I agree with Tommy: we need more time to play: this is the real sense
of my previous message ("Tourney 4: new ideas"). Sorry, maybe I
wasn't clear enough, but I always forget that you're not in my mind
and don't know what I'm thinking first... I proposed 4-6 games in a 1
month tournament because I think it's not possible to get "deep" in
ten games at the same time... maybe when I was younger, and I played
4-10 hours a day... So, after I read your answer, I think THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING is TO KNOW THE NAMES of the games!!! Infact if we
know them some months first, we have all the time to learn them.
<p>
An example:
<p>
Apr: vote for t4, vote for t5
<p>
May: t4, vote for t6
<p>
Jun: nothing
<p>
Jul: t5, vote for t7
an so on...
<p>
so we have two months to learn t5 games, 3 months for t6, t7, t8...
<p>
The second reason to prefer less games: with 10 games I have this
situation:
<p>
GAMES T2 T3
<p>
I like 3 3
<p>
I can play 4 3
<p>
I hate 3 4
<p>
Why do we have to play FOUR games we hate?
<p>
On the contrary, if the games are only 4-6, probably we'll hate only
1-2, and this is a reasonable pain: we have 3+1 months to learn them!
<p>
So, I'd prefer 6 one month tournament, each of 5 games, but... first
of all: PLEASE, COULD WE VOTE FIRST?!
<p>
Last thing: I proposed another leaderboard to reward high scores
(Tommi 3 first place!) because so I think that Tommi didn't stop at
his first attempt on Tron! And if there is a percentage, or something
similar, it should be the same thing for the second place, and so
on... (for example: with T3 rules, why did Phil have to play to
Ladybug, since he was virtually first, even if he was third with
about 45%? There were other NINE games to play!)
<p>
Maybe the best thing should be to find a strange mechanism that links
simple points like in T3 with percentage... and then prove it on the
previous 3 tournaments to see if it works well!
<p>
Well, now it's time I vote: I prefer #1, of course; and I hope we
could vote first...
<p>
Regards to all
--
iurdhu@hotmail.com