OK... I've gotten two people who have now suggested to shorten the tournament - and I'm going to include myself in there, which makes three. What do yall think about shortening the tournament to two months instead of three? This means the deadline would be August 30th instead of September 30th or October 3rd or something like that...

The reason this was suggested is because people wouldn't be bored playing the same games over and over and over and over and over and over... (nothing outlasts the Energizer...)

Therefore, we would use one month to setup(remember... not all of it will be for voting!) for the next tournament, immediately followed by two months of playtime.

I await your replies...

-- Gameboy9 (goldengameboy@yahoo.com), July 27, 1999

Answers

Sounds good to me (shortening the tourney). A couple of months should be sufficient to play 10 games and post the best scores you can. Add to that, the benefit of a more frequent rotation of the games.

JoustGod

-- JoustGod (pinballwiz1@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

I disagree with a tournament shortening. I don't see players getting bored a problem; if they get bored then play other marp games and hope your score stands. What i do see is that it takes time for people to locate and realize that a contest is at hand. Having a tournament that is a three months is better than two because it eliminate a possible good competetor from saying "damn i missed the tournament by less than a month!"

Is there another issue other than people being bored of the games?

-- Chad (churritz@cts.com), July 27, 1999.

gb, I disagree with shortening a tourney due to one reason, it was spelled out at the beginning that it was going to be a three month affair, and switching the duration in mid-stream isn't right. For future tourneys, if the players want two months, then we can vote on it or something, but for this one, three months is where it should stay.

-- Chris Parsley (cparsley1@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

I'm all for shortening the tourney. Two months is lots of time to get VERY good at a game. If I want to break the world record for a game, I'll do it on MARP where each game is being evaluated on amore individualistic basis.

-- Q.T.Quazar (qan@home.com), July 28, 1999.

But Skito, what if someone shows up late even for the 3-month tourney and wonders why it couldn't have been 4 months? etc... That debate could keep on going :P

Anyway, I vote for shortening the tournament to two months. I always thought that 3 months was a bit too long. Some people ARE getting bored of the games, and I dunno about the rest of you but I've just about reached my skill level limit on all these games (although I'll still keep playing MPE, heh). Plus it's been getting frustrating trying to beat my old scores on lame-ass games like Lock 'n Chase and Zzyzzyxx, at which point I decide to go be frustrated by a better game.

-BBH

-- BBH (lordbbh@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

I totally disagree since I don't think it'is fair to change the rules during the tournament. If we all decide three months are too much...ok...next tournament will be 2 months long. You should also consider that: - 29 players are competing, but only 9 have submitted recording for all the 12 games; - shortening the T. will not give the chance to partecipate to other people; - the 3 months are in the summer period, so at least 2-3 week will be lost for holidays; - nobody should feel bored playing (excet QT Quazar) until he gets #1; - if some feels bored, he could start playing some other of the 1450+ games supported from MAME: MARP itself is a non-stop tournament, I believe; - I suppose some of the competitors (me included) don't have time to play all day long...so give us time (I can't play Mr. Do while working!!!!)

Forgive me if it seems I'm upset, but yes....this irritated me a bit.....

Cicca

-- Cicca (cicca@writeme.com), July 28, 1999.

Uh, let me clarify my answer so as to not have a misunderstanding. My vote for a 2-month tourney applies to future tourneys. I agree with Chris in that we can't just simply change the rules in mid-stream. This first tournament is to be a learning experience and hopefully we can make proper adjustments for future competitions.

And this one's for Cicca...hey, if you'd spend less time kicking my butt in all the Head On games, you'd probably have more time to submit scores for the tournament! :p

JoustGod

-- JoustGod (pinballwiz1@msn.com), July 28, 1999.

Current Tournament: No. Right now I like having the spare time myself. I've got more games I'm working on than just the tournament, and an extra month means I can work on what I feel interested in at the moment rather than rushing. I'm also pointing out fewer than half the entrants have sent in scores for all 12 games (including Krogman strangely enough), and are not going to like having their time cut.

Future Tournaments: Yes, if the games get cut from 12. I know everyone else is going to want 10, but 8 would work better for me and the scoring is done by scripts anyway.

-- Aquatarkus (aquatarkus@digicron.com), July 28, 1999.

Well that was fast getting in these results, and they are as follows:

Current Tournament:

For: 4 - Against: 5

Future Tournaments:

For: 8 - Against: 1 (I think)

Final Result: Tournament remains at three months - but we'll seriously consider shortening to two months next tournament

-- Gameboy9 (goldengameboy@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

I think no changes could have been undertaken on the basis of only 7 guys, in a few hours, even if all of them would have agreed to shorten the tournament. It wouldn't be correct towards the other *22* guys partecipating to the T., and that are not obliged to follows this discussion board....

Cicca

-- Cicca (cicca@writeme.com), July 28, 1999.

I agree completely with Cicca. Changing something as drastic as the end date needs an EMAIL VOTE on the question, to give all participants (or at least everyone possible) a good shot.

Come to think of it, while I don't think a vote is needed on the 3 day rule, you probably should email the current list about the change Gameboy9.

Aqua

-- Aquatarkus (aquatarkus@digicron.com), July 28, 1999.