"Wizard's Corner"

  1. "Wizard's Corner"

    03-04-2003, 09:14 PM
    "Wizard's Corner" calls out for "cubeman"
    Mr. Cubeman,
    I have to give you a compliment, as you have bin reading the ?W/C?, I also have bin reading your input to this message board as well. Your commentary has bin enlightening and informative on hard to solve issues such as, the cut off point for ?Classics? or the questioning of high score records, with a solid thought process.

    I too feel, if you have set rules, then use them. This is not a question of amendment or a sign of the times, were the old rules can not effectively resolve the infraction. We are talking of confirmation to a claim of a score. The record has bin challenged, so have the person prove 90% of his/her score at a tournament, or mail a video tape to the proper people??? If a record is really impossible, them let a tournament show down, prove ether side. A true world record holder is a person that has consistency to his/her game play and not a once in a life time game that can?t be repeated. Now the ?Wizard?s? chest is cleared??..

    On to the real reason for this shout out. The ?W/C? is conducting a poll of the ?Top Ten Pins? of all time. Hosted by the ?Fun Spot? message board. The ?Corner? would like to request your ? TTL?, you have a head on your shoulders and your input is welcome.

    Hope to see your list and thank you for past input to the ?Wizard?s Corner?.

    This is ?tag_bmx? for the ?Wizard?s Corner?. May your tables always be Level and your eyes never see ?Tilt?.





    D_Harris - 01:40am Jan 30, 2001 (#72.1 of 1407)

    Sorry To Interupt
    As for your statement, "A true world record holder is a person that has consistency to his/her game play and not a once in a life time game that can?t be repeated."
    If I catch your meaning the right way, I can't say that I totally agree. Everyone has had their best game on what ever machine they have played. And you have to remember that things change. This includes, but is not limited to interest, and determination. Most just aren't as enthusiastic about pushing up their skill levels as they may have been at the age of 15.

    I do however believe that previous skills do comeback very quickly. Even after a decade and a half absence from a game. (I think many of us have proven that).

    Lastly, I never did like the idea regarding the requirement of a player to get 90% of his/her record. The major design flaw here is that there is no stable reference point that would allow one to accurately determine a players relative skill level based on how close to his/her claimed high score that they can get.

    There are quite a few contenders who can get 90% or 95% of a leader's score. So whether we are talking about Track n Field or a marathon game like Defender, the ability to do this means nothing at all. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the top three verified scores on Ms.Pacman are all within 1% of each other. If someone came along and claimed a 1% increase over Chris Ayra's record, that would be considered a big jump.

    (Now back to your pinball). :-)

    Darren Harris

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    tag_bmx - 06:01pm Jan 30, 2001 (#72.1.1 of 1407)

    "W/C" reply for Mr. Harris
    Mr. Harris,
    There is no need to apologize for the interruption, last I herd it was still a free country and the ?W/C? excepts all who come. Thank you very much for your time and well thought out response to my post on this message board.

    I agree with most of your statement, I was merrily quoting what is stated as the means of resolving high score conflict by the governing body that wrote the rules. This doesn?t mean I think it?s right nor that there isn?t another solution. I think if there is others who feel as you do about the 90% rule, you should band together and propose a amendment to change the method.

    As far as for my (true world record holder statement) is concerned, I feel that it was consistency that propelled that person to his/her once in a life time game and I still believe that same skill will prove that individual as a champion. I know this for personal experience when I was challenged to defend my light heavy weight titles for kick boxing. During one of my matches I had the fight of my life that wouldn?t be repeated, but it was my consistency that won my next 5 defense matches. I couldn?t rest off my past performance and still call myself a true world record holder or champion. I left the ring undefeated. There is an old saying: If a person has nothing to fear nor hide he shows up to prove????..

    O by the way Mr. Harris, I?m taking on new students at the present time, you know what I mean???. Please show a little respect !

    Once again thank you.

    This is ?tag_bmx? for the ?Wizard?s Corner?. May your tables always be Level and your eyes never see ?Tilt?.




    cubeman - 01:15pm Jan 30, 2001 (#72.2 of 1407)

    High Scores are Not Science
    ...but they could be.
    But not retroactively.

    I've given up on comparing old scores to new scores. You just can't do it.

    You can't verify any of the old scores unless you were there in person, and no one used video tape in the "old days".

    Too bad so many people lied about their scores.

    And forget about consistency as well, in 1985 there was a rule which said "No written video game material, hints or diagrams in the contest area".

    Rick was using his Ms pacman overlay in the Funspot 1999 contest. I'm sorry, but I can't agree to that. Chess players don't have chess books with them or other memory aids in the contest area.

    Like I said, these things can be addressed, but back in 1985 how would you enforce such a rule? You can't. Just like you can't compare the new scores to the old.

    And the about face on the pacman settings was even worse. Now it's mathematically impossible for the old pacman scores to be compared to the new. IMPOSSIBLE, now that you can use 5 men instead of 3, since now you can score another 180 points.

    It's a very poor game to compare the relative skills of players, since now 3 people have mathematically perfect scores.

    Is the news all bad? Am I once again the harbringer of doom? :)

    No.

    It's not all bad. But the younger players should be aware of these older details. And of course Darren is right about Track N Field (and bowling games for that matter). 90% doesn't mean much in those cases.

    And there is always the individual players personal high scores, and the sense of achievement that comes with that. And personally, I don't play any game where the "World Champion" boils down to a random event.

    Cheers, Mark




    tag_bmx - 06:15pm Jan 30, 2001 (#72.2.1 of 1407)

    "W/C" reply to Mr. Cubeman
    Mr. Cubeman,
    Always a pleasure to hear from you and thanks for your response. Now we know you have played some ?Silverball?. So??.. please if you can, give the ?W/C? your ?TTL?. I?m personally curios to what it my be???

    PS ? we have your cat???.. just kidding.

    Once again thank you very much.

    This is ?tag_bmx? for the ?Wizard?s Corner?. May your tables always be Level and your eyes never see ?Tilt?.




    D_Harris - 06:31pm Jan 30, 2001 (#72.2.1.1 of 1407)

    Pinball?!? :-)
    I'd like to address some of Mark's statements...
    "I've given up on comparing old scores to new scores. You just can't do it."

    "You can't verify any of the old scores unless you were there in person, and no one used video tape in the "old days"."

    "Too bad so many people lied about their scores."


    **Response; This is exactly why I said there should be a "Verified" and an "Unverified" category. But the best compromise would be the following.(Though I don't like it). If all scores from the past that were not videotaped, or achieved during a contest, and not proven unequivocally false are kept, then there should be notations next to every score denoting what verification method was used. For example, "V" = Videotapes. "T" = Tournament(sanctioned). And "P" = Photograph. I know that some will argue that there should be a "W"(Written documentation) category, but this is where most of the problems started in the first place. And my personal opinion is still that if it wasn't done at a tournament or videotaped, then it wasn't done(sort to speak). Nevertheless, the above classification idea has the advantage of allowing the public searching out scores to come to their own conclusions about an individual score's verification method, without classifying the entire scoreboard as being unreliable. However, to strengthen the scoreboard's status, and to let everyone know that Twin Galaxies backs only the most stringent verification methods, the "V" and "T" categories should be highlighted and put in the forefront.(I can't stress that enough). Those should be the first scores seen, regardless of whether a "weakly" verified score is higher.
    "And forget about consistency as well, in 1985 there was a rule which said "No written video game material, hints or diagrams in the contest area"."

    "Rick was using his Ms pacman overlay in the Funspot 1999 contest. I'm sorry, but I can't agree to that. Chess players don't have chess books with them or other memory aids in the contest area."


    **Response; Foul! Somebody call the scoreboard police! :-) If I have to wing 3 of those mazes by the seat of my pants,(and that was the first time I've ever gotten those mazes), then he can clear just one without help! :-) Funny how Billy Mitchell never mentioned that to me. In fact, there was no mention of it in the article I read. It kind of spoils the integrity of the game doesn't it? (Shame on you Rick). :-)
    "Like I said, these things can be addressed, but back in 1985 how would you enforce such a rule? You can't. Just like you can't compare the new scores to the old."


    **Response; Life is a learning experience. As long as the same errors are not repeated, then something was accomplished. :-)
    "And the about face on the pacman settings was even worse. Now it's mathematically impossible for the old pacman scores to be compared to the new. IMPOSSIBLE, now that you can use 5 men instead of 3, since now you can score another 180 points."

    "It's a very poor game to compare the relative skills of players, since now 3 people have mathematically perfect scores."


    **Response; Foul! Did the scoreboard police get here yet? :-) (Now I do remember someone mentioning something about this to me as I was playing Ms.Pacman last year). Somebody call up Namco and have them take back Billy's player of the century plaque! :-)
    Seriously, what cannot be disputed is that "default" is always assumed. Outside of the default settings, we have tournament settings. And that is all... Tournament settings should have one purpose. TO CUT DOWN ON THE LENGTH OF TIME TO PLAY A GAME SO ALL CONTESTANTS CAN HAVE A FAIR SHOT AT GETTING A HIGH SCORE. 5 men on Pacman doesn't help that goal. (I won't get any further into this right now, but I will later).

    "And personally, I don't play any game where the "World Champion" boils down to a random event."


    **Response; So I guess that, like me, you don't play pinball. :-) Seriously, just about all games have that "law of chance" factor.(Some more than others). Pacman is one of the rare exceptions. But only because it is a "pure pattern game".
    Darren Harris

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com
Results 1 to 1 of 1
Join us