|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 18, 2014 22:43:55 GMT -6
Yeah, there are definitely time issues. 200 is the smallest tier, which is kinda silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 19, 2014 8:54:06 GMT -6
Plus you can have one teammate spend as many of his orders as he wants an switch to the other teammate whenever. As Jp pointed out that may make for a better, read quicker, game flow.
I think we may rerun this at my place.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelreth on Jan 19, 2014 12:04:49 GMT -6
Another thought. Do we want teams to be assigned time of, randomly, or allow people to come with established teams?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 19, 2014 14:49:08 GMT -6
People come with established teams. The tickets are sold as a team with the captain purchasing the ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelreth on Jan 19, 2014 23:26:09 GMT -6
Ah. Ok. I'm down for another run sometime for more testing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmeis982 on Jan 20, 2014 6:46:22 GMT -6
Yea. Game one team apathys turn went relatively quick, Eric went and then I went.
But for their turn Brandon and Chris alternated and it just felt like it broke up the momentum so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuozar on Jan 20, 2014 11:09:33 GMT -6
You know, re-reading how the structure A format for the order spending, it says:
"During their Player Turn, both players in a pair CAN alternate their Order expenditure freely, but each player keeps their own Order Reserve."
I think this means that one person can spend all their orders then the other, or you can switch as you like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 20, 2014 12:04:47 GMT -6
Yes, I know, look up a couple of posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuozar on Jan 20, 2014 12:22:39 GMT -6
I'm just saying that how you had us play wasn't necessarily correct
|
|
|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 20, 2014 15:39:36 GMT -6
And I'm saying I know.  |
|
|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 21, 2014 6:29:22 GMT -6
Standings have been uploaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmeis982 on Jan 21, 2014 12:04:54 GMT -6
Okay, elo seems weird for points.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by kelreth on Jan 21, 2014 14:45:37 GMT -6
Its a ranking, points seem to be hidden at this point. We won't know our point score, just how we compare to others.
ELO just makes me think of ELO from LoL, which in turn invokes ELO hell
|
|
|
|
Post by Angron on Jan 22, 2014 6:29:13 GMT -6
So if it's a ranking, does that mean being the first winner is better than winning later on?
1st week first place is on top of the ranking
3rd week first place would then be ranked lower because the other player is already on too?
I confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kailaria on Jan 22, 2014 8:30:20 GMT -6
Unless the 3rd week first place beat the person with the 1st week first place, especially if the 1st week first place got a lower place than the 3rd week first place person got in the other two weeks, then the 3rd week first place would likely be above the 1st week first placer. However, if they're in two separate tournaments, then the 3rd week first place would only be ranked "lower" because they should technically be tied, but then the tie is broken by date achieved or some other arbitrary tiebreaker. Edit: To explain further, generally everybody starts at some average ELO value, usually something like 1000 or 1200. You gain points on your ELO by winning, and lose points by losing, but there's a catch: beating someone with a higher ELO than you earns you more points and causes them to lose more, and beating someone with a lower ELO than you earns you less points and causes them to lose less. That's just a basic description. Here is the wiki article on it. |
|
