Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeschool
Biscuit - For the current league, the first 6 games had an average of 20 players playing. From Benefactor, the average was 14 per round - until the final two games, which the average was back to 20 players. So I can see why a 20 Tier system would help, and would encourage more than 16 to join.
|
Theory and reality are 2 different things. Real world outcomes don't always follow assumption. The above scenario from Dan could play out as he suspects. But it could also play the other way; people may well engage less or hold back in rounds with low turnouts and therefore less points on offer, that affect could compound round on round and ultimately kill the entire combo.
I personally believe the only thing we know for sure is that having a fixed number of points for (at least the top) positions provides transparency and simplicity to encourage engagement. Complexity will likely just put off casual gamers.
1st place should always win the same amount of points. The argument that your odds of a higher score diminish as more people join a round is mathematically accurate but it's not 'fair' in that if I'm good at Sensible Soccer and win the round, I get less points than another competitor who is good at Turrican II and wins that round. It suggests it's right to reward players who are best at the most popular games.
Take the Premiership football league again. If the size of the league shrank in number, would you promote it's growth by lowering the number of points for a win...or would that actually kill it off? And if it grew, would you increase the number of points for a win to make it somehow more beneficial to lower position clubs? I'm not sure it follows.