07-Jun-2016, 10:21 AM
Some feedback:
I think your ranking of the people who didn't get a unique score makes sense, according to the following system:
Unique scores come first
Then scores found by 2 people
Then scores found by 3 people
Then scores found by 4 people
Etc
with rankings inside a category being highest-score-first.
That matches how you ranked IHNN, then Flareon350 and Eric since they all had scores that were found by 2 people, and IHNN's was higher. It also matches how you put Rubenspaans and BabyPowder last, since their "best" score was found by 4 people (though your justification was that they exactly copied each other
)
------
This competition's unique aspect was that it was about finding ways to get obscure scores, not just finding the highest possible score. However, being able to only submit 3 scores made it also about guessing which scores other people wouldn't submit. I suppose a theoretical way to run a similar competition without the luck of only being able to submit 3 scores and hoping one's unique would be something like the following:
Each player may bid any number of scores, perhaps above a certain minimum point threshold (to avoid the need to list dozens or hundreds of scores, ranging from say 200 to 1). Bidding a score means you found a way to score it, but you don't need to send in a solution yet (since you could potentially be bidding a dozen or two scores, and it would be annoying to record solutions for all of them). Once the judge has all the bids, they determine each player's best score bid according to the uniqueness criteria, and tell each of those players to send in a solution that gets exactly that score. If a player fails to do so within a certain time, they're disqualified and all their bids are removed. Otherwise, they get placed in the competition results according to their best score.
Some flaws are: The competition will require multiple iterations of action on the part of the players and judge (bidding, sending in solutions [multiple times if someone messes up and their bids are removed, affecting the other players' best scores]). Also the competition level would need to be fairly constrained, like Cross of Coronado was (if it were trivial to skip a chip here, a chip there, a chip everywhere, then suddenly the number of possible scores--and bids--goes through the roof). I'm not saying I'd even want to participate in a competition in the format I'm suggesting, I'm just trying to come up with a way to test the same skill (finding scores no one else does) that doesn't rely on outguessing everyone else.
FWIW, I had fun with Cross of Coronado (might be easier to feel this way because I won, tho
)
I think your ranking of the people who didn't get a unique score makes sense, according to the following system:
Unique scores come first
Then scores found by 2 people
Then scores found by 3 people
Then scores found by 4 people
Etc
with rankings inside a category being highest-score-first.
That matches how you ranked IHNN, then Flareon350 and Eric since they all had scores that were found by 2 people, and IHNN's was higher. It also matches how you put Rubenspaans and BabyPowder last, since their "best" score was found by 4 people (though your justification was that they exactly copied each other
)------
This competition's unique aspect was that it was about finding ways to get obscure scores, not just finding the highest possible score. However, being able to only submit 3 scores made it also about guessing which scores other people wouldn't submit. I suppose a theoretical way to run a similar competition without the luck of only being able to submit 3 scores and hoping one's unique would be something like the following:
Each player may bid any number of scores, perhaps above a certain minimum point threshold (to avoid the need to list dozens or hundreds of scores, ranging from say 200 to 1). Bidding a score means you found a way to score it, but you don't need to send in a solution yet (since you could potentially be bidding a dozen or two scores, and it would be annoying to record solutions for all of them). Once the judge has all the bids, they determine each player's best score bid according to the uniqueness criteria, and tell each of those players to send in a solution that gets exactly that score. If a player fails to do so within a certain time, they're disqualified and all their bids are removed. Otherwise, they get placed in the competition results according to their best score.
Some flaws are: The competition will require multiple iterations of action on the part of the players and judge (bidding, sending in solutions [multiple times if someone messes up and their bids are removed, affecting the other players' best scores]). Also the competition level would need to be fairly constrained, like Cross of Coronado was (if it were trivial to skip a chip here, a chip there, a chip everywhere, then suddenly the number of possible scores--and bids--goes through the roof). I'm not saying I'd even want to participate in a competition in the format I'm suggesting, I'm just trying to come up with a way to test the same skill (finding scores no one else does) that doesn't rely on outguessing everyone else.
FWIW, I had fun with Cross of Coronado (might be easier to feel this way because I won, tho
)