Neverending Miniger (a game)
milivella
open until March 25, 23:59 GMT.
Now, rules are longer than Miniger's one. But don't worry, because the
required commitment is the same: it takes seconds to play, and you
have 1 month to do it. More, I can give you a summary of the game in
just 6 words:
"It is Miniger, but with continuity."
(See? And just 2 words were more than 4 letters long!)
Just one favor: if you are willing to play but you prefer to start
after the first Miniger game will be over, tell me.
Now, to the rules:
---
1. Joining the game
You can join in any moment. You will start playing from the next
"season".
When you join the game, you are given 10 random players and you are
placed at the lowest level of the league hierarchy.
2. Match
In each match, 20 random players are posted, and managers take turns
picking two players each (exception: first pick by the "home"
manager).
After all the 20 players have been picked, you have to compose two
4-2-3-1 teams, using all your 20 players (the 10 you already had + the
10 you have picked in this match).
I'll compute [see Miniger's rules] and post the results of the 4 teams
(2 per manager).
Manager A's worse team is matched against manager B's worse team: the
winner wins the match.
3. "Seasons"
There is a hierarchy of leagues with 4 managers each; the bottom level
can have 1 to 4 teams.
In each "season", the manager at a given level play each other once.
At the end of the "season", the manager at the top of the table is
promoted to the upper level (or is declared winner of that season, if
he tops the 1st level), while the manager at the bottom is relegated
to the lower level.
At the end of the "season", you have to name 10 players to keep for
the next "season"; you can't keep a player for more than 3 "seasons"
in a row.
4. Deadlines
If you don't play (i.e. don't make the dued action) for more than 1
month, you are out of the game.
--
Cheers
milivella
futbol...@yahoo.com
> Reply if you want to play. Inscriptions for the first "season" will be
> open until March 25, 23:59 GMT.
Sorry, I won't play. Too complicated and long
> Now, rules are longer than Miniger's one. But don't worry, because the
> required commitment is the same: it takes seconds to play, and you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But the main reason is that the above statement is absolutely false.
Yes, it could take you just seconds to play , if you approached the
game with a nonchalant, couldn't care less attitude. Start by picking
the 2-3 players you know about, and then fill the rest of the roster
more or less at random.
But this is the ultracompetitive world of RSS (a forum that has kept
alive for almost 8 years Sophisticated Prediction Contests), so forget
about it. Every player must be researched in complete detail,
strategies must be devised, the opponent's psychology must be
analyzed. No way it takes just a few seconds to play.
D
milivella
> Sorry, I won't play.
Thanks for having replied. I don't deserve so much care.
I'll ask some questions, in case you feel ultra-good.
> Too complicated
Since I take care of the league system, I guess that you are talking
about the novelties in the players' duties (am I wrong?). There are
two differences from the current Miniger game:
- In each match, you have to compose not one team, but two more-or-
less-of-the-same-level teams.
- At the end of each season, you have to choose 10 players to keep
(BTW, I forgot to specify that you can choose among the 40 players
that you'll have used in the 3 matches that compose a season).
I don't find any of these novelties "complicated", but I know that
simple->complicated is a continuum, so sooner or later, when you add
things, you have to draw a line and say "now it's starting to be
complicated". And it's totally reasonable if you draw the line here.
> and long
Since you have the in-game strategic thinking as a separate point, I
guess that you are talking about the fact that the game is... well,
never-ending (let me ask you again whether I am wrong). Of course this
is the basic idea of the game (to switch from a series of unrelated
matches to a game where you have a "team" of players that you carry
on), so if you don't like it you don't like the premise itself of the
game. Fine.
> > Now, rules are longer than Miniger's one. But don't worry, because the
> > required commitment is the same: it takes seconds to play, and you
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> But the main reason is that the above statement is absolutely false.
> Yes, it could take you just seconds to play , if you approached the
> game with a nonchalant, couldn't care less attitude. Start by picking
> the 2-3 players you know about, and then fill the rest of the roster
> more or less at random.
>
> But this is the ultracompetitive world of RSS (a forum that has kept
> alive for almost 8 years Sophisticated Prediction Contests), so forget
> about it. Every player must be researched in complete detail,
> strategies must be devised, the opponent's psychology must be
> analyzed. No way it takes just a few seconds to play.
So you are playing Miniger because it's a one-off, aren't you? You
have my total understanding: I too don't play games that require too
much time. I know that none of us has more than seconds to play. OTOH,
it seems to me that, if a game is played not continuously (e.g. 90
minutes of football) but in separate moments (e.g. picking one player
today, two tomorrow, etc.), the fun the game gives is somehow related
to the time it takes to play: you can't design a game that engage the
players that much, if it has to be played in seconds. So whoever wants
to propose some games has (if my premises are not wrong) to consider
this trade-off between fun and time. I like this challenge!
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
>
> > > Now, rules are longer than Miniger's one. But don't worry, because the
> > > required commitment is the same: it takes seconds to play, and you
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > But the main reason is that the above statement is absolutely false.
> > Yes, it could take you just seconds to play , if you approached the
> > game with a nonchalant, couldn't care less attitude. Start by picking
> > the 2-3 players you know about, and then fill the rest of the roster
> > more or less at random.
>
> > But this is the ultracompetitive world of RSS (a forum that has kept
> > alive for almost 8 years Sophisticated Prediction Contests), so forget
> > about it. Every player must be researched in complete detail,
> > strategies must be devised, the opponent's psychology must be
> > analyzed. No way it takes just a few seconds to play.
>
> So you are playing Miniger because it's a one-off, aren't you? You
> have my total understanding: I too don't play games that require too
> much time. I know that none of us has more than seconds to play.
Seconds that we take away from other activities, I mean. But it's
possible to think about games that are played doing the things that we
would do anyway. Because of the scope of this ng, it's safe to say
that we all watch a certain amount of football matches. So if a game
can be played watching matches, we all can spend some time playing it
without sacrificing any other activity.
In fact, such a game already exists: it's Fantasy Scout... But I've
tried to conceive another game that not only satisfies the
aforementioned condition (it can be played watching the matches that
you would have watched anyway) and but has a limited timespan (it ends
in a week). It's "the Quest for the Golden Chain":
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/browse_thread/thread/82213f98782c4821#
It's hopefully just a first step in this direction.
> OTOH,
> it seems to me that, if a game is played not continuously (e.g. 90
> minutes of football) but in separate moments (e.g. picking one player
> today, two tomorrow, etc.), the fun the game gives is somehow related
> to the time it takes to play: you can't design a game that engage the
> players that much, if it has to be played in seconds. So whoever wants
> to propose some games has (if my premises are not wrong) to consider
> this trade-off between fun and time. I like this challenge!
(Designing tQftGC) have I just cheated?
--
Cheers
milivella
Real Mardin
I actually really like the idea of some kind of continuity in Miniger.
I don't think you should have to pick 2 teams, though, I just think
there could be a system for keeping x number of players from week to
week so that you slowly assemble a squad. Ie, each week a Miniger must
keep 5 players and discard 5.
Also, I don't think this should run alongside the existing Miniger
Classic, because people only have so much time to devote. I just think
it could perhaps be an enhancement for next season? Miniger+, perhaps?
RM
milivella
> I actually really like the idea of some kind of continuity in Miniger.
Thanks for having replied, and for having appreciated the idea.
> I don't think you should have to pick 2 teams, though, I just think
> there could be a system for keeping x number of players from week to
> week so that you slowly assemble a squad. Ie, each week a Miniger must
> keep 5 players and discard 5.
Isn't a draft for 5 players too short? My fear is that there can't be
enough tactical depth in it.
> Also, I don't think this should run alongside the existing Miniger
> Classic, because people only have so much time to devote. I just think
> it could perhaps be an enhancement for next season? Miniger+, perhaps?
OK, I'll run it (or whichever version I'll have designed in the
meantime) after the end of the current game.
--
Cheers
milivella