunch]

I think capping at 20 is fair. It keeps it competitive (which a high score thread should be). There are also too many people that play once, get a shit score, and never touch it again. Seriously -- who cares? Finally, there are plenty who don't make it all that easy on the maintainer, so the fewer the better.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

I think it depends on the game but imo every score board should have enough spaces that while discourages ppl from posting stupidly low scores just once never to return but allows for anyone of almost any resonable skill level to get on the board if they spend 2 or 3 days of effort as that encourages new ppl into the game (IE someone who gets to stage 3 or 4)

Imo theres not much point in having a scoreboard with a very small cap that only allows the very best players to post on it. Rather then a scoreboard that allows everyone to compete they feel more of a way for ppl to pick up scoring tips or just know what scores are possible in the game

[DEL]

Like Skykid's friend says - Cap'em at 20.

[spadgy]

Interesting stuff. I can certainly see the point with DDP (in fact a discussion at that high score thread motivated this post to an extent), but I think if a game really is popular why not cap at 100? Surely if enough people are playing you could have 100 score that weren't just from people who'd tried two credits. I bet there's a ton of us here with DDP scores in the 30-40mil territory who would easily fill out the rest of the board.

(By the way - this isn't some elaborate attempt to get my DDP score added! I'm just using DDP as an example, and I completely respect the maintainer's prerogative to cap as they see fit!)

I'd think about capping Deathsmiles at 100 maybe. It is a real pain when somebody comes in at 3rd place and you have to shift everything around.

But at the same time, I would argue that part of taking on the responsibility of the high score board means accepting the responsibility of doing quite a bit of updating. And hey - it's fun!

But overall I do agree absolutely with the overall sentiment that there's no hard and fast rule. It depends on the game of course.

[Vyxx]

I think capping at 20 is fair. It keeps it competitive (which a high score thread should be). There are also too many people that play once, get a shit score, and never touch it again. Seriously -- who cares? Finally, there are plenty who don't make it all that easy on the maintainer, so the fewer the better.

My thoughts exactly.

[GaijinPunch]

I'd think about capping Deathsmiles at 100 maybe. It is a real pain when somebody comes in at 3rd place and you have to shift everything around.

Well, obviously there'd be wiggle room depending on the popularity of the title.
But seriously, let's face it -- the whole idea of high scores threads in this day and age is silly. While Japanese ideas and games generally populate this whole forum, let's not adopt their uselessness when it comes to embracing internet technology. Someone should code something into the main site. Then the computer does all the shifting.

[freddiebamboo]

I'd prefer score boards to be open for all rather than capping them, gets more people playing and feeling a part of things by posting in the score thread.

Also people that take on score boards deserve everything they get and we should be punishing them with a deluge of improperly formatted cack scores

[DEL]

Skykid§ friend wrote :

Someone should code something into the main site. Then the computer does all the shifting.

Spoken like a true programmer.

I still think that utilising real people to add (and delete) scores to and from lists is better. Especially for the falsificare crowd.
For instance, if someone puts up a New WR score and it turns out that the system he was playing on is running at 46% speed, then the automated program isn't gonna pick up on this.

[spadgy]

Skykid§ friend wrote :

Someone should code something into the main site. Then the computer does all the shifting.

Spoken like a true programmer.

I still think that utilising real people to add (and delete) scores to and from lists is better. Especially for the falsificare crowd.
For instance, if someone puts up a New WR score and it turns out that the system he was playing on is running at 46% speed, then the automated program isn't gonna pick up on this.

While the idea of automation is alluring, I think I agree with DEL here. Automation could also dilute the community aspect of the high-score threads.

[Aliquantic]

I think it'd be possible to keep the current thread-based submitting format, though, and use an auto-formater/pretty-printer for automation. I doubt it'd be worth it to integrate it fully within the forum, but the formatting at least could be automated (and I'm not sure how an external leaderboard thing would work out either for discussion).

I prefer capped boards myself since it's still supposed to be high scores, and I'd rather feel like I've achieved something when I submit a score (the actual cap depending on popularity and scoring variation in the game, of course).

[spadgy]

I prefer capped boards myself since it's still supposed to be high scores, and I'd rather feel like I've achieved something when I submit a score (the actual cap depending on popularity and scoring variation in the game, of course).

On this point, while I see where you're coming from, I'd say you still have the thrill of getting into the top 10 or 20 even if the scoreboard is uncapped. Of course, there's more reward in finally making it to a 20-capped board, but at the same time a low score on an uncapped board is a great motivation to do better!

[Despatche]

auto-formater/pretty-printer

hi beep beep

also something like MrMonkeyMan does with Espgaluda (separate text file that keeps every single score ever submitted) would help

[TarkanX]

I don't think games should be capped, unless the game is extremely popular (there are only a few, here), and even then, maybe cap it at 100 (maybe a little less than that). The people that take on the games as the main editor for the scoreboards understand what they are getting into, especially for more popular games... and it isn't like they have to do it everyday or every 2 days (and for much less popular games, even months).

Uncapped games still encourage competition. Moving up the leaderboard one by one, or even making a gigantic leap will motivate players to get better. If a highly competitive game is capped at say 20 people, it makes it harder for someone to keep going, which dilutes competition. The objective here should be to increase competition, because you will still get players that are motivated to get to number one, or get as high of a score as possible (if they have the drive for that). As for people that submit poor scores, try capping a score to get on the board... not something too high, but something to where you can get the score by the time of the 2nd or 3rd level.

Pretty much the biggest, most competitive Shmup games (on this site) are:

Tier 1 (no order)
--------
Armed Police BatRider
Batsugun
Battle Bakraid
Battle Garegga
Blazing Star
Dangun Feveron
Darius Gaiden
Deathsmiles
DoDonPachi
Dodonpachi Dai-Ou-Jou
DonPachi
Dragon Blaze
ESP RA.DE.
ESPGaluda
Giga Wing
Gradius V
Ketsui
Mushihimesama
Strikers 1945
Strikers 1945 2
Trizeal
Under Defeat


Tier 2 (no order)
--------
19XX
Blue Wish Resurrection
Chaos Field
Chorensha
Cyvern: The Dragon Weapons
Dimahoo
DoDonPachi dai-ou-jou DEATH LABEL
ESPGaluda 2
Flying Shark
Gekirindan
Gradius
Gunbird 2
Guwange
Homura
Ibara
Ikaruga
Mars Matrix
Mushihimesama Futari 1.5
Progear Storm Of Progia
R-Type Leo
Radirgy
Raiden Fighters Jet
RayForce
Shikigami No Shiro III
Strikers 1945 Plus
Strikers 1999
Terra Diver
Thunder Dragon 2
Triggerheart Exelica
Twin Cobra
Varth
Vasara
Zero Gunner 2


Tier 3
--------
Everything Else

also something like MrMonkeyMan does with Espgaluda (separate text file that keeps every single score ever submitted) would help

I like this idea a lot.

[RNGmaster]

Uncapped boards give even the last one of us last shmupicans the chance to... well, get on a scoreboard.

So I like it, naturally...

Yeah, we're on the board, but 60th place? Even I can't fool myself into thinking my high scores are great accomplishments. We're on the scoreboard, but if there's no challenge getting on it it doesn't mean anything. Now, my Crimzon Clover score, on the other hand...

[GaijinPunch]

While there is the sense of community with someone maintaining each thread, the problem is there is no standardization. Some threads flat out look like shit (ESPRade's forever... maybe still now, haven't looked... etc.). The kicker would be in a coded system some extra fields would have to be coded, but it's not rocket science.

Of course a combination of the two could work as well.

[spadgy]

If a highly competitive game is capped at say 20 people, it makes it harder for someone to keep going, which dilutes competition. The objective here should be to increase competition, because you will still get players that are motivated to get to number one, or get as high of a score as possible (if they have the drive for that).

I agree absolutely. I'm far more likely to carry on striving to climb a table if I can be let in at a lower level. Sometimes a board capped at 20 can feel a tiny bit like an impenetrable 'old boys club' that can be off-putting. Of course that same quality is what sets the challenge and can be motivating.

As I ponder this I also start to think that in fact, an uncapped board with a hundred entrees can actually make the top-20 entrees shine more than a board capped at 20. The former shows the wheat and the chaff, making the wheat look all the better!

As for people that submit poor scores, try capping a score to get on the board... not something too high, but something to where you can get the score by the time of the 2nd or 3rd level.

I think capping based on score rather than based on position is far better. Setting the score would always be tricky as what counts as 'good' is rather subjective, but it certainly offers something close to the best of both capped and uncapped tables.

While there is the sense of community with someone maintaining each thread, the problem is there is no standardization.

Quite right. I think a loose model of standardisation is emerging across the better tables ('code' tables, links to strategy sections, clear submission guidelines, link to the previous thread etc) but it could be a great deal better.

[=SNC=]

For super-popular games like DDP you need to have a cap; it's just not fair to expect the person in charge of the scoreboard to update every schmuk's "I-played-for an-hour-and-here's-what-I-got" score.

Yeah

Someone should code something into the main site. Then the computer does all the shifting.

That would be really cool, athough there is no real reason to make it a "site feature" even something external would suffice at making longer scoreboards possible.

I still think that utilising real people to add (and delete) scores to and from lists is better. Especially for the falsificare crowd.For instance, if someone puts up a New WR score and it turns out that the system he was playing on is running at 46% speed, then the automated program isn't gonna pick up on this.

You're right, and I don't wanna think about trolls registering to the site just to put fake scores, that would be terrible :-/. Also Hi-scores threads are a good starting point to socialize with other players, talk about strategy, cheer with players achievements (and also flame about too good to be true scores^^)

I think it'd be possible to keep the current thread-based submitting format, though, and use an auto-formater/pretty-printer for automation. I doubt it'd be worth it to integrate it fully within the forum, but the formatting at least could be automated (and I'm not sure how an external leaderboard thing would work out either for discussion).

I prefer capped boards myself since it's still supposed to be high scores, and I'd rather feel like I've achieved something when I submit a score (the actual cap depending on popularity and scoring variation in the game, of course).

I agree with everything

Also as spadgy says capping on score is a good idea^_^

[spadgy]

Also Hi-scores threads are a good starting point to socialize with other players, talk about strategy, cheer with players achievements

Exactly. This is why the Hi Score section here is the hub of my playing activity. Capped or not, high score boards are something everybody should get involved in!

[Kaiser]

My idea of capping a scoreboard involves putting a score cap. On the last score extend you can get (it won't work for every shmup mind you). For example you would cap a DOJBL scoreboard at 50 millions. Just throwing a suggestion.