Question pertaining to Goat:Leeds 2023

[Callum Todd]

This isn't the event post or announcement but spoilerz: the Goatdown event initially planned for 2020 will finally go ahead in April of next year.

Most of the details of how the gameplay would work were ironed in the suprisingly consensus-finding surveys linked to in the above-linked thread. One thing I remember thinking of at the time though was how to shift the letters/numbers balance more in favour of letters, given Numbers are a bit vanilla in Goatdown. Iirc at the time I couldn't think of a way of doing this without overcomplicating stuff, so didn't bother and just assumed it'd be normal 9 rounders.

Since then, however, GoatZoomDown happened. Paul and co. found an elegant solution to the letters/numbers imbalance solution here: keep the 9 rounder but eschew the numbers altogether! Just 8 letters rounds followed by a conundrum. I thought that might be controversial but, bar the undeserving winner, the GoatZoomDown tournament was a big success so maybe I was wrong.

So what should we do for Goat:Leeds? the usual 9 rounders (6L, 2N, 1C) or the GZD 9 rounders (8L, 1C)? Please vote in this poll and by all means debate below.

[Gavin Chipper]

I was hoping for Wales.

[JackHurst]

3 goat picks in a game isn't enough

[Bradley Horrocks]

Even as someone who prefers numbers, I'd still say for a Goat event they are best left out. You could goatify the numbers somehow, but then it wouldn't be goatdown.

[George Armstrong]

If the event wasn't worth FOCAL points I'd say celebrate all things goat and do away with numbers. But numbers are still part of the game, it's not my fault that Goat never got its own numbers variant (Always thought revealing the large numbers first then allowing the picker to choose the final small before the target is revealed could fit with goat nicely). Idk maybe this is just me wanting to try and nick 10 points from a 4L...

[Paul Anderson]

Yeah, an interesting topic…

Personally I’m in favour of zero numbers, however, if you recall, we simultaneously ran a Numberists tourney to give folk their numbers fix. Not sure if this helps or hinders

[Ahmed M]

2 numbers rounds is fine for a 15, but it makes goat a lot less goaty in a 9'er.

[Gavin Chipper]

If the event wasn't worth FOCAL points I'd say celebrate all things goat and do away with numbers. But numbers are still part of the game, it's not my fault that Goat never got its own numbers variant (Always thought revealing the large numbers first then allowing the picker to choose the final small before the target is revealed could fit with goat nicely). Idk maybe this is just me wanting to try and nick 10 points from a 4L...

It's a FOCAL event? Controversial...

But if you can have non-standard rounds at all (GOAT, 10-letter conundrums) I don't see why you should also be limited with ratios. I think this opens the door to a spoilage numbers FOCAL event!

[Callum Todd]

If the event wasn't worth FOCAL points I'd say celebrate all things goat and do away with numbers. But numbers are still part of the game, it's not my fault that Goat never got its own numbers variant (Always thought revealing the large numbers first then allowing the picker to choose the final small before the target is revealed could fit with goat nicely). Idk maybe this is just me wanting to try and nick 10 points from a 4L...

It's a FOCAL event? Controversial...

But if you can have non-standard rounds at all (GOAT, 10-letter conundrums) I don't see why you should also be limited with ratios. I think this opens the door to a spoilage numbers FOCAL event!

One of the questions on those old questionnaires was whether to award FOCAL points, and if so full or reduced. A strong majority voted for full FOCAL points.

[Gavin Chipper]

The survey's likely to have a strong selection bias of course.

[Fiona T]

It's not a problem. Yes it favours letterists, but the 14R format to be used at Braintree favours conundrumists. Unless all events are gonna stick to standard 9R/15R (and the 9Rs favour conundrumists too!) then variations on the theme shouldn't be an issue. It's not a rigid format with strict rules - so go for it!

[Andres Sanchez]

I'm a bit on defense, I feel like it might work better with a standard 9-rounder because if you're thinking about attracting more people then you may have to do it with nuances people are more familiar with. I applied Team Countdown to be in an event and the organizer wasn't vibing with the scoring, so we ultimately agreed to make it normal scoring (like how it is on Catsdown). I think leaving it as a 9-rounder will work better since people have been used to them for longer.

[Gavin Chipper]

If the event wasn't worth FOCAL points I'd say celebrate all things goat and do away with numbers. But numbers are still part of the game, it's not my fault that Goat never got its own numbers variant (Always thought revealing the large numbers first then allowing the picker to choose the final small before the target is revealed could fit with goat nicely). Idk maybe this is just me wanting to try and nick 10 points from a 4L...

It's a FOCAL event? Controversial...

But if you can have non-standard rounds at all (GOAT, 10-letter conundrums) I don't see why you should also be limited with ratios. I think this opens the door to a spoilage numbers FOCAL event!

One of the questions on those old questionnaires was whether to award FOCAL points, and if so full or reduced. A strong majority voted for full FOCAL points.

When they voted for FOCAL points, is it possible you misheard them?

[Callum Todd]

Very good

[Callum Todd]

So this vote is close but decisive enough for me, given the success of ZoomDown's numberless Goat specials and the fact that we're experimenting with something new here anyway. No numbers it is.

[Gavin Chipper]

Sounds like hard Brexit logic. A majority of a majority isn't neceessarily a majority. Had the initial vote been "Should we do a letters-only Goat event for FOCAL points?" it might not have been a majority. I mean, I don't really care of course, but you know I have to post this.

[Callum Todd]

Letters means letters.

The Goatdown event has always been a highly experimental thing and has never shied away from that. Given the massive point swings what can and surely will happen with 9 picks in Goatdown, I don't think ditching Numbers is at all a big deal.

If anyone loses narrowly at Goatdown and complains that it's not fair because their opponent only won by picking and spotting better words than they did, and they could have negated that if only they had the chance to do some completely normal and ungoaty numbers, I rather think they've missed the point of Goatdown.

If FOCAL points were meaningful across the board for everyone I'd be against this being eligible for FOCAL points. But given that they only have any consequence for the elite players who make the Top 8 in the table, who are less likely to be vastly displaced in the ability hierarchy of Goatdown compared to normal Countdown, I don't think it matters at all.

If you think having FOCAL points awarded at a Goatdown event disadvantages you at all, my suggested solution is that you spend the next 5 months getting good at Goatdown, then come to Leeds on 15th April 2023 to win some sweet sweet FOCAL points

[Gavin Chipper]

I definitely would do that but I've recently signed up to a 10k race on 16th April without realising that it to all intents and purposes clashes with this.

[Paul Anderson]

Haha, if I recall, we crazily ran two concurrent tournaments and decided on no numbers because we had the Numberists tournament for the numbers fix. However, I salute your choice, it’ll separate the Billies from the gruff