Round XXXIV Tournament
Jim Kraus | June 2, 2008
Scott,
If this is going to stretch over 10 days, I think we should let the goos be up longer. I like the idea of not letting those outside the tournament guess right away - although is there really going to be anyone that has been playing that won't get in?
But, it is summer and summer vacation time, and some people get busy at work.
I like the format, although I will miss the brackets/single elimination.
I see no reason why it can't start immediately after the 50th goo is posted, unless someone is 1 below the cut-off and hasn't immediately guessed at the 50th goo.
Scott Hardie | June 2, 2008
Good input. Longer play times (2-3 days) per tournament goo is fine with me. I like the idea of everybody being in the tournament, because I don't like to exclude people who are into the game. But I also don't like the idea of a low performer in the open round coming from behind to win the tournament; they should have to overcome considerable odds to do so.
How about: Everyone is allowed to guess at the 10 tournament goos, but ties will be settled by who guessed more of the 50 original goos correctly? Further ties would then be settled by either best overall time or single fastest guess. There have been many player requests among the goos this round, so "best out of 50" would be more like "highest percentage guessed correctly out of the goos not requested by this player."
Shawn Brandt | June 2, 2008
Not a huge fan of using original goo performance as the tiebreaker, at least for this round. If that were the case all along, I think people would work a little bit harder at the goos. I know there was at least one that I didn't even take a guess at, because I was comfortably high enough in the standings that I knew I'd make the tourney. If I knew I might need a tiebreaker with Steve West, I might have worked a little bit harder at some of the toughies.
I prefer the timed method, anyway, but if you want to use original scores as the tiebreaker, I'd suggest holding it off until the next round. Seems more "fair".
All that said, it's your game and I'll happily play by whatever rules you employ. Fair is relative.
Steve Dunn | June 2, 2008
I agree with Shawn about using original goo scores as a tiebreaker. I would have tried a lot harder to get them if I'd known that was the rule.
I prefer a higher barrier to entry to the playoff round - otherwise what's the point of the regular season? If you're going to let anyone in the playoffs, you might as well just run one tournament round after another (which would be fine with me, too). The top 24 seems about right - at this point it includes everyone who is within 10 goos of the leader. As to this issue, I am also concerned about changing the rules in the middle of the game.
I think the playoff is going to be grueling. I have opposite view on timing - I'd much rather have the playoff be really short. It was hard enough to set aside time for 4-5 consecutive days in the recent rounds to work on maddeningly difficult goos. Now we're talking about 10 days spaced out over 3 or 4 weeks? I can't really plan a month around the goo game, so I (and I assume others with jobs and families) will just have to hope for the best.
Obviously the pendulum is swinging back to rewarding slogging it out and spending hours tracking down every obscure goo. I'm glad I got in a couple wins under the timing system. I predict another Reign of Amy!
Amy Austin | June 2, 2008
I don't. I don't spend nearly as much time "slogging it out and spending hours tracking down every obscure goo" as you seem to think I do. I may not have "a family", but I do have three dogs and a full-time job, too... and if you look at my record, you will see that I have missed more goos and broken more of my streaks in these last couple of rounds than I ever used to when I was "Darth Goo". And apparently, they aren't the most obscure goos, either, since players with shorter track records than myself have gotten them without too much apparent difficulty. There are also more than one or two that I don't think I would have gotten even if I had fully maximized use of the entire week for such "slogging". I see plenty of people getting these goos that I find pretty damn tough, bringing their current totals for the round above mine and therefore giving that tie-breaking advantage. I'm not complaining about it, however, because I gave the game the same effort that I would have given either way... I don't have that "would have tried harder" gripe, because -- as I always do -- I gave it all the effort I felt like giving, and I'm okay with that... whether it was only a couple of hours of searching or twenty. I would think that someone who doesn't want to set aside even more time to hunt could appreciate that position.
I don't always get the goo within the first 24 hours... and to me, this is as fair a measuring stick for playoffs as I've ever thought was necessary. Even then, I had to just "hope for the best" as much as anybody else! You present your case as though it's a sure win for me without any timing, and that just simply isn't the case... Russ Wilhelm and Elliot Farney have both proven that more than once. Also, I don't really want the playoffs drawn out, either... and the addition of timing is the only reason to do so! The playoffs in the last two rounds were no shorter than those in previous "free-for-all" (untimed) rounds where there was 24 hours to get it right and move on. The only real difference is in the level of difficulty and number of players moving on... and it's not any easier now than it ever was for me to compete like that -- in fact, it's definitely harder. There are more and more talented players in the game, and it could just as easily be one of them as it could be me or you -- and even moreso with timed guesses, which I don't want to go into all my reasons for hating again.
One thing I will concur with is that if there isn't some reasonable cut-off for finalists, then there isn't any reason not to just have playoff tournaments back to back -- other than being nice to Scott's wallet... let's not forget that this is a very gracious out-of-pocket expense for him! I know I wouldn't want to have more than 3 or 4 rounds a year for this reason alone, if I were Scott. Beyond that... I don't really care anymore. The continued debate over the pros and cons of timing feels extremely petty to me and really rather ruins the spirit of it, and I'd rather just shut up and play at this point -- timed or not -- knowing that I will still always give the game -- in its entirety and not just the playoffs -- my best effort and be as competitive as I am able to be and that my chances of winning are still a hell of a lot better than winning the frickin' lottery.
Jim Kraus | June 3, 2008
I stiill like the idea of 2 champions a round. 1 for the "regular season" - whoever gets the most goos, and then a seeded tournament to declare the tourney champ.
In the current, proposed format - If you want to reward people somehow for getting a lot of goos, maybe you could knock time off for every goo guessed correctly.
I realize the problem with all these suggestions is player submitted goos.
Steve Dunn | June 3, 2008
Amy, I didn't mean to offend you. Just a casual comment, mostly just trying to give you props for your tenacity and skill. That's the only part of my post that was directed to you in particular. All the rest of it was meant to refer to different people's strengths and styles of play - not just you. I apologize for my admittedly thoughtless wording.
I agree the endless debates about the rules are draining. I think Scott's wasting his time trying to please everyone.
Amy Austin | June 3, 2008
Well, I accept... and I apologize for my usual sensitivity. It's just hard not to feel a little singled out when it appears that there are more players in love with the timed playoff than not (at least, not as many willing to speak up about it as myself... probably for the same reasons that I'm getting frustrated), and an impression that Goo is all I do.
I, for one, really appreciate Scott's efforts to "please everyone"... or at least to take all feelings into consideration. I've made mine well-known by now, as (I think) have you -- and I'm as frustrated on his behalf as I am on my own, especially so when it seems to me that a good effort is being made to compromise... without much embrace.
For one thing, you state your preference for a shorter playoff because of the need to "set aside time for 4-5 consecutive days" -- I don't think you're receiving that suggestion as intended. It was my impression that this would be to facilitate people's varied schedules for that many goos -- you have a longer time to put forth your best guess for each goo... how does this necessitate any more time than the regular game? It seems to me like it allows for more flexibility! Are you thinking that you will spend the entire period searching for the answer? I particularly don't understand this as it bears a fairly strong resemblance to your suggestion in the discussion following Round XXXIII -- just spread out in a way that ought to accommodate most players' schedules.
It's not so much that I feel that anyone is "wasting their time" as it is that I'm in a rare "peace at any price" form. Even though none of these suggestions represents my ideal system, and my approach to the game apparently differs from others' (e.g., the comments about trying harder under different rules/circumstances), I am perfectly open to them and haven't found any good reason to reject any but the issue of not having a cut-off... but it just seems to me like you are proving you're own point right -- that nothing will be wholly embraced -- and I guess I was trying to say "fuck it" as politely as possible. My bitchy way of saying the same thing Shawn said, I guess: ...it's your game and I'll happily play by whatever rules you employ. Fair is relative. I just want to play.
Steve Dunn | June 3, 2008
I favor the time-based system because I've had some success with it.
Steve's wins under time based system: 2
Steve's wins under any other system: 0
As far as I am concerned, let's just keep rolling with what we've got!
I don't remember exactly what I said after Round XXXIII but I think I envisioned some kind of "work at your own pace" system where you either got all 10 goos up front or unlocked a new one with each correct guess, something like that.
If I am understanding this round's rules correctly, there will be one day for players in the tournament to solve each goo, then it will be opened up for one or two more days for everyone. I assume three things:
1) I will be trying to win; and
2) At least a couple people are going to get all 10 goos; therefore
3) Time will determine the winner.
Thus, I think if you're trying to win this round, you need to plan to unlock each goo on the day it appears and try like heck to solve it in one sitting. I anticipate they are going to be difficult. Tournament goos have taken me 2-4 hours in the past. Since I'm being timed, I can't mess with it at work like I sometimes do in the regular season. That leaves evening hours after work. Thus, the way I see it unfolding (if we go to three days) is that I'll have to be prepared to spend 2-4 hours working on goos on Monday, Thursday, and Sunday, then the next Wednesday, Saturday, and Tuesday, then the next Friday, Monday and Thursday, and finally go for the championship on a Sunday almost a month after the whole thing began. That's quite a commitment.
I'd much rather have something like "see how many goos you can guess in an hour" because: 1) it would suit my strength; and 2) it would be over in an hour!
At the end of the day, I think probably most everyone agrees: we'll either play or not play, whatever the rules are. I think it is literally impossible to please everyone, which is what I meant by "wasting time." I think it's great that Scott is responsive to players and takes our preferences into account, but in my opinion there is no such thing as a "solution to all existing criticism" as he put it above. Every rule change is going to favor some and disfavor others, and the disfavored ones aren't going to like it. This is true not only of the goo game, but as a general observation about people, politics, and life.
As fruitless as these debates may sometimes seem, I am addicted to them, and the game. I have created games in the past and I am fascinated by "fun," that is, what makes a game fun? Scott and I talked at length about the "theory of fun" when he visited Charlotte, and one of the things I find interesting about Scott is I have the utmost respect for him yet disagree with him about certain things, sometimes strongly.
Thus, I'm always willing to pontificate about the goo game and try to shape its rules to be fun (for me) and allow me to be successful. It's all part of the game.
Amy Austin | June 3, 2008
At the end of the day, I think probably most everyone agrees: we'll either play or not play, whatever the rules are. I think it is literally impossible to please everyone, which is what I meant by "wasting time." I think it's great that Scott is responsive to players and takes our preferences into account, but in my opinion there is no such thing as a "solution to all existing criticism" as he put it above. Every rule change is going to favor some and disfavor others, and the disfavored ones aren't going to like it. This is true not only of the goo game, but as a general observation about people, politics, and life.
I reject your contentions, as there have been a number of changes made to the game since I started playing it, many of which were not necessarily ideal to my favor or liking but were implemented specifically to balance out some perceived disfavor... and I've not been resistant to these changes, even though I may not have liked them. I recognize that success under one system doesn't preclude success under another (need I point out again that you were one of only two to make the correct guess on your winning goo?) and that the system will probably never be a static and permanent fixture, but more likely a continual pursuit of a perhaps non-existant ideal. *I can* be satisfied, though, with a system that isn't necessarily the one that I would custom-tailor to my preferences... and I think most other people can, too. The suggestions made thus far are already an improvement in my mind, even though I'd just rather not be timed at all. It isn't like I've refused to play under the current system, which has been in place for just as long now as any other system in the past, and it isn't like I'm insisting on a return to the system that *I* liked best, either. If I were winning under the timed system, I wouldn't be digging in my heels about changing just because it happened to be favoring me at the time, and I wouldn't begrudge those who felt a strong dislike of it, either. If I magically happen to win this round under a timed system of any kind -- or even if I had won all timed rounds to date! -- it wouldn't change my opinion on the matter at all, because it isn't the basis for my dislike. I'm pretty sure I mentioned before that I despise being tested in a timed situation (and nearly all academic/achievement/aptitude tests are), and yet -- not meaning to brag here -- I am an excellent test taker... I can outperform and place in the highest percentile pretty much every time, without fail. This *doesn't* mean that I am all "rah, rah" for the format. Similarly, I can kick ass when tested in essay format... but many people, understandably, despise being tested in this fashion -- who the hell *wouldn't* rather take a standardized multiple-guess test... not me! So to reiterate... being timed just isn't a pleasant situation to me, even being the competitor that I am -- I just find it too distracting and rather stressful, and I don't "play games" in order to feel stressed... quite the opposite, I am looking to *de*-stress. Plus... there is just simply the matter of slow or unreliable network connectivity, as I also already mentioned. Sure, maybe that seems very improbable to you, but just the other night I had a cable outage in the middle of playing RB. You can bet a whole lot of money that if that had happened in the middle of a timed goo playoff, I'd be pissed as all hell and have a MUCH harder time getting over it if it were the reason I lost. It could happen to you, too.
If not being timed truly hampers your fun as much as I feel that being timed does mine, then I am sorry! I didn't realize that the prior rounds/systems were so uncomfortable to you -- even now you're predicting a "grueling" playoff! But if a middle ground designed to compromise is so objectionable, then I guess there really isn't a way to "please everybody" -- and that's why I said what I did earlier.
Steve West | June 3, 2008
Without trying to run the sports analogy into the ground, I sense that there are players who like sprints and others who are better suited to marathons. And just like those athletic aptitudes, it is difficult to make competition equitable for either player whose "specialty" falls into one category. Timing is bad for me because I am not a sprinter - I'm a plodder. But a dogged one. I'll run the sprint just for the fun of it but have no illusion that I'll even come close to winning. I got the difficult goos in the last playoffs but had already been eliminated earlier because of time. I'll only win that kind of system if everyone else, figuratively, falls down and breaks a leg during the race. Sorry, no solution suggestions from me other than a repeat of that Tour de France thing.
Lori Lancaster | June 3, 2008
[hidden by request]
Steve Dunn | June 3, 2008
Hey Amy, maybe give me a break? I think you're reading waaaaaay too much into my comments. I promise my posts are not all about you. I wish I hadn't mentioned your name at all, but I was really just throwing out some sincere admiration of your marathoning skills. Take a deep breath. I'm not your enemy.
Amy Austin | June 3, 2008
Please don't condescend, and really see what I'm trying to tell you, Steve... not all of us have only the "best case scenario for me" in mind with regards to the scoring system. Fine that you do, but please stop maintaining that we are all so similarly driven that none of us would be happy with anything less. Yes, I like to compete; yes, I like to win; yes, that's human nature; yes, I am more of a marathoner than a sprinter... but, like Scott, I am also more interested in as close an approximation of "fair" as can be obtained, given the disparity of player styles, and I can't help but be offended when you assert otherwise. I never meant to paint you as the enemy... I just want you to stop applying your particular way of thinking about it (the scoring) to everyone's motives. Of course I want to win, but how much fun is it to win if all advantages are in your favor? Unlike you, I wouldn't do the victory dance all over the place while kicking a retard's ass at ping-pong (to summon your one-time description of your competitive nature ;-D) -- I just wouldn't... not because I think it's wrong, but just because I wouldn't find as much fun in it -- even though I consider myself *very* competitive. I still want to feel that I won on a level playing field with players of equitable talent, and so that is what I strive for.
Thank you for being in awe of my skillz... it's always nice to have fans. ;-)
Steve Dunn | June 3, 2008
I understand what you are trying to tell me, Amy.
Now can we be friends again? I like it better that way. I now realize I should not have kidded you about this subject. I understand why you reacted as you did, but I did not intend to be so offensive.
Amy Austin | June 3, 2008
Word... I just finished editing for clarity above -- of course, we're friends! ;-)
Steve Dunn | June 3, 2008
You know... I wouldn't really do a victory dance after beating the retarded kid at ping pong. And I'm not solely motivated by self interest in expressing opinions about the game. And I didn't actually say all those things you attributed to me. With those qualifications, I am prepared to sign on to our peace treaty.
Amy Austin | June 4, 2008
Oh, I'm sooo sorry for paraphrasing...
Also, you've got to remember who you're dealing with. In a game of ping-pong against a retarded kid in a wheelchair, I'm the type of guy who would slaughter the kid 21-0 and dance around while taunting him. Let's just say I have a bit of a competitive streak.
There... that was "all those things" I did actually directly attribute to you -- and shit... looks like I did forget to include the wheelchair! ;-DDD
I won't go putting together a case with the plenitude of quotes on everything else (it doesn't take a law degree)... and OF COURSE, I understood that it was just a colorful hyperbole... just as I would have expected you to take the illustrative point in my mentioning it with a laugh. I think you're smart enough to get what I'm saying here without getting too particular -- it wasn't a character assassination! ;-)
Russ Wilhelm | June 4, 2008
Now we're talking about 10 days spaced out over 3 or 4 weeks?
The way I read it is 10 goos spaced over 11 days.
Day 1 - Tournaments players guess at new goo.
Day 2 - Non-Tournament players guess at previous days goo. Tournament players guess at new goo.
And so on. 11 consecutive days total.
I like it much better than the bracket system. I expect the goos to be fairly difficult to downright mind blinding. Thus it allows for players to win by outguessing (Imelda anyone), yet on day 10, it's decidedly over using time as a tie breaker if need be. Still not a fan of time, but this works well.
10 days is a long time to guess difficult goos, having one day each, and I think that in itself will change matters up, due to availability and/or fatigue.
And I believe there are a number of players whose skill surpasses mine, yet have been bounced by the bracket, and this round may very well show that.
Oh, and I was so looking forward to the "Super Goo".
Amy Austin | June 4, 2008
Me, too!
Aaron Shurtleff | June 4, 2008
As a bad GOO game player, I want to say:
What? Doesn't anyone who doesn't dominate this game have anything to say? Why don't all you big shots quiet down and let the little man speak.
...I'd like to see a random tournament where I win at the end, even though I suck.
But seriously, I'll be playing no matter what (not well, but playing). Whatever is easiest on you, Scott.
Tony Peters | June 4, 2008
I'm with Aaron I'd like to see a random tournament where I win at the end too...Lately (over the last few weeks) the goo game has started to alter the way I conduct searches for just about anything...though I doubt that I will ever be a heavy weight like some of the players here...amy, cough cough
Scott Hardie | June 5, 2008
First of all, sorry for tossing out a potentially alarming suggestion and then disappearing. I kept trying to get back to this discussion and running out of time.
There have been many good comments here, but maybe the truest was when Steve Dunn said it would be unfair to change the rules of the round after it started. I would really only do so if it were in everyone's best interests, and most of the proposed changes are not. For this round, we'll stick to the plan, except adding Russ's alternating-days suggestion (for each goo, the first day is for tournament players, second day for everyone else).
That leaves next round.
I like the principle of settling a tie by who guessed more goos in the open round (it IS fair), but it spoils the competition. If one of the top players outscores you by even one goo during the open round, you're probably toast.
Jim has a good idea to do two champions/prizes, one for the open round and one for the tournament, but that makes me wonder if it doesn't turn the game into an alternating series of mini-rounds, a long one with fifty goos and a short one with a few really hard goos, where only some people from the former could compete in the latter. I'm not ruling it out, just reacting to it.
An alternative to playing 10 goos over 20 days (and I did mean 20 when I brought it up) would be to play 10 goos all at once in a single 48-hour period, but talk about punishing. Only hardcore goo enthusiasts would have a chance at that one.
Russ, glad to know someone really liked my latest suggestions. :-)
I don't think it's impossible to come up with a scoring system that satisfies all existing criticism. The super goo system would do it, though it introduces a few new problems. Perhaps it's impossible to come up with a scoring system that satisfies all potential criticism. Or, maybe it's impossible to come up with one that satisfies me. Maybe I do try too hard to please everyone. When there's a controversial issue on this site that I have a strong opinion about, like whether to allow user handles vs. our real names, I'm comfortable being the dictator. But I've never much enjoyed the competition part of the goo game, and so I sort of leave it up to the players who do care about it, and after ten years there's still no consensus. One of the problems that I foresee with the "flawless" super goo system is that, inevitably, it too will probably become unpopular among some players and have to give way to something else. If there's been one constant in the game, it's that no scoring system lasts more than a few rounds.
Would it be better if I just assumed the dictator role, and said this is how its going to do it and no more discussion? I don't think it would.
The last time we discussed this, Steve West had a great idea that didn't get enough attention: Begin the tournament as a "marathon," where players have an untimed 24 hours to guess each difficult goo, eliminating players daily who guess wrong or don't guess. After a few days, when it gets down to the last ~2 players who can't be conveniently eliminated this way, turn it into a "sprint" by changing to timed goos; fastest wins. It eliminates the brackets, which don't seem too popular, and suits both kinds of player. Can we revisit this idea? Support? Opposition?
Everybody, thanks for your vocal support of the game and whatever course it takes. I'm grateful that you all enjoy it so much. :-)
Amy Austin | June 5, 2008
No opposition here...
Steve Dunn | June 5, 2008
I like the two-step idea.
Suggestion: instead of deciding when it goes into the timed round based on how many players are left in the game, use a set number of "marathon goos" (maybe four or five?) and whoever makes it, makes it. That way there would be a set ending point.
Aaron Shurtleff | June 5, 2008
I like it. I think Steve Dunn's idea is a good enhancement.
And you know that Steve Dunn is my evil rival, so it has to be good if I agree with it! ;)
Shawn Brandt | June 6, 2008
I also like the two stage tourney. I would add that you could implement that for this round without changing the rules in the middle of the game. My opposition to that (and Steve's, I think) was when the rules would change in a way that would affect your accumulation stage strategy. I think implementing a new tourney scoring method is fine as long as it's announced before the tournament starts.
Steve Dunn | June 6, 2008
And you know that Steve Dunn is my evil rival, so it has to be good if I agree with it! ;)
Just as a point of clarification, I understand we are rivals, but I thought you were the evil one.
Scott Hardie | June 6, 2008
Good point, Shawn. Everybody ok with Shawn's suggestion for this tournament?
Steve, I'm not certain that's the best way, but I'll be happy to try it.
Russ Wilhelm | June 6, 2008
I don't see a problem with Shawns suggestion. I'm all for it.
Steve Dunn | June 6, 2008
No problem changing tourney this round for me. I'm ready to quit yapping and get my goo on.
(Yeah, I know, Steve Dunn and "quit yapping" don't really belong together, but humor me).
Aaron Shurtleff | June 6, 2008
Whoever wins the rivalry gets to decide who is the evil one, Steve! That's the joy of victory.
Steve Dunn | June 6, 2008
I want a rematch on the rivalry!
Scott Hardie | June 15, 2008
After the first day, 11 players are out, and 13 remain. (link) Already, changing to a non-bracketed system has improved everyone's chances of lasting more than one day.
Amy Austin | June 15, 2008
Well, don't I feel like a major ass. I thought Steve was joshing me about the Kelly goo. Fuck.
Tony Peters | June 15, 2008
honestly I didn't even think about the tournament until like 10pm...suffice it to say that I didn't put forth a good effort (hell by 10pm I was all but loopy on one beer) I look forward to seeing who wins though
Amy Austin | June 15, 2008
I thought the playoff was starting after the expiration of Kelly's goo... needless to say, I'm pretty upset about this.
Shawn Brandt | June 15, 2008
I agree that it was confusing to start the tournament before the conclusion of the accumulation round. The only reason I knew to start the tourney goo is that I wanted to take one last (gloriously unsuccessful) crack at Kelly's goo.
Amy Austin | June 15, 2008
Yeah... I pretty much gave up on that one days ago and just started conserving my energy for the rest. This feels much worse than losing.
Jim Kraus | June 16, 2008
I feel your pain, Amy. I only was able to guess at the first goo because I wanted to check and take a stab at Kelly's...which I thought actually had another day or two.
Still, the date has been posted for a while.
Amy Austin | June 16, 2008
Thanks, Jim... but if you truly felt my pain, then you'd have said so and just left it at that. Pardon my ignorance, but where has the date "been posted for a while"... it wasn't even decided upon at the beginning of this discussion -- I thought it was going to begin after the last goo expired, as usual.
Scott Hardie | June 16, 2008
It was announced on the Current Goos page a week ago, the final day of the round, in the evening. It wasn't decided until then.
Jim Kraus | June 16, 2008
I think a week is "a while".
Chill.
Amy Austin | June 16, 2008
Just... don't talk to me about it anymore, please.
Scott Hardie | June 17, 2008
We are down to five: Allison, Denise, Greg, JB, and Steve West. I think we're in for a long contest between some talented players.
Greg Bair | June 17, 2008
Looks like everyone's through to tomorrow.
Scott Hardie | June 18, 2008
No more need for secrecy, then. Today's goo is unveiled.
Scott Hardie | June 19, 2008
Congrats, JB! You played well, and showed your enthusiasm for the game in our private conversations about it. I hope you stick around for a long time to come.
A tip of the hat as well to Denise, Steve, Allison, and Greg, for lasting that many days through difficult goos. And to Amy, Jim, and Justin for earning Runner Up status by guessing so many goos correctly during the round. (More players might join them in the remaining days.)
The game will resume in two weeks, possibly three. Here's to summer vacation.
Steve West | June 19, 2008
Wow! Congratulations JB. Another exciting round with another first-time winner. Someone else to keep a competitive eye on. Cool.
Amy Austin | June 19, 2008
Good job, JB. Until we meet again... mwahahaha...
Steve Dunn | June 19, 2008
Congratulations JB!
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Scott Hardie | June 2, 2008
Since April, I've been pondering the Super Goo system, wondering if it's really right for the game. I still think it's the only solution to all existing criticisms and an interesting idea that would be fun to play, but I'm not sure it's right to radically alter the game so much, and I'm not ready to commit to it yet. I'm still considering.
In the meantime, we have almost arrived at the end of Round XXXIV. I propose these terms for the tournament, based on suggestions from Russ, Steve, and others:
A) Anyone who has guessed at least half the goos correctly (25) will get to play in the tournament. We no longer need a multiple of eight. This part is especially up for debate.
B) Each goo will go online for two days. The first day, only players in the tournament will get to see it and guess at it. The second day, only players outside the tournament will get to see it and guess at it. This prevents those outside from helping those inside.
C) The tournament will consist of ten difficult-but-not-impossible goos from ten different categories. I'm thinking probably Music, Cinema, Sports, Television, Government, Literature, Crime, Controversy, Activism, and Journalism (or Family), which happen to be the ten most populous categories in order. We might try a different number instead of ten.
D) Tournament players will be timed on the goos, using the activation system.
E) At the end of the tournament, the winner will be the player who has the highest score out of 10, with the lowest overall time being the tiebreaker. Someone who solves 10 goos but takes 20 hours total will beat someone who solves 9 goos in 20 minutes total.
This way, talent and determination will still trump quickness, but quickness will still help resolve the inevitable ties. You also won't be eliminated from the tournament by a single bad guess. (Technically speaking, depending on how well everyone plays, one bad guess might still knock you far enough behind that you can't win, but at least the rules aren't set up that way.) It doesn't do much to help the players who are just plain miserable being timed.
Feedback would be very much appreciated. Big questions: Do we need to define who's in the tournament – can everyone who guessed a goo be in it? How many goos is enough to try the players without being exhausting or impossible to keep up with? Does it need to wait until all current goos expire or can it begin the very next day after the 50th goo this round? Thanks for considering this with me.