F-Zero Central Message Board
Other >> Open F-Zero Forum >> Universal F Zero
http://fzerocentral.suddenlaunch.com/index.cgi?board=fzeroopen&action=display&num=1055611405

Universal F Zero
Post by Hobbes on Jun 14th, 2003, 12:23pm

What exactly is Universal F Zero gonna be, Dave?

Al
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 14th, 2003, 5:28pm

A ranking page for players who compete in at least 3 of the 4 competitions.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by David Van Moer on Jun 14th, 2003, 9:30pm

Personally I don't think you can really call yourself 'Universal F-Zero Champ' if you don't play on all 4 versions. But maybe I'm just a little biased here

DVM
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by DavePhaneuf on Jun 14th, 2003, 10:37pm

I think that maybe it would be better if Universal Ranking would require all four games for participation.

It may be difficult do figure out who would be at a higher ranking for some people if they participated in 3 instead of all 4 games. If you ask me, the universal ranking wouldn't be complete without records for all Tracks in All games.

It would no doubt lower the amount of participants, but on the plus side in might encourage other players to compete in the different games to qualify for universal.
And if it would be ok for 3 out of 4 to qualify, the players that competed in 4 games would defenitly have an advantage against the players who competed in 3 of the 4 games.

That's pretty much my opinion on this subject.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Top Speed on Jun 14th, 2003, 11:16pm

well...not everyone has all 4 systems, I'm already lucky enough to own the snes and the gba. I might get the n64 for the fact of F-ZERO X, but personally I don't like that version of the game too much. Also...I would get the F Zero for GC, too bad they don't offer it for xbox. I might get it when I can find a game cube for under 50 dollars so I won't have it for a while, lol.
I would recommend two separate sections, where you may compete in the first three consoles (for example) and another for all four, but it would me increased work for Dave and he's got too much to do as is. I guess the only decision is to have all four consoles, but too few would be in the competition.

An idea would be to let anyone compete from 2 to 4 consoles, and just give the points for what they have...obviously if somebody is champ in 3 of the 4 competitions and doesn't own a fourth will have problems being listed in the top 5-10, but at least he'll have the chance to be measured with people of different f zero groups. Its just a concept..maybe it don't even make sence lol.

Al
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 15th, 2003, 02:11am

You won't be Universal Champ if you don't play all 4. No way that'll happen points-wise. DVM will make sure of that. The top players on the chart will definitely be in all 4 competitions, so basically it will sort itself out so that you get what you want anyway. Did that make sense?

Yes, competing in all 4 gives you an advantage over only playing 3 of 4, and that in itself is motivation to play all 4. People playing all 4 are truly "universal", and SHOULD have an advantage. But playing 3 different games is spreading one's self out quite a bit already, and the cost of having all 4 is too much for some, as Al pointed out. I don't want to make the competition so exclusive that the chart is so small that it's not even worth doing.

I think Al summed things up pretty well. Requiring all 4 would be ideal, but this isn't a perfect world ... obtaining all 4 is out of the question for many. Making separate charts for 4/4 and 3/4 players is overkill at this time. And giving points only for the games they're in, so that the 3/4 players will virtually always rank lower on the chart, is how Universal will work.

Bottom line: Let's try it this way and see how it works. If we build up a large group of 4/4 players, we can make that the requirement at that time. I could split it and make a separate 3/4 "B League" for Universal at that point. We can always refine the process as we go. Let's give my basic idea a chance before tinkering with it too much.

Additional thoughts:

*2/4 shouldn't be considered as a possible minimum. 3 versions requires you to play both the SNES/GBA and N64/GC styles of play.

*The 3/4 requirement allows me to start up the process BEFORE players join GX ... even before GX is released! I can make the chart 3/3 until GX is here and still not have to remove players later. This is a BIG plus. Having the chart functioning when GX hits will provide the largest opportunity to encourage the flood of GX players to join other versions. 4/4 would be VERY slow at first ... me and maybe a couple other NTSC players listed at first, then DVM and 1 or 2 other PAL guys later in the year. That would not look very enticing to the majority of players. This was not a factor in my preference to only require 3/4, but it is an added bonus.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 15th, 2003, 03:23am

http://fzerocentral.com/universal.htm

Did I miss anyone?

Here's the full system I used:

Champion = 1 pt
King A = 2 pts
King B = 3
King C = 4
King D = 5
Master A = 6
Master B = 7
Master C = 8
Master D = 9
Expert A = 10
Expert B = 11
Expert C = 12
Expert D = 13
Bishop A = 14
Bishop B = 15
Bishop C = 16
Bishop D = 17
Knight A = 18
Knight B = 19
Knight C = 20
Knight D = 21
Pawn A = 25
Pawn B = 29
Pawn C = 33
Pawn D = 37
Novice = 41
not entered = 45

Each Pawn score (and Novice) is based on the bottom of the range. Meaning that if Pawn A was split up like King, Master, etc. are split up ... the points would be 22, 23, 24, and 25. But all Pawn A players get 25 ... call it a penalty for being in the bottom half. More motivation to reach at least Knight. And for "not entered", I thought it made sense to take another 4 point step, pretty logical when looking at the chart above.

Your thoughts?

Dave
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by djungelurban on Jun 15th, 2003, 03:29am

That's great.
Too bad that I can't fit an N64 in my room... :\
I'm kinda out of space...
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by David Van Moer on Jun 15th, 2003, 05:29am

That looks nice Dave but if you base the points on the ranking title it might become pretty easy to get tied scores near the top.
Also sometimes there's actually quite a bit of skill diference between let's say a lower King B and a top King A which is then only reflected by 1 point.

How about taking your relative strength-% per game into account by dividing your reverse position by the number of players ?

For me that would be:

FZMV 205/212 x 100 = 96.69
FZ SNES 67/68 x 100 = 98.52
FZX 73/77 x 100 = 94.80
so a total of 290.01 points

Roland for instance would get
187/212 x 100 = 88.20
56/68 x 100 = 82.35
74/77 x 100 = 96.10
total 266.65 points.


Of course you now play to get the most points.

DVM
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 15th, 2003, 07:40am

Well, I wanna keep it "lower is better" to match the rest of the site. But your point is noted ... maybe I'll do the reverse of what you're saying (10/200 = 5.00 pts).
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Top Speed on third gear on Jun 15th, 2003, 11:40am

this is slightly off the chart...but how much is a used n64 and or a used gc?
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by KEJackson on Jun 15th, 2003, 11:59am

Crap.. 5th, got to get better
Kortnevensky aka Neven
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 16th, 2003, 01:05am

on Jun 15th, 2003, 11:40am, Top Speed on third gear wrote:
this is slightly off the chart...but how much is a used n64 and or a used gc?


From Gamestop.com:

Used N64 = $35
Refurbished (All this means is that the system was used and they repaired or replaced part[s] to make it work and/or look better) GC = $90
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 16th, 2003, 01:06am

OK, gimme some feedback on this version:

http://fzerocentral.com/universal.php

It's basically the idea that DVM had, only using a simpler "rank / total" system.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by ~SPLASH~ on Jun 16th, 2003, 03:41am

on Jun 16th, 2003, 01:06am, Webmaster wrote:
OK, gimme some feedback on this version:

http://fzerocentral.com/universal.php

It's basically the idea that DVM had, only using a simpler "rank / total" system.

This one looks easy to read and use, so I'd say it's great!
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by David Van Moer on Jun 16th, 2003, 05:16am

Looks good ! No chance of getting a tie this time..


DVM
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by KEJackson on Jun 16th, 2003, 10:28am

Ah. Now I get it.
If more people in the competition join, and are worse off than you are, your ranking goes up, but if someone joins that is higher, your ranking goes down, but if yours goes up, and your not first, yours and whoever else is higher than the new player gets a higher rank.

The way it looks, it is okay, but I will be hellbent on getting higher.
KEJ.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by DavePhaneuf on Jun 16th, 2003, 12:04pm

This looks great, might I make a suggestion.

Right now the chart is going into detial about all of the games. Maybe the chart should start something like this:

----------------------------Games
-Player Name-----------------3/4
-Player Name-----------------3/4
-Player Name-----------------3/4
-Player Name-----------------3/4

I put Games in bold since that would be a link. You could click on that to go into the more detailed version that you have shown us.

How does that sound?
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 16th, 2003, 2:32pm

on Jun 16th, 2003, 12:04pm, DavePhaneuf wrote:
This looks great, might I make a suggestion.

Right now the chart is going into detial about all of the games. Maybe the chart should start something like this:

----------------------------Games
-Player Name-----------------3/4
-Player Name-----------------3/4
-Player Name-----------------3/4
-Player Name-----------------3/4

I put Games in bold since that would be a link. You could click on that to go into the more detailed version that you have shown us.

How does that sound?


What would be the advantage of adding the first, less-detailed page?
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by DavePhaneuf on Jun 16th, 2003, 4:56pm

Since the Rectangles are much wider in the more detailed version the less detailed version could make it so you wouldn't have to make the wide for all the data, unless you were planning on making the detialed data thin like the others.

The Wide version looks Fine too as well. Once there gets to be more players it might take a little longer to load up. But that's not really much a problem.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 16th, 2003, 8:19pm

The columns are just wide in the test version. It'll automatically squeeze down to the size of the frame when I link to it from the main page.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by DavePhaneuf on Jun 16th, 2003, 10:23pm

Oh. Ok then.

Either way would've been fine with me really. ^^
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by ED-209 Automated Police Unit on Jun 16th, 2003, 11:03pm

can i be ranked universally by having you put me in last place for X and SNES?
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Jun 17th, 2003, 06:20am

on Jun 16th, 2003, 11:03pm, nickharsh wrote:
can i be ranked universally by having you put me in last place for X and SNES?


Nope, sorry. As I stated earlier in this thread, I feel that 3 out of 4 is a reasonable minimum for Universal. 2 out of 4 would be better described as "Hemispheric."
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by ED-209 Automated Police Unit on Aug 3rd, 2003, 12:23am

on Jun 17th, 2003, 06:20am, Webmaster wrote:
Nope, sorry. As I stated earlier in this thread, I feel that 3 out of 4 is a reasonable minimum for Universal. 2 out of 4 would be better described as "Hemispheric."


Okay, what about a universal ranking where I am ranked last in X, SNES, and GX? I mean, it is possible that I do own all 4 games and I'm just too 'challenged' to operate 3 of them. Can you really hold it against me that I can't read the directions on the boxes?
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by TelpeFion on Aug 15th, 2003, 1:26pm

Now, as I have FZX and FZMV, and I'm going to get FZGX at the time of the PAL release, will I suffer in the Universal rankings for not owning FZSNES? If I do, I can understand it. You want to give the advantage to players with all 4 games.

But what about this:
3 games out of 4 is the minimum for being ranked in Universal. So why couldn't we just take the 3 best games for everyone?

I'll try to explain:
Lets say someone's ranked 20th/200 in X, 30th/200 in MV, 40th/200 in SNES and 50th/200 in GX. For this person you'd give him/her points for his/her 3 best games, ie. you leave the game with the worst points out. So, in this case, the GX rank wouldn't count.

With this system players with "only" 3 versions wouldn't be punished, but players with all 4 games would still have the advantage they deserve.

If you didn't understand this, I'm sorry. Comments, please.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Ryan Jenning on Aug 15th, 2003, 6:26pm

I wouldn't like that because then I would probably still be ranked last in Universal I need the advantage for owning all four games.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by TelpeFion on Aug 16th, 2003, 03:42am

Well, you would have an advantage, as you, unlike players with only 3 games, would have a choice: You have 4 games, but your rank only depends on your 3 best games.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by F-Zero Fanatic on Aug 16th, 2003, 09:11am

Personally, I think all 4 games should count, why?... because it's a Universal competition. I think you should have to be good at ALL the F-Zero games to be the 'Universal Champion'.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by Webmaster on Aug 16th, 2003, 10:15pm

on Aug 16th, 2003, 09:11am, Ninto wrote:
Personally, I think all 4 games should count, why?... because it's a Universal competition. I think you should have to be good at ALL the F-Zero games to be the 'Universal Champion'.

Precisely my way of thinking.
Re: Universal F Zero
Post by TelpeFion on Aug 17th, 2003, 05:15am

OK, I accept it as it is.