Poll: Giving Up The Controller

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

It depends on the style of victory. If the guy has won ten times, give the noobs a chance to catch up a bit. If its that guy who never wins in his life who manages, keep him in and see if he's on a winning streak, gives him some time to consolidate his increased skills.

 

[Tehpwnsauce]

I play losers out but anyone only gets three games in a row before they are out anyway.

 

[Azraellod]

loser out. otherwise it leads to situations where people intentionally try to come second or something, and winning seems like less of an achievement in this situation.

or this might just happen among my circle of friends, im not really sure how other people would respond to that system.

 

[Time Travelling Toaster]

Winner stays on, so loser out is the best because it forces people to play their best to stay on for longer

 

[kawligia]

Looser out. Don't reward failure. Don't make people try to just barely lose so they can stay in. Both of those ruin the spirit and fun of competition.

But if one person keeps dominating over and over and over, then it's time for a bloodless coup to overthrow the power.

 

[RRilef]

Me and my friends usually do a loser out for the first match then take turns the rest of the time. We listened to Barney.

 

[Kinguendo]

Looser out, gives you more incentive to try and win if you want to keep playing.

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

Me and my friends always play loser out. That way the ones that suck get to get better.

However after staying in for a little bit we usually kick the loser out anyway.

 

[newguy77]

Loser out but you don't get more than three games in a row.

 

[blood77]

When playing on a 4 player system with more than four people, there is an established rule for switching out. I'm sure you all know how this works, looser gives up the controller, winners stay in. In some rare cases it will be the bottom two or everyone but the winner who gives it up.

Someone came up with a new system. The winner or top players will give up the controllers and the losers stay in. Here's the way I see it.

The original method allows the winners to stay in because they earned the right to stay in.

The proposed one also seems valid because the losers have a chance to improve and gain more experience. the fact that the winner won is reward enough.

Do you think this is valid? If you could decide, which would you choose? I personally would like to stick with the old method but the new one has made a debatable point.

So you idea is that the winner, having won and accepted his title, would give up his controller to another player and allow the losers to continue playing against themselves. This is also predicated on the idea that by doing this the losers will be able to improve by fighting longer.

While I do some what agree with you way of thinking, I disagree with your reasoning. Who are the losers playing against when the winner leaves? Other losers. So how will they improve their skills by playing against people who are at their level or worse?

This system is good for preventing pro players from dominating one particular group. That is some times a good thing because it does get a little boring having the same out come for every game.

Overall it is a nice system if you have a friend who has master one particular game, but it is not advisable as a way to improve one's skill.

 

[teisjm]

I would say looser out. Otherwise people will just try to get a second place as close to the first place as possible.

Competititve multiplayer is just so much more fun when people are actually tring to do their best.

The winner will prolly get ganged up on if possible as well, so he'll be out sooner or later