EPTPick Your Power: Redux - Page 11
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
talismania
United States2364 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:29 GMarshal wrote: Bleh, looking at it, I disagree with the logic used in PYP:I, I'd place the numbers as so [19,19] [1,1] [1,1] [6,9] [6,20] [7,1] [7,4] [7,2] [7,2] Basically, the uniqueness of the leading number trumps ties in the second number. I think this is a more logical way to handle it, that doesn't require complex rulings. exactly what I thought as well. I like that way more than the other one :p | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
If the first number is the same then they're put to the back and the second number is counted. What's the purpose of the second number then? Like, 6 : 9 should be second, 6:20 should be third, and 7:4 should be fourth. Then comes 1:1, 7:1, and 7:2 last. | ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
 | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On May 10 2012 08:03 wherebugsgo wrote: why would 6 : 9 and 6:20 be placed ahead of 1:1? If the first number is the same then they're put to the back and the second number is counted. What's the purpose of the second number then? Like, 6 : 9 should be second, 6:20 should be third, and 7:4 should be fourth. Then comes 1:1, 7:1, and 7:2 last. the uniqueness.. the example has two 1:1 two 6:# the two 1:1's go last automatically (unless there is like a pair of another numbers) | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On May 10 2012 08:03 wherebugsgo wrote: why would 6 : 9 and 6:20 be placed ahead of 1:1? If the first number is the same then they're put to the back and the second number is counted. What's the purpose of the second number then? Like, 6 : 9 should be second, 6:20 should be third, and 7:4 should be fourth. Then comes 1:1, 7:1, and 7:2 last. Agreed. It makes no sense that a selection that double clashes is placed above a selection that single clashes. Otherwise, the second number holds no meaning except as a tiebreaker between people with the same first number. Edit: To be clear, I think the numbers should be arranged as follows: [19,19] [6,9] [6,20] [7,1] [7,4] [1,1] [1,1] [7,2] [7,2] First you have numbers where the first number doesn't clash. Then you have numbers with a clash of the first number, ordered first by number of players clashing and then numerically by first number. Next you have the numbers which clash on both numbers, ordered first by number of players clashing and then numerically by first number. That seems to be the way that makes the most sense and makes both numbers meaningful. If you think some other way makes more sense, that's fine (just please explain it one more time - I'm still confused from your example earlier). | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On May 10 2012 08:59 Qatol wrote: Agreed. It makes no sense that a selection that double clashes is placed above a selection that single clashes. Otherwise, the second number holds no meaning except as a tiebreaker between people with the same first number. Edit: To be clear, I think the numbers should be arranged as follows: [19,19] [6,9] [6,20] [7,1] [7,4] [1,1] [1,1] [7,2] [7,2] First you have numbers where the first number doesn't clash. Then you have numbers with a clash of the first number, ordered first by number of players clashing and then numerically by first number. Next you have the numbers which clash on both numbers, ordered first by number of players clashing and then numerically by first number. That seems to be the way that makes the most sense and makes both numbers meaningful. If you think some other way makes more sense, that's fine (just please explain it one more time - I'm still confused from your example earlier). the 7:1's second number clashes with 1:1 which why I think 7:4 should come before it | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
If not, everybody would just put [1,1],[2,1],[3,1],[4,1], etc. I mean, imagine you put 1 as the 1st number. By what GMarshal posted, then you'll be one of the 1st after the unique 1st numbers no matter what your 2nd number is. Then why even bother choosing the 2nd number other than 1? If you choose [1,2] and everybody else (that had 1 as the 1st number) chooses 1 you'll end up last, so you'll just put [1,1]; and everybody else will too. So basically there is no point in choosing anything but 1 as the 2nd number. To change that, you make it so that the ones that clash on both are sent to the bottom, so people choose wisely instead of just 1 as the 2nd number as well. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
Surely it works in a filter situation where people are grouped on how their first number clashes? Ie all those with 7 as their first number are put together. For example if you had [7][1] [7][1] [7][4] The order would be [7][4] [7][1] [7][1] Because their second number clashed. That seems most logical to me. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On May 10 2012 09:30 Probulous wrote: But [7],[1] and [7],[4] don't have a second clash? Surely it works in a filter situation where people are grouped on how their first number clashes? Ie all those with 7 as their first number are put together. For example if you had [7][1] [7][1] [7][4] The order would be [7][4] [7][1] [7][1] Because their second number clashed. That seems most logical to me. again, then everyone would pick 1 as the second number. Then all that matters is first number uniqueness. e: think about it this way. one guy picks 2/2. Everyone else picks X/1. The one person with a unique X appears first, 2/2 appears second. Is that fair? | ||
|
talismania
United States2364 Posts
ordered first by number of players clashing and then numerically by first number. My problem is that this double-ranking is NOT in the listed rules (specifically the part about the number of players clashing). I guess the only point from all of this is that GM just needs to spell out completely explicitly what algorithm he will be using so that there is no confusion. Gonzaw, you're exactly right. I thought it was stupid for anyone to pick anything but 1 from my reading of the rules the first time. The only reason you pick 2 as a second number is if you're sure that two other people are both picking the same first number, meaning the only reason you'd ever pick 20 as second number is if there were 39 people in the game and you were sure they were all picking the same first number. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Snarfs
Canada1006 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On May 10 2012 09:34 wherebugsgo wrote: again, then everyone would pick 1 as the second number. Then all that matters is first number uniqueness. e: think about it this way. one guy picks 2/2. Everyone else picks X/1. The one person with a unique X appears first, 2/2 appears second. Is that fair?  Why would you pick 1 as your second number when it is likely to clash and put you at the bottom of whatever group you end up in? In the example above picking 1 made you come last. In your example the [2],[2] would be first. Remember you evaluate the first number first. Your example: [1,1] [1,2] [2,2] [5,1] [1,4] [1,1] This would be ordered into groups based on the first number. So you would have [1,1],[1,2],[1,4],[1,1] [2,2] [5,1] as the groups The order when then be [2,2] [5,1] [1,2] [1,4] [1,1] [1,1] Why is that not fair? | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On May 10 2012 09:53 sandroba wrote: Hey GM, when is this going to start? I'll probably have to travel over the weekend. I second that. I'd love if you'd start it only on Monday since this was delayed so much already, and it requires a lot of activity Although you could start it a bit sooner for the power picking I guess. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On May 10 2012 09:45 Ace wrote: I love this part of the game.  PYP is the best | ||
|
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On May 10 2012 09:45 Ace wrote: I love this part of the game. You're just happy it's GMarshal I'm debating this with and not you any more. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
| ||
