everything over 25 would cause inflation on every vote you make even more than now.
The idea is that you've played the games you vote for, so increasing the number of games would either decrease the no. of votes (since there are relatively few people having played the amount of shmups required.) or
make the votes less meaning.
Votes must be made for games actually played enough to give comment on them.
I hate inflation, here more than in the financial world!
nZero wrote:[50] Stargate
[1] 49 other games that my vote will have nearly no influence upon
(...)
Pathological case:
50:49 -> ~ 1.02
Current pathological case:
25:24 -> ~ 1.04
i.e. BOTH weightings (ratios) are approximately the same! ;P
My point wasn't the weighting (point assignment limits take care of that, as you've demonstrated) but rather the fact that now 49 crappy games would have to be added to fill out the list instead of just 24. It boggles the mind that someone would want to expand the Top 25.
Okay, you could've made that point without putting "Stargate" at the top of the list with a 50:1 ratio against the other 49, with "nearly no influence". Your point:"...49 crappy games would have to be added..." is not dependent on any ratio being present; just that you have to vote for 50, instead of 25...
Also, I'm still not clear on your point, because you say: "...the fact that now 49 crappy games would have to be added", and "...instead of just 24" is inferring that the current Top 25 is forcing you to add 24 "crappy" games too...
The Top 25 rules circa 2007 didn't force you to vote 25 games; you couldv'e voted for less or more. Some members have posted in this thread and suggested that even 25 is too many for them; and this particular poll is showing at least some interest that 25 is too few...
"All that matters really is taste. He might like the game, he might not." - Anonymous
so long and tanks for all the spacefish unban shw <Megalixir> now that i know garegga is faggot central i can disregard it entirely
<Megalixir> i'm stuck in a hobby with gays
