1) Wilds: currently, selection of wilds has always been based on the score differential from 1st (or from 2nd if top 2 advance as was previously the case). This was designed to encourage players to target low, though has a flaw that low might allow 2nd to take the lead if they know they will still advance as wild. The proposal is to make it so wilds are determined by lowest score differential between 2nd and 3rd, which causes some interesting game decisions encouraging 2nd to take points instead of hitting low or high, and complete discourages high or 2nd from hitting 3rd.
Drunkie(55) got 1st, Wax_0n_Wax_0ff(57) got 2nd, CYNDEERI(89) got 3rd, and brian921(113) got 4th.
Wax_0n_Wax_0ff's wild score is 89-57=32 (instead of 57-55=2).
takeahart(43) got 1st, papa2(78) got 2nd, A1 SKYRAIDER(81) got 3rd, and Frank of Hearts(101) got 4th.
papa2's wild score is 81-78=3 (instead of 78-43=35).
2) 100 point first round games. We tried this for about a month a few years back, and people didn't like it, so we went back to 200 pts so people could enjoy playing longer. Some people have commented though that regular hearts games to 200 pts can be frustrating if you take a lot of points early and the players don't seem to be trying for low as the game is over long before it ends. It seems a balance is needed between allowing people to enjoy playing long enough while minimizing the pain of the example cited. Proposal 2a) would be that the 1st round should be 2 100 pt games instead of one 200 pt game which is a pain for hosts but seems to strike that balance (this was done long ago).
3) 10-7-4-1 scoring vs 5-2-2-2 scoring. The scoring was change to 5 for 1st, 2 for everyone else to remove any benefit to playing for 2nd or 3rd. It worked to a degree, and there hasn't been any opinion expressed that we should bring back the old scoring method, but I wanted to throw this out there.
4) Four semi-final tables instead of two. This was changed at the same time as the scoring change to also eliminate the benefit of playing for 2nd or 3rd since top 2 always advanced and wilds were taken from 3rd. From time to time this has been raised in the lobby as most players are now out after round 1. If we go to just a single 100 point game for the 1st round, this might be more important, but if we keep the 200 point game or go to two 100 point games, this probably should remain as is since it's redundant since we have 6-7 first round tables usually. It would also impact the proposal on wilds as it would mean we would select based on the score differential between 3rd and 4th instead of between 2nd and 3rd.
5) EOM/EOY finals to 100 points. Currently the four rounds of EOM/EOY are to 100 points and finals are to 200 points. The benefit to making finals 100 points also is that the tourney usually runs nearly 3 hours and would shorten this by 30 minutes.
I think that covers everything that has been suggested. Please comment on what you think about these here in this forum.
« Back to index