Baron of the Bemani Bordello: July 23rd is a gogogogo

[Merk]

lollllllll I love that video. The reaction shots are priceless.

Why tournaments didn't use PA as a means of scoring is beyond me, money score is really dumb and its flaws are compounded in Pump. In fact, I'll get Jason's opinion on this.

The Bemani Bordello tournament will use PA scoring because we are not retarded.

[Ho]

Actually, money score is used in pretty much every Pump tournament I've ever seen--including USPF/WPF. I think you only question it because it's not what's done in DDR. But they are simply not the same game. Pump timing is looser and the charts are harder than DDR, and money score usually results in fewer ties.

It actually works well more often than it doesn't. The situation that arose in that video is not at all common and one could argue that Chad simply played better (at least the parts that he did play). Afterall, if you got half credit on every question on a test, someone who got full credit on half the test +1 question and then didn't finish the rest would still score higher. It's not a better/worse system...it's just different. (Although I will say that the score calculation has changed from game to game and some of them seem better than others.)

[ImuyumI]

I just remembering feeling relief because I didn't have an ounce of energy left to play any more Pump and any more would have been futile.

Still, Fluffy and I will throw down. I'll take him down on Hold the Line, then I'll whomp him in Puzzle Fighter, and destroy him in Magical Drop. Then, I'll play We Are The Champions on DDR to hail my awesomeness over him.

[Merk]

I disagree. Why use a complicated scoring system to determine a winner instead of just the number of perfects which works just as well? DDR uses a goofy scoring system too but people realized it's dumb so they decided to use a much more fair method (Perfect attack) of determining a winner because it makes sense to do so.

If you used PA instead of score you would never run in to a situation like this in a tournament. The other way around obviously opens you up to completely asinine scenarios like in the video. Any rational non-PIU fanboy would tell you that John-Michael should have won that match. Hell, the fact that people are laughing about it and throwing their hands up in disbelief in the video shows how ridiculous score attack is in Pump. Therefore, why bother using score when PA is more fool-proof and just as easy to compare?

I don't think ties are that big of a factor here. The perfect window is wide enough that if you can get a full combo then you probably got all perfects too. In other words, either scoring method would result in a tie.

I'm not sure where you're going with the test analogy. The latter student justly got the higher score and no one is going to argue that - it doesn't matter how he/she got there. Besides, that's not how Pump works, here is how Pump works:

On a test of 10 questions --

Student A gets full credit on the first 3 questions, he then comes down with a sudden case of blindness and completely misses the next 4 questions, his eyesight suddenly comes back but he only has time to answer the last 3 questions which he does and gets full credit.

Student B has half a brain and therefore completed the test in full but only got half credit on each question.

Since Mr. Andamiro is a bad teacher, student B ends up with the higher score because he drew a pretty pony picture for each question and they go on to become a CEO of some cigarette company.

Does that make sense? It doesn't! Welcome to Korea!

[Ho]

I will just answer this the way I always do:

Any scoring system is fair as long as everyone is held to the same standards.

[Merk]

Yeah it's fair in the sense that both players are judged the same way but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

[Ho]

Yeah it's fair in the sense that both players are judged the same way but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

Whether it's dumb or not is simply your opinion. Money score simply judges more than just straight accuracy. And like I said, the calculation has changed over the years for both games.

[Merk]

How about this:

We're holding a tournament on Extreme and we're doing score attack instead of PA. You and your opponent both get 1 great on a song only you lose the match because your great was on the last arrow and your opponent's was on the first arrow. Wouldn't you find that dumb? Shouldn't the match end in a tie?

Wouldn't you be pissed off at the arbitrary scoring algorithm that puts a greater weight on later arrows? Shouldn't all arrows be counted for equally?

[Merk]

Yeah it's fair in the sense that both players are judged the same way but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

Whether it's dumb or not is simply your opinion. Money score simply judges more than just straight accuracy. And like I said, the calculation has changed over the years for both games.

You're right, dumb infers an opinion. I should have said that score attack is an objectively archaic and less effective method of determining a winner in the dancing videogame "Pump It Up" because it allows for situations to crop up where someone can quit playing a significant portion of a song and still win a match as evidenced by the above video of players Chad and John-Michael.

Factual. Evidence.

[Ho]

How about this:

We're holding a tournament on Extreme and we're doing score attack instead of PA. You and your opponent both get 1 great on a song only you lose the match because your great was on the last arrow and your opponent's was on the first arrow. Wouldn't you find that dumb? Shouldn't the match end in a tie?

Wouldn't you be pissed off at the arbitrary scoring algorithm that puts a greater weight on later arrows? Shouldn't all arrows be counted for equally?

No. In fact, I think it actually makes sense for later arrows to be worth more. This takes endurance into account.

You're right, dumb infers an opinion. I should have said that score attack is an objectively archaic and less effective method of determining a winner in the dancing videogame "Pump It Up" because it allows for situations to crop up where someone can quit playing a significant portion of a song and still win a match as evidenced by the above video of players Chad and John-Michael.

Factual. Evidence.

I still disagree.

There's nothing archaic about either method and money score is every bit as effective at determining a winner. You simply are disagreeing with its determination.

I do agree that the situation between Chad and John-Michael to be somewhat dubious, but I do not think it is an invalid result.

[Fluffyumpkins]

Yeah it's fair in the sense that both players are judged the same way but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

Whether it's dumb or not is simply your opinion. Money score simply judges more than just straight accuracy. And like I said, the calculation has changed over the years for both games.

You're right, dumb infers an opinion. I should have said that score attack is an objectively archaic and less effective method of determining a winner in the dancing videogame "Pump It Up" because it allows for situations to crop up where someone can quit playing a significant portion of a song and still win a match as evidenced by the above video of players Chad and John-Michael.

Factual. Evidence.

My thoughts?

Combo should not be a relevant factor when scoring a tournament. There is no sport (I can think of) that factors any sort of combo or scoring in succession when determining the winner.

[Ho]

My thoughts?

Combo should not be a relevant factor when scoring a tournament. There is no sport (I can think of) that factors any sort of combo or scoring in succession when determining the winner.

Bowling.

[Ho]

BTW, this little debate is fun.

[Merk]

Why should endurance have anything to do with how much an arrow is worth?

That's like making touchdowns in football worth 10 points after the 2-minute warning because oh boy the players are getting gassed.

[Ho]

Why should endurance have anything to do with how much an arrow is worth?

That's like making touchdowns in football worth 10 points after the 2-minute warning because oh boy the players are getting gassed.

Maybe they should. Again, we're talking about opinion now.

I, for one, have a lot more trouble scoring well on dance games the longer the song goes. Also, the particular situation in question was a full-length song. Both players were obviously pretty tired and not playing at full capacity by the end. I concede that I would (subjectively) give John-Michael some kind of credit for sticking with it and powering all the way through to the end.

The football comparison doesn't really hold up anyway. The average football play lasts less than 10 seconds and there is usually 30-45 seconds between plays. Also, substitutions, time outs, half time, etc.