Finals are boring. Pt. 3: Rules for the finals

Other option for more aggressive win condition : lower the value of oust as time go on. Something like that :

0-20m from start : 10 VP
20-40m from start : 9 VP
40-60m from start : 8 VP
60-80m from start : 7 VP
80-100m from start : 6 VP
100-120m from start : 5 VP
Timeout : 4vp for surviving methuselah

So, the "top seed" position is more or less replaced by "faster oust", which seem to lower the value of stalling.

Needlessly complicated.

Jeff wrote:

2) If at end of time, all players are tied at 0.5 VPs, the winner is the player whose prey has the least amount of pool (not the first seeded player). This means that the only advantage enjoyed by the top seed is seating. Each player is then racing against all others, not just against the top seed.

Nice idea. I like it.

It doesnt gives more Kingmaking than now. It only allows faster self oust.

Having more pool is not so interesting. You need your prey to have the fewest pool. And that means you have to play agressive.

Decebalus wrote:

Jeff wrote:

2) If at end of time, all players are tied at 0.5 VPs, the winner is the player whose prey has the least amount of pool (not the first seeded player). This means that the only advantage enjoyed by the top seed is seating. Each player is then racing against all others, not just against the top seed.

Nice idea. I like it.

It doesnt gives more Kingmaking than now. It only allows faster self oust.

Having more pool is not so interesting. You need your prey to have the fewest pool. And that means you have to play agressive.

i forget why we went to 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd in the finals, but, if we're using pool for win order, then can we use VPs -> Pool Count -> Seating Order as criteria for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th.

Most issues come from ranking when you sit down at a final nattering so much. if it only determined seating and the final was treated as isolated from other rounds, winner take all, aggression would matter more.