<<<Dynamic the proposed: one team gets outscored 30-10 for GETTING THE TOSSUP, which is supposed to be the frickin' idea of the game, to be able to recall information more quickly than your opponent.>>> Yes. I agree that you would, in this exact case, be "down" 20 points--provided that the other team would NOT get the tossup. But, if they did.... you're now down FORTY points (10+30) instead of 20. So, you may be down 20 points.... but you're still 20 points better off than you were otherwise. Two thoughts occurred to me, that I think might solve part of the problem that both Doug and Shawn have raised (that there are situations where you get "penalized" for getting a tossup): (1) "Sinking" a bonus. The idea is similar to bonus laming.... except that instead of hearing a new bonus, you just move on to the next tossup. In other words, you give up any points on that bonus, but your opponents can't steal any points, either. [There would have to be some sort of limitation to prevent a team from "sinking" their way to victory, although the sheer limitation on the number of points that can be earned should be enough of a disincentive, IMHO.] (2) Limiting the bouncebacks. Here's another perhaps crazy idea: what if you could steal points on your opponents' bonus ONLY if you were trailing after the last tossup/bonus cycle? [This would certainly solve Shawn's problem, though it would probably have the effect of creating MORE upsets, rather than fewer.... which is neither inherently good nor bad.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST