i don't get the 14 people who have to sign up. why don't we simply keep an ever-going list of people interested, and the topmost get into game 2/3/whatever?

Thinking this over a bit, I think we could add a bit more edge to this.
What if:
- If there is a draw, highest three are crowned Prince and move to next game
- If there is a solo, that person is crowned King

Once there is King:
- Any new soloist will be crowned King
- If draws include the King, the king is not dethroned and all remaining six players get thrown out.
- If the draw does not include the King, highest three are crowned Prince.

I'm totally into this no matter what the final rules are

We don't need no new (or is it knew??) stinkin' series.

Call Me a Dirty So-n-So: Reborn now recruiting!!

7 or 10 players.
El Cheap-o buy-in (a little Spanish lingo, there...I'm culturally sensitive, ya see...)
No soft-hearted, emotionally unstable pussies allowed, as the press may get brutal.

1. krellin
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
maybe
8.
9.
10.

We could have one never ending list. Its just that the games take a while so someone may sign up and it could be a year before they play. Will be a lot of drop outs if the list gets too long

The Mountain
-----------------------------
ckroberts
trprado
phil_a_s
kasimax
abgemacht
ssorenn
arborinius
Valis2501

I think its important we come up with points and phase length and keep in consistent.

Anon, 24 (any rapid turnover tournament/league should be IMO), 5 or something similar as not to discourage newcomers.

Fun idea, CK!

You could have as many levels (or "hills") as their are players for. Example:

Top Hill - 1 game, 7 players
Hill 2 - 7 players (maybe if there are 14 players to start series, both games start on hill 2)
Hill 3 - 7 games to play in to Hill 2 (if 21 players to start, all start on hill 3)

Then there is only waiting period to play back in if there is not an exact multiple of 7 players.

I think losers should only go down by one hill, not all the way to the bottom. This will reward stronger play over time, since even the best can lose one occasionally. (Losers at bottom hill may have to go on one game wait list).

I agree that solos should be rewarded much more than a draw (at least triple!).

So, solo on top hill becomes King! PLUS, the King gets 2 free "strikes" (i.e. losses) to "bank" without moving down! (Kings are not so easily displaced as common knights.)

(So a solo makes you King, and keeps you on Hill 1, with 2 strikes in the bank. So if you lose next game, you still have 1 strike in the bank. If you draw the next game, you did not use up your last bank credit, so you still have 1 strike in the bank. If you win the next game, then you have 3 strikes in the bank (1 from before, plus 2 new)! It shouldn't be a problem to bank too many, because there is only maximum 1/7th chance of winning even if there were never(!) a single draw, while the reward is only 3x, not 7x. If a player builds a massive bank, then they deserve to stay on Hill 1 until they "retire" voluntarily.)

Solo on hill 3 moves jumps to hill 1!

Solo on hill 2 (becomes a Prince or King's Hand) and moves to hill 1 AND gets one free strike on hill 1.

Of course, Hill 1 could end up with more than 1 "King", but if you watch/read GoT, you know there can be a lot more than 1.

That makes sense to me. Might was well make it an even 25 though.

Chuckle. You pretty much just described the Leagues.

I'm not going to vouch for chluke's idea quite yet cause I haven't actually read the whole thing, but I would really like a mechanism that rewards solos more than 3-ways for the solo-er, rather than just punishing the defeated.

I think it should stick to one hill unless we get massive demand. Let's get some hype and more tournaments going and then if people start to get really interested again maybe add more boards. IMO

Also, the idea is to have pride and honor in consistently coming out on top (of the Mountain). Any more than one board means that you'll be comparing across games/players with people. There is but one peak to conquer on the mountain. (Well, I dunno. I don't do outsdoors stuffs. Maybe that's not an actual thing/saying. But it sounded good in my head)

It would be a little bit like a league, in that it would be a "ladder" type that the strong climb and the weak fall.

However:
- the "banked strikes" are unique.
- plus, there is only one game per level (unlike leagues that have multiple A and B games).
- there is Instant reward or relegation after each SINGLE game (not waiting for 4 games to decide winners/losers)
- they are anon
- and they run continually, after each round ends a new one starts.

I don't want to make it too complicated. That's my only strike against these very good ideas. I like the idea that it's really straightforward:

There is a Mountain game. Your goal is to stay on the mountain by winning or making the top three of a draw. The longer you stay on the mountain, the more glorious you are. If you aren't on the mountain, you can get on the waiting list.

A somewhat casual proposal:

Because I like numbers...

Imagine
12 for solo
12 / n points for n-way draw
At the end of the game, you then subtract 4 from everyone
Anyone who is negative goes back to 0 and goes back to the bottom of the waiting list

I.e., in non-number terms
A win gets you next game and two Save-A-Life
A 2-way draw gets you next game and a half
A 3-way draw gets you next game
Anything less was an unsuccessful expedition by everyone.

What this doesn't capture is the scenario mentioned earlier where even in a 5-way draw, the top 3 get to move on based on SC count. It's probably my own known biases coming out, but I feel that's a bit silly. Either those 4th/5th people are essential to the draw / can threaten to throw the game, and should be rewarded, or they aren't essential but the other players must prove it. But that's my thoughts. I'm sure the method could be tweaked to allow more centre-based play if need-be.

I think it captures the arduous, never-ending climb of a mountain since 4 get subtracted every game (unlike something like the Leagues where you don't need to be consistent), and it not only punishes defeats but rewards solos. I doubt the two-way draw will matter but if you ever get two of them you get an extra life which isn't unreasonable for such a feat. And if you can't close out a game to three or less people, everyone falls.

Thoughts?

@ Valis. You can have as many hills/levels as you have "demand" for. 14 players = 2 hills. 21 players = 3 hills.

And, it is pure performance, rewarding the best, to become the king on the top hill and then to stay there.

That is so much math for something that could be very simple.

Not all of are refined enough to appreciate simplicity as you do I'm afraid.

I'll stop talking.

Like I said, I'll play however it turns out.

Ck, the only thing missing from the simple version, is rewarding solos, and keeping the very best performers at the top.

Valis latest proposal gets close, but then what if no one advances because <=0??

I like the "hills" because I like it as performance based as possible, with strong consistent performance over time rewarded, despite an occassional loss, so the best rise to the top.

The hills idea is very simple. The only extra detail to keep track of is number of "strikes in the bank".

To answer chluke's question, Maybe I'm mean but I figured it would be possible for everyone to get kicked off. That's obviously something that people may take umbrage with. Like I said, first pass.

Don't ask for thoughts if you're not going to defend your position lol

I understand and largely agree that everyone in a draw is of equal value. Sometimes things need to change though for variants to work and this is clearly a variant.

If you take the top 3 of a draw or just 1 of a solo, then I think there will be a lot of action and a lot of solos as people try to get into that 3rd draw position.

I'll defend it, but this league is not my baby and I don't want to pretend I have a say in it. I was just throwing it out there and there wasn't any actual points to defend except "too complicated".

What am I supposed to say against that? Man up and put some effort into something please?

It solves a lot of issues brought up by others (such as rewarding solos more than just being in the top of a draw). It's objective and trackable.

If you want it to be centre-based rather than draw-based a similar system can be made.

Besides giving extra lives to the solo, The only major difference between my system and the one-sentence system is that the former does not allow a 8/7/7/6/5 draw to let anyone advance, while the latter system allows the 8/7/7 people to advance. (i.e., top 3 versus actual 3-way draw.

It's my personal stance, and I know this may not be true of everyone which is why I'm not claiming that we *need* to adopt the system, that staying on the mountain should require not just the best but good performance. If you get truly stuck in a 5-way draw like that, everyone should be kicked off. You're going to let the two 7's but not the 6 or 5 go on? And yeah, the 6 and 5 will fight tooth and nail maybe, but there's NO incentive for the 8/7/7 not to just gang up with each other and prevent it. No incentive for them to solo either.

*mutter mutter* I'll defend my ideas it's just between the inventor ckroberts and then the vocal abge call for super simple one-sentence League rules I thought I'd admit my idea wasn't wanted and move on gracefully *muter mutter*

The Mountain
-----------------------------
ckroberts
trprado
phil_a_s
kasimax
abgemacht
ssorenn
arborinius
Valis2501
krellin

Oh hey was just mentioning something along this lines in another thread. Cool, good luck!

The Mountain
-----------------------------
ckroberts
trprado
phil_a_s
kasimax
abgemacht
ssorenn
arborinius
Valis2501
krellin
chluke