What if...

[rick.oliver]

Perhaps the transition will be to a competition more like many Olympic events; where alliances are competing against the clock versus directly against one another. Before my time, but I understand there was such a game in the past.

Perhaps an improved version or alternate format of such a game as used in the past. The game could be structured to require alliances to cooperate on the completion of tasks, independent of the activity of another alliance. It could be that time remaining becomes a bonus and the first alliance to complete the tasks may assist the other alliance in completing the task, earning additional bonus points.

Perhaps the field will become 50% bigger at the championship event and there will be four team alliances throughout the competition.

Perhaps, at championships, the field will double in size and there will be four three-team alliances per match. Eliminations would be wild.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

Perhaps the transition will be to a competition more like many Olympic events; where alliances are competing against the clock versus directly against one another. Before my time, but I understand there was such a game in the past.

And said game is either #1 or #2 on the list of games you don't bring up. It depends on whether the person(s) bringing it up actually played it or watched it (#1) or not (#2).

2001: Diabolical Dynamics. 4v0. The faster you finished, the more points you got (multipliers...) And the reason that the Estop rule now notes that the Estop doesn't affect match timing at ALL.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by EricH

And said game is either #1 or #2 on the list of games you don't bring up. It depends on whether the person(s) bringing it up actually played it or watched it (#1) or not (#2).

2001: Diabolical Dynamics. 4v0. The faster you finished, the more points you got (multipliers...) And the reason that the Estop rule now notes that the Estop doesn't affect match timing at ALL.

So what's the alternate #1/#2, Lunacy? Hard to disagree, really... I thought 2011 was pretty bad and everything I can find about 1993 (not much) looks pretty boring, but Lunacy was something else.

I certainly don't see them doing it for 2001's game, but I seem to recall hearing multiple times from GDC members that they have considered reusing, in part or in full, former games. Maybe not the immediate year after, though, that would be a pretty big shock to rookie/returning teams... Maybe 5-6 years later, updated with new bumper rules and so on? I've always wanted to see what something like Stack Attack would look like with some "protected zones" (maybe the one game where they would really help a lot...)

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

The game could be structured to require alliances to cooperate on the completion of tasks, independent of the activity of another alliance.

That was not an overwhelming success the first time.