On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of >> the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique >> axis. >> > > Not to be a spoilsport on the complex numbers thing, but if you are > going to do the above why not define a set number of axes (say 3 or > 5), and then require the average of all axes to be over 100 to win?
Because requiring an average of 100 points over 3 axes is equivalent to just requiring 300 total points, which is essentially just the current system with a higher target. > Plus, (unless I'm doing the math wrong, which > is quite possible) Murphy's proposed weekly change of score (p^2 + S) > results in a rapidly inflating y axis. I missed that bit when I skimmed the proto. I agree that would inflate too rapidly -- with the current score index, a player with no points would win in four weeks without even doing anything. -root
