snitch rework

[Karl Pilkington]

Why change the rules of how the Snitch plays? if they didn't want the game to end quickly then make it harder and add more depth to the snitch gameplay making it a hard but rewarding gameplay style.

[Child Soldier #191292]

Originally posted by DINO.Jankesowski:

Because this sport was invented just so that it can be put in a book. It doesn't have that much depth and you can easily come up with certain patterns to exploit its rules. As a kid I've already noticed that the best strategy would be to 'park the bus' and wait for the seeker to score you 150 points, or better, ignore scoring goals and help your seeker find the snitch as fast as possible with your entire team.
Like it or not, those changes were needed, otherwise it would all revolve around catching the snitch.

so you change the original because you can't make a story of your own nice

[gbuglyo]

Originally posted by DINO.Jankesowski:

Because this sport was invented just so that it can be put in a book. It doesn't have that much depth and you can easily come up with certain patterns to exploit its rules.

I have a hard time seeing that as a serious argument tbh. Middle Earth was also invented so it can be put in a book. Jedi were invented so they can be put in a movie. Superheroes were invented so they can be put in comic books. Yet, they all follow certain rules, and work well within their own context. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have video games about them because they somehow lack "depth"?

Originally posted by DINO.Jankesowski:

As a kid I've already noticed that the best strategy would be to 'park the bus' and wait for the seeker to score you 150 points, or better, ignore scoring goals and help your seeker find the snitch as fast as possible with your entire team.

Yeah, you may have "noticed" that as a kid because you were lacking sufficient info on the subject. I propose a thought experiment: Gryffindor decides to adapt your strategy in the Inter-House Quidditch Cup. They manage to win their matches, conceiving a few goals and scoring none, but is that enough to win the cup? Let's see:

Gryffindor - Hufflepuff: 150 - 30 (Gryffindor wins)
Gryffindor - Slytherin: 150 - 60 (Gryffindor wins)
Gryffindor - Ravenclaw: 150 - 40 (Gryffindor wins)

Slytherin - Hufflepuff: 240 - 80 (Slytherin wins)
Slytherin - Ravenclaw: 310 - 180 (Slytherin wins in the only match that lasted a bit longer as the Snitch was caught late)

Ravenclaw - Hufflepuff: 250 - 70 (Ravenclaw wins)

While I did get those numbers off the top of my head, they are pretty typical for the books where the majority of the matches tend to end fairly early (by Quidditch standards). Let's see the final scores:

1st place: Slytherin with 610 points
2nd place: Ravenclaw with 470 points
3rd place: Gryffindor with 450 points
4th place: Hufflepuff with 180 points (sorry, Hufflepuff :)

As you can see, Quidditch (at least in Hogwarts) uses a ranking system that makes it possible to win all your games and still end up being 3rd. Even as a kid, you may have learned of this system if you didn't just watch the movies but also read the books, where it is explained (in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, to be specific).

[CourtJesterCowboy]

Originally posted by Soulphia:

Originally posted by CourtJesterCowboy:

Being fantasy literature does not denounce the game. There are real life sports that make less sense than Quidditch, and your strategy suggestions wouldnt even work out unless you had no opponents. Things would play out as they should, and a whole team trying to get the snitch would be a terrible strategy, as theyd be scoring on you the whole time and youd never even catch the thing. It isnt supposed to be caught every match.

hate to burst your bubble, but the official rules state, that the match won't end till the snitch is caught,so saying it isn't suppose to be caught every match is incorrect. During multiple day matches, (which were stated to have happened) are the only times when catching the snitch didn't always end in a win, cause it was possible for one team to have a 150 lead at that point

Nah Quidditch can end on bad weather, supernatural interference, etc... having to reschedule a match because dementors showed up is indeed the match ending without a Snitch catch.

We are trying to put the game into a 15 minute match format, and the snitch shouldnt/wouldnt be caught in every match if the game was made better.

How are people trying to say catching the Snitch 4 times per match is better than my suggestion

[Apate]

Originally posted by gbuglyo:

Originally posted by DINO.Jankesowski:

Because this sport was invented just so that it can be put in a book. It doesn't have that much depth and you can easily come up with certain patterns to exploit its rules.

I have a hard time seeing that as a serious argument tbh. Middle Earth was also invented so it can be put in a book. Jedi were invented so they can be put in a movie. Superheroes were invented so they can be put in comic books. Yet, they all follow certain rules, and work well within their own context. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have video games about them because they somehow lack "depth"?

Originally posted by DINO.Jankesowski:

As a kid I've already noticed that the best strategy would be to 'park the bus' and wait for the seeker to score you 150 points, or better, ignore scoring goals and help your seeker find the snitch as fast as possible with your entire team.

Yeah, you may have "noticed" that as a kid because you were lacking sufficient info on the subject. I propose a thought experiment: Gryffindor decides to adapt your strategy in the Inter-House Quidditch Cup. They manage to win their matches, conceiving a few goals and scoring none, but is that enough to win the cup? Let's see:

Gryffindor - Hufflepuff: 150 - 30 (Gryffindor wins)
Gryffindor - Slytherin: 150 - 60 (Gryffindor wins)
Gryffindor - Ravenclaw: 150 - 40 (Gryffindor wins)

Slytherin - Hufflepuff: 240 - 80 (Slytherin wins)
Slytherin - Ravenclaw: 310 - 180 (Slytherin wins in the only match that lasted a bit longer as the Snitch was caught late)

Ravenclaw - Hufflepuff: 250 - 70 (Ravenclaw wins)

While I did get those numbers off the top of my head, they are pretty typical for the books where the majority of the matches tend to end fairly early (by Quidditch standards). Let's see the final scores:

1st place: Slytherin with 610 points
2nd place: Ravenclaw with 470 points
3rd place: Gryffindor with 450 points
4th place: Hufflepuff with 180 points (sorry, Hufflepuff :)

As you can see, Quidditch (at least in Hogwarts) uses a ranking system that makes it possible to win all your games and still end up being 3rd. Even as a kid, you may have learned of this system if you didn't just watch the movies but also read the books, where it is explained (in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, to be specific).

I understand you want the players to play for the cup?
There's a couple of problems.
1. We're only playing one match so far.

2. Players get often leave game when they get a goal/score, how would you convince them to play the whole cup?

3. A lot of players would play Seeker because it is OP.

[gbuglyo]

Originally posted by Apate:

Originally posted by gbuglyo:

I have a hard time seeing that as a serious argument tbh. Middle Earth was also invented so it can be put in a book. Jedi were invented so they can be put in a movie. Superheroes were invented so they can be put in comic books. Yet, they all follow certain rules, and work well within their own context. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have video games about them because they somehow lack "depth"?



Yeah, you may have "noticed" that as a kid because you were lacking sufficient info on the subject. I propose a thought experiment: Gryffindor decides to adapt your strategy in the Inter-House Quidditch Cup. They manage to win their matches, conceiving a few goals and scoring none, but is that enough to win the cup? Let's see:

Gryffindor - Hufflepuff: 150 - 30 (Gryffindor wins)
Gryffindor - Slytherin: 150 - 60 (Gryffindor wins)
Gryffindor - Ravenclaw: 150 - 40 (Gryffindor wins)

Slytherin - Hufflepuff: 240 - 80 (Slytherin wins)
Slytherin - Ravenclaw: 310 - 180 (Slytherin wins in the only match that lasted a bit longer as the Snitch was caught late)

Ravenclaw - Hufflepuff: 250 - 70 (Ravenclaw wins)

While I did get those numbers off the top of my head, they are pretty typical for the books where the majority of the matches tend to end fairly early (by Quidditch standards). Let's see the final scores:

1st place: Slytherin with 610 points
2nd place: Ravenclaw with 470 points
3rd place: Gryffindor with 450 points
4th place: Hufflepuff with 180 points (sorry, Hufflepuff :)

As you can see, Quidditch (at least in Hogwarts) uses a ranking system that makes it possible to win all your games and still end up being 3rd. Even as a kid, you may have learned of this system if you didn't just watch the movies but also read the books, where it is explained (in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, to be specific).

I understand you want the players to play for the cup?
There's a couple of problems.
1. We're only playing one match so far.

2. Players get often leave game when they get a goal/score, how would you convince them to play the whole cup?

3. A lot of players would play Seeker because it is OP.

Good points! Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

1. True, playing in a mini-league would require a different format.

2. I also thought about that one, since players quit all the time. DC penalties, perhaps? Or forming actual teams rather than just playing with total randoms? Or going down the random path, but allowing another random player to join in at any point? I don't know what would work best.

3. Actually, the good thing about that league system (score over wins) is that the Seeker does not really contribute more points than the Chasers do. Assuming that a Seeker will catch the Snitch (worth 150 points) every 2nd game, they contribute an average of 75 points/game. So it would really come down to your playstyle preference.

[|PHX| n e o]

Originally posted by gbuglyo:

Originally posted by Apate:

I understand you want the players to play for the cup?
There's a couple of problems.
1. We're only playing one match so far.

2. Players get often leave game when they get a goal/score, how would you convince them to play the whole cup?

3. A lot of players would play Seeker because it is OP.

Good points! Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

1. True, playing in a mini-league would require a different format.

2. I also thought about that one, since players quit all the time. DC penalties, perhaps? Or forming actual teams rather than just playing with total randoms? Or going down the random path, but allowing another random player to join in at any point? I don't know what would work best.

3. Actually, the good thing about that league system (score over wins) is that the Seeker does not really contribute more points than the Chasers do. Assuming that a Seeker will catch the Snitch (worth 150 points) every 2nd game, they contribute an average of 75 points/game. So it would really come down to your playstyle preference.

Btw its a mistake to think a seeker will capture the snitch every 2nd game, that would only happen if the two seekers had the exact same equal skill. What will happen is that the better seekers will capture the snitch most games and carry their team to victory.

[gbuglyo]

Originally posted by ok broomer ⚡:

Originally posted by gbuglyo:

Good points! Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

1. True, playing in a mini-league would require a different format.

2. I also thought about that one, since players quit all the time. DC penalties, perhaps? Or forming actual teams rather than just playing with total randoms? Or going down the random path, but allowing another random player to join in at any point? I don't know what would work best.

3. Actually, the good thing about that league system (score over wins) is that the Seeker does not really contribute more points than the Chasers do. Assuming that a Seeker will catch the Snitch (worth 150 points) every 2nd game, they contribute an average of 75 points/game. So it would really come down to your playstyle preference.

Btw its a mistake to think a seeker will capture the snitch every 2nd game, that would only happen if the two seekers had the exact same equal skill. What will happen is that the better seekers will capture the snitch most games and carry their team to victory.

Yeah, I wrote the same thing. 75 points is the expected value an average Seeker contributes to the score on a per game basis, while a more skilled Seeker will score more often. That's the reason why I pointed out in the other thread that luck needs to be an important factor in a Snitch-chase, in addition to the Seekers' skill.