Gavin Chipper wrote:Charlie Reams wrote:Paul Howe wrote:Something like dropping your 5 worst scores might be better as then you always have an incentive to play (with an average someone could play once and win the monthly league). However, despite the avalanche of disgruntled dudes in my previous post, I'm not that bothered.
This is a pretty good idea.
Or you could have different sized gaps between the positions, rather than one point all the way. With one-point gaps all the way, out of a month, I'd say you'd need to knock out your worst 10 or so.
Going back to this, I think going up from one point in ones doesn't work that well. Finishing 1st out of 20 is obviously better than 8th out of 27. Using the logic from the "Heights" thread in the off-topic forum, 1st out of 20 makes you a "1 in 21" player, whereas 8th out of 27 makes you a "8 in 28" player. The scores could reflect this.
My pseudo-logical rambling method would be to add one to the number of players and your score would be that number over your finishing position. 9th out of 26 would mean 27/9=3 points. There would be weird fractions but a computer can keep track of them easily enough.
As for draws, instead of simply giving everyone the higher score, I would split the points between them. 1st and 2nd out of 19 would normally (under my system) get 20 and 10 points so we could give them 15 each. Or we could say they finished 1.5th and give them 13.333.
Also could only count 20 or so scores in a month as people are likely to miss some, and it would reward good play rather than consistency.