Mario Kart MB - Print Page

Mario Kart MB
https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Mario Kart >> Mario Kart Wii >> Should we have a CTGP requirement?
https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1622546175

Message started by Mango Man on 06/01/21 at 03:16:15

Title: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Mango Man on 06/01/21 at 03:16:15

After hearing about some happenings in other communities such as MKDD and Trackmania recently, I felt it was time for this to finally be a poll, especially seeing as CTGP is already a requirement for higher rankings on MKLeaderboards and basically all top players (and even non-top players) use CTGP anyways.

I'm not going to explain why CTGP is good and whatnot, I think everyone that plays this game already knows why a TT leaderboard might want to require CTGP.

If this poll ends in a majority wanting some form of CTGP requirement, I can create a second later poll to decide if we should still allow "Trusted" players like WiiLord to submit times without CTGP proof. Additionally, no currently existing runs will be affected by this new rule (if it becomes a rule). They will be grandfathered onto the charts.

*I don't want to decide what number X will be, you guys can shout out some ideas in this thread if you'd like.

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Ketchup on 06/01/21 at 05:57:09

players in the top 50 should use ctgp and players in the top 100 should have a video. but, you'll get rid of half the people on the rankings if you demand proof for everyone

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Mango Man on 06/01/21 at 06:26:43

797A7B7C7D7E7F480 wrote:

players in the top 50 should use ctgp and players in the top 100 should have a video. but, you'll get rid of half the people on the rankings if you demand proof for everyone

I should have mentioned that existing runs will not be affected by whatever the outcome of the poll is. I've updated the post.

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by hahaae on 06/01/21 at 09:20:27

Eh at this point, can you even really play MKW without CTGP? I wouldn't be against just having it as a requirement for, say, top100 onwards. Don't know why someone would even bother with this game without CTGP at this point, tbh :-*

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Arvo57 on 06/01/21 at 09:40:00

Yeah enforcing CTGP for the top runs is a good move IMO.

I'd say we need to think about which runs need it, since obviously top 100 on MG no glitch flap, for example, is very different from top 100 on rMC3 3lap, since MC3 3lap is way more popular of a category.

Maybe base it on community-decided cutoff points for a course? For example, require CTGP proof for runs below 1:10 on LC or something of that sort.

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Mango Man on 06/01/21 at 09:58:42

7063677E2426110 wrote:

We have a few options

Top X on each track
Top X% on each track
Custom cutoffs for each track
Certain % to the world record

and others too.

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by ArthurOww on 06/01/21 at 12:33:30

Here's my take on this:

CTGP assures a great protection to all types of cheating. As it's already the main way people play MKW nowadays, I don't see why we wouldn't use its benefits. So not asking for CTGP proof is a no for me. The question of how much proof we want (or need) is another story. I'm gonna list and comment every option Mango Man proposed here:

Top X on each track: As Arvo said, popularity varies greatly from one category to another. Just compare 3laps to Flaps, you'll see that I'm not getting these top 100 times because I'm skilled but because nobody plays them. So I don't think this is gonna work well.
Top X% on each track: that's already a much better idea, it's therefore proportional to the amount of people that play the track. I like this.
Custom cutoffs for each track: that's what I would go with if the choice was only mine. We'll be able to adjust the requirement cap for each track individually if we need/want to, and I think a precise time will be more accurate than a certain top that can change at anytime.
Certain % to the World Record: not precise enough, especially if you set a same percentage for every track. And even if you adjust the % for every track, this data is very hard to work with, as most people have no clue about their PRSR on a specific track, and will be confused on if their new PB needs a CTGP requirement or not. A time (like sub 1:10 on LC as Arvo proposed) is much more clear and recognisable.

So what's to conclude with this? Well even if CTGP can be accessed by everyone and should be an overall requirement, I still think it's not a good idea to always ask for proof, as some people, mostly new to the scene or coming from another MK game, simply don't want to hack their Wii just to appear on an old website they'll care about for 2 weeks. However once you reach a certain level, it's clear that you spend time on this game, and therefore you should've already hacked your Wii in order to play on CTGP. So I support the idea of only asking for a CTGP requirement when the time submitted is considered decently strong. As for what option we should use to determine when we ask for CTGP requirement, I'd go for a specific time on each track, as it's simple both to understand and apply. And hey, maybe we could use that to start building a new set of standards? The times we chose for each track would all be the same standard (for example, King D) and we would have a base for creating the new sheet later on. Just saying...

And that's all I needed to say! Thanks for reading as always, have a great rest of your day [smiley=beer.gif]

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Core on 06/02/21 at 10:56:59

If a run is top 100, ctgp proof requirement seems reasonable, if it's below the top 200 then there doesn't need to be imo.

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by ßęn2Łęgįt on 07/09/21 at 15:41:03

Times in the top 100 AND set after 2016 should be a CTGP requirement

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Mango Man on 07/09/21 at 23:54:43

6F48431F61484A44592D0 wrote:

Times in the top 100 AND set after 2016 should be a CTGP requirement

Already existing times would be grandfathered. I do not think we should be removing any times as a result of whatever change is made. Also I need to do a follow up poll on this.

Title: Re: Should we have a CTGP requirement?
Post by Sorozone on 07/22/21 at 12:57:35

I voted for all runs.

Seems arbitrary to have a set top line. I get why you would want to cut it off to the top 50 or top 100 cause no one really cares if you are cheating unless you are putting up great times.

I am also completely clueless on how CTGP actually detects cheaters so I'm not sure if it's fast process or slow process because I haven't played in years. If it takes a while to detect such things, then I'm all for having a cutoff line, but if that isn't the case you might as well check all runs.