collapse


skidmark

  • 2nd Year Pro
  • *
  • *
  • Country: ca
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 922
  • Awards: 2015 Youth CQ Ranking Game Champion2012 CQ Ranking Game Champion
Re: The 2014 CQ Ranking Manager Thread
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2013, 21:50 »
Is there any evidence that 2013 had the smartest field? I'm genuinely curious, as it didn't look like it to me. There were probably too many picks that turned out to be weak or mediocre, also in the de-facto top teams. When you compare that to what was possible with unpopular picks such as Chris "tailwind" Froome and Richie Porte, I don't know.

I'd certainly welcome having a much bigger field, though, especially if (more) people from within pro cycling join. What do you all think are the best (least intrusive) ways to get more people to join?

Well, it's hard to use any kind of metric to determine whether the field is 'smarter', I meant more generally that after playing the game for a year, you sort of 'get it' a bit better and have a better idea of what works, what doesn't. And after 3 years, a lot of people have played at least once and 'get it' a bit better. The 'conventional wisdom' team underperformed this year, which was exciting to watch (although too bad as someone who tends to take picks that many people think will do well), but I don't think that was because people were less game intelligent, it's just that the less 'risky' type of game intelligence didn't pay off as well as in the first two years.

With regards to promotion, I'm not a tweeter, but it definitely sounds like there is a cycling twitter community of sorts. So yeah, the hashtag and all that are good ideas. For myself, at cyclingnews at least, I've put a 'join the cq manager game by January 6th' link  in my signature, so people will see it on whatever board. That's not super intrusive. If other people want to do that to promote the game, all the better. I'm sure if I had never wandered into the games section and all of a sudden saw 5 regular posters in the PRR section with links to the game in their signatures, I'd check it out. Whatever works for word of mouth, that's great.
  • ReplyReply

  •  



    Top
    Back to top