Otaku
Active Member
For the people who say they don't care about prizes, please send all your Prizes to me, and in a year I will be more inclined to believe you. 
Seriously, though, I am hearing some grand speeches, and given the time of year (and election cycle), I am even more skeptical of them than normal.
If this thread is about people being annoyed that there was no explanation for the change to a Top 4 cut...
State your peace and let that be it.
If this thread is why cutting to Top 4 makes no sense, you can state your reasons, but must you repeat? I see a lot of "assumptions" here and many conflict. A higher Top Cut gives less skilled players an advantage... a High Top Cut gives skilled players a better chance so they can bounce back from a poor start.
I said it before: you want to make the game as skill based as possible, then we should be playing best two of three with a round robin set up. Of course that is utterly absurd: it is too time and resource intensive.
The difference in Top 4 vs Top 8 is pretty slight. One has a better point when its an area that might top 16.
However, I am seeing something I consider alarming: there seems to be some notion we need to make players "feel good" about themselves. Now, while I don't want to make someone "feel bad", if failing to make the top cut honestly makes someone hate the game or themselves or what have you, that person either has some serious issues or just needs to grow up. Losing comes with winning. 80% isn't that hot. I mean, how many want to have only an 80% chance of living for the next five minutes? How many want to hire a contractor whose buildings don't collapse 80% of the time?
Where am I going with this? Well, the people complaining that Top Cut is so important to people's self esteem or interest in the game or whatever they are saying (I tend to get lost, I confess) then wouldn't it make more sense to not only go back to the old 20% guideline... but maybe extend it to top 40%? Players will be happier because they top cut and less luck will be needed to make the finals. Those who are skilled won't be punished too much by it, because unskilled players will just lose again, right?
Well, hopefully most realize that (assuming I didn't botch the numbers and create an odd number of pairings anyway), that this both makes the tournament go on too long and it makes top cut less valuable. Ever seen The Incredibles? Pretty good Pizar movie that brings up an interesting point: when everyone is super, then no one is. If Top Cut is too easy, then it really isn't a big deal to make it, is it?
I realize this is less coherent than it should be, but my time is short so editing it is difficult, so I'll make my last point: if you really care about the game, then Top Cut is a nice bonus on final standing. If I place 6th, then I placed 6th! Sweet. Now, if it is after cutting to Top 8, even better. If it is after they cut to Top 4, I still placed 6th!
Seriously, though, I am hearing some grand speeches, and given the time of year (and election cycle), I am even more skeptical of them than normal.
If this thread is about people being annoyed that there was no explanation for the change to a Top 4 cut...
State your peace and let that be it.
If this thread is why cutting to Top 4 makes no sense, you can state your reasons, but must you repeat? I see a lot of "assumptions" here and many conflict. A higher Top Cut gives less skilled players an advantage... a High Top Cut gives skilled players a better chance so they can bounce back from a poor start.
I said it before: you want to make the game as skill based as possible, then we should be playing best two of three with a round robin set up. Of course that is utterly absurd: it is too time and resource intensive.
The difference in Top 4 vs Top 8 is pretty slight. One has a better point when its an area that might top 16.
However, I am seeing something I consider alarming: there seems to be some notion we need to make players "feel good" about themselves. Now, while I don't want to make someone "feel bad", if failing to make the top cut honestly makes someone hate the game or themselves or what have you, that person either has some serious issues or just needs to grow up. Losing comes with winning. 80% isn't that hot. I mean, how many want to have only an 80% chance of living for the next five minutes? How many want to hire a contractor whose buildings don't collapse 80% of the time?
Where am I going with this? Well, the people complaining that Top Cut is so important to people's self esteem or interest in the game or whatever they are saying (I tend to get lost, I confess) then wouldn't it make more sense to not only go back to the old 20% guideline... but maybe extend it to top 40%? Players will be happier because they top cut and less luck will be needed to make the finals. Those who are skilled won't be punished too much by it, because unskilled players will just lose again, right?
Well, hopefully most realize that (assuming I didn't botch the numbers and create an odd number of pairings anyway), that this both makes the tournament go on too long and it makes top cut less valuable. Ever seen The Incredibles? Pretty good Pizar movie that brings up an interesting point: when everyone is super, then no one is. If Top Cut is too easy, then it really isn't a big deal to make it, is it?
I realize this is less coherent than it should be, but my time is short so editing it is difficult, so I'll make my last point: if you really care about the game, then Top Cut is a nice bonus on final standing. If I place 6th, then I placed 6th! Sweet. Now, if it is after cutting to Top 8, even better. If it is after they cut to Top 4, I still placed 6th!