|
Jun 2020
5:25pm, 15 Jun 2020
4,951 posts
|
Vancouver Jogger
Missed out on the multiplayer this week (1048) but should get sufficient wins in the next few weeks to make the next game. I'd vote for keeping qualification as it is at the moment. My first three games since returning to WSW have been against players who have hardly logged any in-grid training - either because they've hardly done any training or they've logged long cycle rides with 95% off grid. None of these types of player would fare well in the multiplayer.
If it gets to the point where players are winning matches for more than two complete multiplayer games and still can't qualify then you might want to tweak the numbers a bit. But at the moment it looks like that longest wait would be 10 weeks but could be only 5.
|
|
Jun 2020
5:33pm, 15 Jun 2020
48 posts
|
ftrobbie
Just been thinking, it's dangerous I know. One issue that I can see about opening up the multiplayer to 256 players is that cyclists (I'm one at present) will bump out runners in the early rounds who cannot claim squares just due to the number of squares cyclists can go through. Would a better solution be to run 3 or 4 64 player games sorted by ranking, sort of Premiership, Championship, League 1, League 2 style. I've raised a new feature suggestion
|
|
Jun 2020
5:41pm, 15 Jun 2020
9,540 posts
|
ITG 🇮🇸
Surely squares are more likely accessible on foot than by bike, ft, and none are by definition far away.
|
|
Jun 2020
5:45pm, 15 Jun 2020
49,852 posts
|
Diogenes
It depends. In urban areas where there is a road in every square cyclists might have an advantage. It’s the other way round in rural and semi rural environments.
|
|
Jun 2020
6:00pm, 15 Jun 2020
12,750 posts
|
Cerrertonia
Yes, I can get to abut 150 squares on foot, with optimal grid position. A cyclist in my grid would max out at around 60 squares at a guess.
|
|
Jun 2020
6:29pm, 15 Jun 2020
44 posts
|
unsliced
I like the fact that cycling might beat running, at least a bit. The 2-1 points difference seems about right - although I do sometimes think that walking should be worth less. (I'm not a swimmer so I definitely think that that's weighted too heavily.)
If you're a runner who cycles (or v.v.) then you're going to have an inbuilt WSW advantage, and that seems fair enough. The later rounds will be dominated by those averaging more than 1 activity per day anyhow ...
|
|
Jun 2020
6:37pm, 15 Jun 2020
18 posts
|
Lizzle
I agree that it makes sense to have to qualify for the multiplayer. It seems right in many ways not to be able to qualify only five weeks into playing the game (even if I was a little disappointed  ). It gives you time to learn the game a bit more and means you need to beat people who are actively playing to qualify. I'm definitely happy to wait another 7 weeks. Although no doubt that will coincide with having to go back to commuting which won't allow for as much running in grid. But that isn't a worry for today!
|
|
Jun 2020
6:42pm, 15 Jun 2020
3,951 posts
|
Fizz :-)
Sorry jenni. (Not sorry ). I’m afraid I held back this morning’s run, as I’d already won last week’s game and thought I might need the extra squares for the multiplayer.
|
|
Jun 2020
6:59pm, 15 Jun 2020
9,541 posts
|
ITG 🇮🇸
I'm currently 2nd on multiplayer. Can we freeze the game now, please?
|
|
Jun 2020
7:07pm, 15 Jun 2020
49 posts
|
ftrobbie
I can get 220 squares cycling (mixture of road and cyclocross), it's an urban environment. Today on a 53 minute ride 36 minutes were in box and I nabbed 72 squares. However that was focussed on Fetchpoint not WSW. With a bit of daily walking (sorry unsliced), running is out at present, I can get c15 squares of those squares again. It is geography dependant. I was happy to wait for the next multiplayer to start and if good enough get stuck in but given some of the conversation I'm not convinced going to 256 improves the experience.
|
