On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While it is still fresh in everyone's minds, I thought I should > make some notes on possible improvements for the next apocalypse. > > 1. Timing > > We probably all spent more time on this than we can afford. > I think 5 days was too long; 2-3 days feels about right. > > It seems fairest to announce the game start time two weeks (say) > before the event, to give people time to prepare.
I think that 5 days was good. Or you could have 2 games going Newbies and Guru. The Holes would be the same BUT the duration would be different. ie (Newbies 5 days, Guru 2-3 days). Update the scores and announce the winners at the 2-3 day mark BUT don't release the code. Would that be too cruel a punishment for the gurus. > 2. Tie-breaking rule > > I chose to break ties by rewarding the first to post. > I suppose other ways are possible (e.g. reward the more > efficient one) but they all seem a little artificial. This seems fair to me. First in Best dressed. I don't think that efficiency and Golf should ever be mentioned in the same sentence :) > 3. Number of Holes > > Though 9/18 is traditional in golf, five seemed sufficient to > provide an interesting spread of scores. Any more than five > may be unnecessarily cruel. No more than 6. > 4. Hole Difficulty > > When I posted the game, I thought the holes were too easy. > In retrospect, I think they were about right because they were > simple enough to allow novice golfers to have a go, while still > providing a challenge for the elite golfer. This level was good. As a newbie, I was certain that I could complete the game thought I wouldn't be too far off the pace. > 5. Individual Hole Scores - to post or not to post? Post the leaders board but not the score. Yours Tony. /* * "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the * same level of thinking we were at when we created them." * --Albert Einstein */
