Free Online Games

Eagle_Kiwi · Eagle Eye Dunedin, New_Zealand **$ 76** 51195 Credits

I see the "Members vs Moderators" thread quietly bubbling along... and I like the idea of some sort of "teams" competition - but I wonder if "USA vs Non-USA" might not offer a much better (and maybe more stable) balance ?

Add locations to, for example, last month's 12 BOTM winners: (hope I've got the counries right) and you get these 2 groups:-

USA Joker
USA KTWorld
USA NiteStalker
USA Immortalist
USA SoulTaker

Eng . Neeraffa
Aus . Aussie
Ire .. Mel2Win
Cze . Bafusa
Mex. Twi$ter
N.Z . Eagle
Mex. Ryu

Then others nearby for USA include Bedem, StarMan, Lonny, CDSonic, Taz, etc - and for The Rest there's GaryOak, Julie, ICBM, etc - so there needn't be any shortage of numbers on either side.

All it needs is the will and the organisation, and I think interesting battle would ensue!

fshk · TripleXp AB Rep: +3 7264 Credits

That isn't a bad idea. But how will we pull this off? I think every game hear dosen't have team scores. Will we take the highest score from each team?

pimpin101 · Missouri **$ 383** AB Rep: +35 93282 Credits

Could this be done only for BOTM or other things like tournaments....maybe one game??? Then add up the score amounts on a specific game to see who scored the overall highest or something Confused

_________________

Eagle_Kiwi · Eagle Eye Dunedin, New_Zealand **$ 76** 51195 Credits

Hmmm, I must admit I hadn't given a moment's thought to the actual mechanics.

How about this then:
Pick 2 teams of 5 (or maybe more?) willing participants.
Let each participant nominate one game for the mix.

Then I guess play it like tournaments, one for each of the 10 games, with only those 10 participants (i.e. not "public"), all over the same (2 week?) time range.

When complete simply score by placings in each - 10 for 1st, 9 for 2nd, etc.

KTWORLD · JOIN THE MOVEMENT OR GET LEFT BEHIND!!! 30170 Credits

I"m in if i have time....seems like a fun idea...go USA!!!! Cool

pimpin101 · Missouri **$ 383** AB Rep: +35 93282 Credits

Sounds pretty good.....will there be strategy for this like picking people who are good at certain games to play or is it just random who plays what games?
_________________

soultaker777 · **$ 417** 52571 Credits

Let's see here...

I think Eagle_Kiwi's on the right track as far as how games should be selected. Because it is a team event, it does put some strategy into play because unlike the single-winner tournaments, you don't want to nominate a game that you think you would be unbeatable at if your teammates are also weak at it. (The team that takes positions 2-6, in my opinion, has done a better job overall than the team that has the winner but also holds the bottom 4 slots.) Similarly, if you are the weakest player on a team at a certain game but your teammates hold the top 2 or 3 all-time scores, you might consider nominating the game on their behalf in order to improve your team's chances of winning that game's tourney.

As far as scoring goes, I think there should be greater emphasis on scoring as high as you can for each game even if you don't individually win it. As such I propose a system that is more complex, but which I think is a fairer measure of a team's total ability at a particular game:

For high-score games:
1st place = 100 points in standings (for having 100% of the winning score)
All other places: player's score as a percentage of the winning score = points awarded in standings, automatically rounded down to the next lowest integer (i.e. 100 * Y/X, where X = winning score and Y = other player's score)

So if player A wins a game with a score of 100,000 player B scores 78,247, player A gets 100 points for his/her team and player B scores 78 points.

For low-score games:
1st place = 100 points in standings
All other players: If player A's winning score is X, and your losing score is Y, then your points in standings = 100 * X/Y, rounded down.

So for example, if the winner scores 20,000 (20 seconds) and the next player scores 30,000 (30 seconds), the 2nd place player gets 66 points.

Breaking ties within the standings for a game: when 2 or more players post the same score and time becomes the tiebreaker, then convert the players' times into seconds and use the low-score formula to determine points awarded in the standings. (The multiplier instead of being 100, would be the points that would have been awarded to the fastest player if their score stood alone.) Lower-ranked players then have their points towards the standings determined based on comparison against the lowest-ranked player emerging from the tie, with the multiplier adjusted to equal that of the points awarded to the low-ranked tied player.

If a simpler system based solely on ranking is to be used, then greater emphasis should be placed on winning and players finishing at the bottom of the standings in particular game should not be awarded points for their team. Keeping that in mind the scoring system in F1 would probably work well here (10/8/6/5/4/3/2/1, everyone below 8th scores 0).

Regardless of which scoring system is used within a game, determining the winning team should be based on this:

(1) games won by that team,
(2) if a 5-5 tie in games, then points scored by each team over the course of the entire challenge,
(3) highest ranking individual by points scored for their team during the challenge.

nowurmessingwith · Southern California **$ 8** AB Rep: +2 7553 Credits

That is a good idea. What would be the contest terms. Would there be some kind of prize for the top BOTM players if they among the winning team or the top 5 or something? Or is this all about bragging rights? Cool

neeraffa · Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:35 am Post subject:

It would be great if this idea was used - it could be something to break the month up.
_________________

Free Online Games

USA vs The Rest !?