Calculating points is so confusing, it really doesn't make sense that you put a 3 in and its worth less. It feels like if you split it should just be written 2-2 not 3-3
Calculating points is so confusing, it really doesn't make sense that you put a 3 in and its worth less. It feels like if you split it should just be written 2-2 not 3-3
Splits and draws are different and should be listed differently. but being worth the same number of points makes it hard. in the past we have sometimes used 2 but 3 seems to be better liked.
I remember in the old rules that a split match could be recorded with an 'S'. I think that would work a lot better than the current system, particularly since an S looks similar to a 2. It also eliminates the issue of the BBcode messing up the alignment of the table.
Encouraging 3-3 over 2-2 means supporting decks that present an overwhelming threat on the play. At the time of the adoption of the 3-is-worth-2 rule, a prevailing strategy was something like Lotus x3, Rakdos the Defiler, Coercion. Beats almost everything on the play and some things on the draw.
The aim, incidentally, was to reward 4-1 decks more, as it's a lot harder to get that draw on the draw than it is to design a deck that gets wins on the play.
I'm just saying that (1) points counting what they actually are has the benefit of being easier to understand and calculate, and (2) that the difference between 3s and 2s has rarely ever mattered in determining a winner since 6s dominate the top deck's performances. Which isn't to say that this is the solution we want.
Another option is to just award 2 for a win instead of 3. I'm sure this has been suggested before, and that people are eager to reward wins as much as possible, thus the 6v2 system. That might also just be a carry over from tournament point structure outside of this forum game. Ultimately, while I understand the desire to reward wins to a greater magnitude than ties, I think it's also unnecessary. The nature of the round robin structure pushes decks that win more ahead of decks that tie a lot. I ultimately don't mind, but I do think this change has more boons than drawbacks.
After doing a bit of math, the system where wins are dropped from 3 points to 2 seems to reward tie-fests a bit too much. It was a pretty idea, I think the one Chess uses even, but I don't like the impact it makes after all. This isn't in regards to the system that ranks draws and splits differently. For that... why not just change the way things are counted? Rather than saying "You get a 3 for every game you win", just say "You get a 6 for every match you win." And so on.
1 2 | 6 6 3 6 3 0 2 3 3 4 3 X 3 1 | 37 | 285
I count 43.
Splits and draws are different and should be listed differently. but being worth the same number of points makes it hard. in the past we have sometimes used 2 but 3 seems to be better liked.
6-0 is streets ahead of 2-2.
Encouraging 3-3 over 2-2 means supporting decks that present an overwhelming threat on the play. At the time of the adoption of the 3-is-worth-2 rule, a prevailing strategy was something like Lotus x3, Rakdos the Defiler, Coercion. Beats almost everything on the play and some things on the draw.
The aim, incidentally, was to reward 4-1 decks more, as it's a lot harder to get that draw on the draw than it is to design a deck that gets wins on the play.
Another option is to just award 2 for a win instead of 3. I'm sure this has been suggested before, and that people are eager to reward wins as much as possible, thus the 6v2 system. That might also just be a carry over from tournament point structure outside of this forum game. Ultimately, while I understand the desire to reward wins to a greater magnitude than ties, I think it's also unnecessary. The nature of the round robin structure pushes decks that win more ahead of decks that tie a lot. I ultimately don't mind, but I do think this change has more boons than drawbacks.