> 2) The attendance in the game is falling. We're just under the 64 person cutoff this month. New stuff could shake it up and make it more interesting again. Personally, I became uninterested for a while after winning 6 games and then losing once I tried deviating from the strategy path that I had found, trying to experiment with something else. Which basically told me that what I had was fairly optimal.
>

Sam, one thing I'm wondering is just how much a difference the new controls you put in this month made vs. actual drop in attendance. I've had a suspicion that we've actually had less than 64 actual players for a while now, or at least sometimes had less than 64, but because some people were making multiple accounts, the numbers kept staying above 64. I know in one month alone recently, somebody had at least half a dozen accounts going.

Regardless, I have noticed a lot of the regular veterans disappearing in the last few months or so. I hope a certain someone trying to become the best didn't drive them away in discouragement >_> I've tried telling others I know that I think are fairly smart about the game, but it doesn't seem to catch on as well with most of them... ah well.

If we do make some changes, is there any way to notify any of the long-time players?

> 3) The game at this point, because many of us know it really well, is all about avoiding the mistakes or damaging opponents that will hurt your chances. Avoiding the opponents isnt totally in your control. You can improve your seed, but you still might run into someone who goes all out enchants on the qualifier or Elim#1, while someone else doesnt.
>
>
> I'll make a post with thoughts of possible changes that could spice it up.

I think as long as your prize money is based on how well you win a match, this will always be an issue. Imagine if you were a #1 team in an NCAA Basketball tournament, and the #16 team you faced off with played their hearts out and you only beat them by 8 points. Meanwhile, the #2 seed faced a #15 seed that essentially rolled over and gave up and lost by 40 points. In the NCAA though, how much you win or lose by doesn't matter, every new game is a essentially a fresh slate, so to speak.

The only way to really stop this from happening would be to always give winners in the Elimination rounds all the same amount of gold/points no matter what the margin of victory. But that seems kinda boring and lame; I think to some extent there should be an opportunity to climb the ranks even while the elimination rounds are going on, otherwise the Preliminary rounds become too much of a factor in how the final result goes down. But maybe not, maybe that would work out *shrug*