In post 576, Mulch wrote: In post 575, Alisae wrote:If you have the playerlist that doesn't post a lot but is extremely active, then there isn't a need for the geriatric ruleset.
Basicly, if Geriatrics want to play with Geriatrics, the need for the ruleset is negated.
If newer players WANT to play with Geriatrics, then there is a need for the ruleset.
Idunno if what I am saying makes sense but it makes sense to me in my head.
I understand what you are saying.
Consider 6 classifications
- Players that play/want geriatric but are engaged as good (Tier 1)
- Players that play/want geriatric but just lurk (Tier 2)
- Players that don't mind Geriatric, but are engaged and "good" (Tier 3)
- Players that don't mind Geriatric, but are "bad/disengaged"(Tier 4)
- Players that hate/do not play geriatric, but woulden't really ruin games/ are "good" (Tier 5)
- Players that hate/do not play geriatric and would hate it/ruin game (Tier 6)
Game full of 1=Ruleset not needed, would have a great game anyway
Game full of 1+2=Ruleset is bad, because lurking really hurts in geriatric games especially
Game full of 1+2+3= Ruleset is good, because it draws in Tier 3 that Tier 1 would not play with.
The first situation in which the rulset is good is when non-geriatric players are actually playing.
Game full of 1+2+3+4= Would say a straight null, hard to tell here.
Games full of 1+2+3+4+5=Almost non existent, because 5 would never join. Nevertheless, although low in frequency, the rulset would have a positive impact because it draws in 5.
Games full of 1+2+3+4+5+6=Complete Disasters, probably. Geriatric ruleset does nothing.
----
and I'm too lazy to do the 6! combinations, but basically;
Tier 1 don't need it
Tier 2 it's bad
Tier 3 it's good
Tier 4 it's bad
Tier 5 it's good but infrequent
Tier 6 it's horrendous