The scoring is not set in stone, so anybody that wants to try a different system is welcome to. As I mentioned before, peer review and a story-based progression are what I am looking for from the CCL.
So what Antny is suggesting is that the hosts will toll up the scores under the current system (3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, +1 for Top 3, +1 for critiques) and then if Larry is the highest of 7 players on his team, he gets 7 points? That seems like a reasonable thing to try.
Thought: Maybe the CCL should just be 4 (or 5?) "Swiss" rounds instead of cutting people.
Reason: Expands the time per round, lets people participate the whole time.
Drawbacks: The math for the current CCL scoring is intimidating enough that people aren't that keen to host, and this would encourage more of that.
Basically, let's get some ideas for reorganizing this contest so it takes less time to run and is more fun to participate in. There are two main aspects of the CCL that I want to preserve:
Flavor-based continuous challenges (Asrama's story so far this month is a good example)
Making sure every submitted card gets a few peer reviews.
Anything else can go on the chopping block as far as I'm concerned. Alternate scoring methods could be polls, maybe some sort of "awesome/needs improvement" points distributed as you see fit? Flavorful teams are fun but it may also be nice to open up to different numbers/formats of teams.
How many abilities does Big Game Hunter have? How many unique abilities do you have if you have out Fiendslayer Paladin, Paladin en-Vec, and Disciple of Grace equipped with a Sword of Light and Shadow? Abilities are not as easy to count as it may seem at first thought. I definitely credit your creativity, this is a pretty "outside the box" design, but if we are aiming to make cards that could actually be printable we have to keep all kinds of players in mind and realize that this game is pretty difficult. I've helped a new player get into EDH and try Sealed over the last couple of months, and she is still in the "how can you possibly keep all of this straight" mode, so I am pretty conscious of cards that would be too difficult for newer or less rules-focused players to interpret correctly.
US Eastern (UTC -5) time is the default for most of the contests. You can set the deadlines whenever it is convenient for you (default scheduling is about 3 days for submissions, then 2 for critiques), but it would be appreciated if you could do a quick conversion on the time to at least that time zone and maybe also UTC for Europeans.
Thanks for hosting. I might try to run April unless anyone really wants to do that.
Well the intent of that rule is mostly just to provide incentive to do critiques. Personally, I tend to award full points for everyone who is done when I calculate the scores, even if that is after the stated deadline, but technically players miss out on the bonus points if they don't critique in time. 1 point is a reasonable compromise too, it's up to you.
Have you started calculating scores for Round 1, Antny? Ideally each round should have the cumulative scores through the previous round posted at some point, instead of waiting until after Round 3 to calculate and cut to Top 8. It saves time later and lets people know how they are doing.
Just FYI for everybody in February, I recommended to Antny that he speed up the rounds a little so we can get done sooner. Week-long rounds work for the MCC but there are 6 rounds including the elimination rounds for the CCL, so I think we should try for about 5 days between submissions and crits.