As the new regulation coordinator, I am putting forth a new proposal to change the way LB points are awarded for clones. YOU of course get to vote on this issue and I will accept votes for 7 days from the time of this posting.
<p>
The idea is this: Let's say a game has a master and four clones that are associated with it. That's 5 games so there are 500 LB points up for grabs. There have been arguments in the past such as: clones aren't as important or "worth as much" as originals and also that it's a lot of work for a player to be the top scorer in all the clones. That said, to minimize the "value" of the clones and distribute the points in a fairer manner this is the proposal: Award 100 points for the original game and furthermore only allow an additional 100 points (rather than the current 400) for the clones. Hence the top score for each clone will be limited to 25 points. An offshoot of this scoring is to only allow 100 points for the entire game set (original and clones), and in this case each of the five games would only get a max LB point score of 20 points. So to recap...
<p>
VOTE A: 100 LB points for the original + 100 LB points evenly divided between just the clones
<p>
VOTE B: 100 LB points divided evenly between the original AND all the clones
<p>
VOTE C: 100 LB points for each original and each clone. Keep everything as is, dumb idea Pat!
--
laffaye@mail.com
Proposal to scale back points awarded to clones
Moderator: Chad
-
QRS
I vote for C. Some of the clones are harder than the original.. so
why get 100 points for the original and less points for a harder
clone?
<p>
Regards
<p>
QRS
--
qrs@telia.com
why get 100 points for the original and less points for a harder
clone?
<p>
Regards
<p>
QRS
--
qrs@telia.com
-
Dean Ryan
I vote C. If you are prepared to put in the time and effort to
get all the scores, you deserve the points for each and every
one. And I agree with QRS; some of the clones are more difficult
than the original versions - Mr. Do! being a prime example.
<p>
Crash.
--
crash@tcp.co.uk
get all the scores, you deserve the points for each and every
one. And I agree with QRS; some of the clones are more difficult
than the original versions - Mr. Do! being a prime example.
<p>
Crash.
--
crash@tcp.co.uk
-
seymour
I vote C.
Just because it's a clone, doesn't mean it's the same difficulty, etc.
--
seymour@iname.com
Just because it's a clone, doesn't mean it's the same difficulty, etc.
--
seymour@iname.com
-
david oliver
hmmmmmmmm...i wonder what that button right below D and between X and
V does......
<p>
C CCC cCC C cCc CCC hehhee this is fun
<p>
i obviously vote c
--
davedude1414@yahoo.com
V does......
<p>
C CCC cCC C cCc CCC hehhee this is fun
<p>
i obviously vote c
--
davedude1414@yahoo.com
-
Zip
It is fine the way it is. There is no difference between a clone and
the original. Try Poleposa and tell me if you should get a smaller
score. It is actually different and more difficult than the original
because they take what you know and change it. C!
--
hughes@kos.net
the original. Try Poleposa and tell me if you should get a smaller
score. It is actually different and more difficult than the original
because they take what you know and change it. C!
--
hughes@kos.net
-
phil
Well I'm afraid my vote will be useless, but I vote B : it seems fair
to me, because someone mastering a game with no clone (example:goalx3)
get 100 pts and someone mastering a game with 11 clones (ex:puckman)
get 1100 pts ; choosing B avoid the lucky advantage of having a lot of
clones for a game you're mastering , and merging all clones in 100 pts
doesn't have any effect on which clone is more or less difficult than
other one
--
plamat@club-internet.fr
to me, because someone mastering a game with no clone (example:goalx3)
get 100 pts and someone mastering a game with 11 clones (ex:puckman)
get 1100 pts ; choosing B avoid the lucky advantage of having a lot of
clones for a game you're mastering , and merging all clones in 100 pts
doesn't have any effect on which clone is more or less difficult than
other one
--
plamat@club-internet.fr