Author |
Topic: Universal F Zero (Read 867 times) |
|
Hobbes
Guest
|
 |
Universal F Zero
« Thread started on: Jun 14th, 2003, 12:23pm » |
|
What exactly is Universal F Zero gonna be, Dave?
Al
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Webmaster
Dave Crawford FZeroCentral.com
    
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 2205
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #1 on: Jun 14th, 2003, 5:28pm » |
|
A ranking page for players who compete in at least 3 of the 4 competitions.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
David Van Moer
Guest
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #2 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
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DavePhaneuf
Board Master
   
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 183
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #3 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.
|
|
Logged
|
Dave Phaneuf -F-zero Racing Status-
F-Zero (21st Overall, 12th NTSC, 4th Canadian) - Expert B F-Zero X - (6th Overall, 5th NTSC, 1st Canadian) - King C F-Zero MV - (52nd Overall, 4th Canadian) - Expert A F-Zero GX (3rd Overall, 1st Canadian) - Expert B
Universal (4th Overall)
|
|
|
Top Speed
Guest
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #4 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
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Webmaster
Dave Crawford FZeroCentral.com
    
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 2205
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #5 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.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Webmaster
Dave Crawford FZeroCentral.com
    
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 2205
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #6 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
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
djungelurban
Board Bishop
  
member is offline

Sweden's best F-Zero player, atleast on fzerocentral... Suppose that ain't anything to brag about.

Gender: 
Posts: 97
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #7 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...
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
David Van Moer
Guest
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #8 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
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Webmaster
Dave Crawford FZeroCentral.com
    
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 2205
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #9 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).
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Top Speed on third gear
Guest
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #10 on: Jun 15th, 2003, 11:40am » |
|
this is slightly off the chart...but how much is a used n64 and or a used gc?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
KEJackson
Guest
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #11 on: Jun 15th, 2003, 11:59am » |
|
Crap.. 5th, got to get better  Kortnevensky aka Neven
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Webmaster
Dave Crawford FZeroCentral.com
    
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 2205
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #12 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
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Webmaster
Dave Crawford FZeroCentral.com
    
member is offline



Gender: 
Posts: 2205
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #13 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.
|
« Last Edit: Jun 16th, 2003, 01:10am by Webmaster » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
~SPLASH~
Board Master
   
member is offline

Show me ya moves!


Gender: 
Posts: 211
|
 |
Re: Universal F Zero
« Reply #14 on: Jun 16th, 2003, 03:41am » |
|
on Jun 16th, 2003, 01:06am, Webmaster wrote: This one looks easy to read and use, so I'd say it's great!
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|