From: | hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Point System for Players |
Date: | Thu, 7 May 1998 14:24:52 +0800 |
>
>It might also lead to 'tournament stuffing' -- get a couple of passerbys
>to sign their names on the tournament sign-in sheet; all the better for
>the people who actually play, because then they're a) more likely to get
>points, and b) more likely to get *more* points.
I usually charge an entry price for tournments I run so this is not very
likely (Hey I need to buy the prizes, right?)
>What would be your method of verification?
>
>> Ok next I analyzed the tournament formats Loki reposted...
>> (This is exactly the same, I just included it so that you guys don't have
to
>> hunt about to know what I'm talking about. If you know what it's about,
give
>> it a skip)
>
>> <SNIP>
>
>> Based on the two tournament formats methods of winning are
>> a) accumulating high reputation
>> b) accumulating high nuyen (for purpose of tie break in the 1st format
and
>> for more rep in the 2nd format)
>
>Sounds pretty simple; I'd like very much to see the value of the nuyen
>reduced, though (since you don't have to do *anything* to accumulate
>yen). May lead to a situation where a player has a lock-out on the
>other player, and stalls for several turns (until the end of the
>allotted time, basically) to score more nuyen.
I don't know about this. In format 1, nuyen does nothing but breaks ties. No
problems.
In Format 2, Nuyen can actually help you to win the game. (10Y = 1 Rep)
Since it is a winning strategy should it be included?
>> When cumilated over time it is a good representation of a player's
>> experience in the tournament scene. However some things need to be taken
>> into consideration.
>
>> 1) Degradation
<SNIP> see ny earlier post if you're interested.
>I'd rather not see degradation used. Blizzard hits New England, no
>Arista this year, so no big SRTCG game? Too bad. Seems too likely to
>create regional difficulties -- quite frankly, there isn't much
>likelihood of a full-scale tournament (little six-player things, yeah;
>more than that, unlikely) in my area. But then, I'm not likely to
>participate in a tournament, either.
Actually I was thinking of degradation on a yearly scale. The actual point
deduction should be small done monthly/bi-monthly/quarterly.
>> 2) Theshold
<SNIP>
>With both degradation and a threshhold, it sounds like you're barely
>going to get players crossing over the 50 or so mark. Not exactly a
>good thing. More importantly, it only works to completely shut out the
>new players, or those who can only play rarely: I sweated to get those
>measly twenty Rep, pulled off a sweet combination of cards -- and it's
>denied? Or worse, I get the tourney points, only to find out that a
>month later they disappear? Not good for the low-level players.
OK, according to Felix someone just finished a tournament with -60 rep. If
that's possible, I don't think Threhold is required....
>It sounds, honestly, like these rules work more to enforce the need to
>participate in tournaments (which again, could lead to falsification)
>rather than supplement an already-enjoyable experience. Don't mean to
>bash, but these don't seem like very fair rules to newer players, or
>those struck by fate, or in lower-population areas, for that matter.
Aaah falsification. Actually I was thinking of just collecting the data and
putting up tounament posts. If you have an idea to make the system better by
all means tell me. I'll brainstorm a way for it to work....
>So, yeah, I'd drop both the degradation and the threshhold thing. Right
>now, it's important to me to get tournaments started *in the first
>place* rather than create a number of rules that may or may not help
>them. Experiment, let others experiment freely; when we've found
>something that works, formalize that.
This is not something I want to implement immediately, I'm playing with the
idea and trying to create a workable system at the same time. Should it be
needed one day, it'll be there waiting to be used....
Hansen