> (Sam came up with the following damage chart)
>
> http://www.rinkworks.com/monster/damage.shtml
>
> This chart regrettably makes it harder to calculate damage in one's head, but it does three things: (1) Reduces the effectiveness of very strong attack power, thereby encouraging more even distribution of attack power; (2) Reduces the effectiveness of very strong defense power, *hopefully* encouraging the more even distribution of defense power; (3) shifts the scale just slightly so that fewer 0/1-damage battles occur.
>
> Consider this post an open call for analysis and discussion of this proposal. In particular, does anybody see any potential problems with the idea?
>
I presume this new scale is intended to discourage the tactic of pouring all of one's cash into one maximally strong weapon while leaving other characters unarmed. It should probably work reasonably well. Of course, there's still a strong incentive to have a really REALLY big stick in the late rounds, when opponents will have very high Con. I find the strategy changes too much from early rounds to late rounds, such that someone who tries to do reasonably well in qualifying could run into serious trouble midway through elimination.

I guess the only thing to do is make one's characters as permanently strong as possible as fast as possible, while still leaving room for inexpensive improvement.

> > I think we should also take a look at the significant number of top-150 players that have already been eliminated after two rounds.
>
> Dominating sleeper players should disappear in future tournaments thanks to the unused wealth cap I'll implement, and that probably translates to more Top-150 players surviving, since they're the ones that get matched up with the sleepers.
>
I think the idea of re-seeding everyone after every elimination round is a good way to punish sleepers, rather than have them inherit the seed of the opponent they beat, which is what happens in standard eliminations like sports playoffs. Get behind on points early, and you fight top seeds all the way through.

Also, I wonder whether the wealth cap will force people to trade up to the strongest weapons, rather than buying them outright. That would be an interesting twist.

Speaking of wealth, I've been bothered by the minuscule effect of sustaining damage in a victory. There should be more of an incentive to win battles.

^v^:)^v^
FB