Opinion Poll

[Dust]

I see.

Idk. I don't even know if my opinion matters, seeing how I haven't done this or pretty much anything, yet.

[Oleander]

If it doesn't create work, then hell yea, 20, Let's play the endurance game!

[Karl Jak]

Reference in case people haven't read it in a while - http://omniverse-rpg.com/fights.php#Damage

[Professor Sunshine]

I prefer the elimination happening when they lose their 20 points, as that means that groups of people can have multiple encounters to deal with each other.

[Cirno]

I like the kill or be killed aspect of the idea.

[Handsome Jack]

I like the 20 HP and die thing. Certainly makes Regen worth keeping unlocked.

[Dawnika Snow]

The twenty HP would certainly allow some room for the smaller people in DA to get higher up in the competition, this would also encourages alliances better than Sudden Death would. Would fights still be one on one or would we possibly deal with people ganging up on a certain person?

[Professor Sunshine]

I think Team Fights are allowed in this thing, though teams are discouraged a bit.

[Jim Raynor]

Having 20 points of damage doesnt necessarily make things better. Sure people would be more inclined to explore in the early game, but once the big teams form/people take a reasonable amount of damage, people will just do what theyd do if it was one loss one elimination; hide until either they find an advantage not to or until theyre forced to come out.

In my mind, 20 damage just prolongs the inevitable.

[Clownpiece]

The 20 points system helps mitigate the effects of luck, which is nice, imo. Like what Gil said, if it's a one and done sort of deal and you get ganked 1v3, you're probably screwed without much chance to do anything. With the change, it'd still hurt, but it wouldn't be an instant out. Lowers the influence of alliances a bit too.

[Gildarts]

Having 20 points of damage doesnt necessarily make things better. Sure people would be more inclined to explore in the early game, but once the big teams form/people take a reasonable amount of damage, people will just do what theyd do if it was one loss one elimination; hide until either they find an advantage not to or until theyre forced to come out.

In my mind, 20 damage just prolongs the inevitable.

That's a good point

[Odin]

If I lose a fight and end up with 4 hitpoints, wouldn't I pretty much automatically lose the next fight anyway?

Ideas to get people out and about:
A) The first time you lose in the first two weeks, you re-spawn in a safe house.
B) If you lose, you go to the arena and have to fight the next person to lose a fight. The winner is returned to one of the safe houses. This special condition ends when X people remain.

[Harry Potter]

I vote single elimination; if I understand correctly, that means harry can just leave someone bleeding and dying and not have to twist their neck or something else gruesomely out of character. If the IC tournament rules are 'loose a fight, loose the tournament', then characters that are a little less kill-happy have more wiggle room to RP.

[Karl Jak]

If you don't want to kill someone you don't have to.

[Professor Sunshine]

I vote single elimination; if I understand correctly, that means harry can just leave someone bleeding and dying and not have to twist their neck or something else gruesomely out of character. If the IC tournament rules are 'loose a fight, loose the tournament', then characters that are a little less kill-happy have more wiggle room to RP.

You don't have to kill, you can choose to spare an opponent in Dante's Abyss after you finish off an opponent.

[Harlan Higgs]

I also vote for sudden death. There's a fun finality to outwriting someone well enough that you knock them out of the running.

[Tamsin Suzaku]

I would be in favour of this change. Not only would it be in keeping with the theme of the event, it would offer an opportunity for some people to face one another multiple times, which is the kind of tension and drama that we rarely get to see in competitive events (outside of the rare instance of familiar characters running into one another).

Plus, the attrition rules are underutilised as is.

[Simon]

I'd rather the 20-points rule as opposed to sudden death. For the sake a third option, though, I also like one of Odin's ideas:

B) If you lose, you go to the arena and have to fight the next person to lose a fight. The winner is returned to one of the safe houses. This special condition ends when X people remain.

That would basically turn the single-elimination element we have into a double-elimination, which I think is a good compromise. Of every two people that lose a fight, one would then be eliminated while the other survives and continues to fight. Gives people second chances while ensuring people are eliminated in due time and hopefully not prolonging too much.

Thoughts?

[Harlan Higgs]

^ this does seem like a good compromise.

[Karl Jak]

I'm going to go with the site rules for damage. If I feel like people are getting gun shy, I'll just shrink the map or something like previous DAs.

I also like Harlan's idea and I might steal that in some altered form (guess we'll find out!)