CarterK
Member
This more than likely won't change anything, but I was mainly curious to what most people think about this.
The problem with that is multibld takes an hour and usually there isn't 3 multibld attempts at a competition. 4Bld and 5Bld however usually are usually best of 3 format which means that by adding means for it almost nothing at competitions would change.What about MBLD means?
umm???I think it'd have to work similarly to FMC means. Those don't have to be all from the same competition, do they?
Sorry, yeah, I guess I should have maybe checked that. You really only get them at FMC specialized competitions though, so MBLD means would be similar, only gettable at BLD specific competitions.umm???
Lol I've been to 6 comps and 5 of them had fmc means.Sorry, yeah, I guess I should have maybe checked that. You really only get them at FMC specialized competitions though, so MBLD means would be similar, only gettable at BLD specific competitions.
No, that would ruin the all wca events completion club.
It doesn't work, too small success rate, the nature of the events would change completely.
The problem with that is multibld takes an hour and usually there isn't 3 multibld attempts at a competition. 4Bld and 5Bld however usually are usually best of 3 format which means that by adding means for it almost nothing at competitions would change.
I don't understand the reason why these are treated differently from 3BLD. I see no logical justification for the difference.
I guess I don't really understand why they are treated differently to 3BLD means, as aside from the rarity, the same arguments apply to both.
Personally I find it a little frustrating when starting the third 3BLD attempt after two successes, because there is a temptation to go safe and get a mean rather than go all-out to get the best single. That seems a conflict of interest and distracts from the spirit of the competition which of course should be to go for the best result.
I'm not sure which way you're arguing. But anyway, I don't really see the point in any ranking being "official" unless it meets some WCA competitive purpose. Unofficial rankings already exist for big BLD means and people can care about it as much as they want to (like Kinchranks). What would be the purpose of making that ranking WCA "official"? For most events, competitions are decided on average, so that is ranked, and single should be ranked because that's what many see as the primary record in an event. But although BLD means are notable achievements, competitively they are nothing more than by-products of the format. The fact that the OP included 2-means in the poll shows how contrived it is .I'm biased since I stand to gain a world record if they were made official, but there honestly isn't any reasonable justification. In my cynical opinion, it's because the vast majority of delegates are all-rounders and would lose their platinum/gold club memberships and it would be too much effort to get it back.
I'm not sure which way you're arguing. But anyway, I don't really see the point in any ranking being "official" unless it meets some WCA competitive purpose. Unofficial rankings already exist for big BLD means and people can care about it as much as they want to (like Kinchranks). What would be the purpose of making that ranking WCA "official"? For most events, competitions are decided on average, so that is ranked, and single should be ranked because that's what many see as the primary record in an event. But although BLD means are notable achievements, competitively they are nothing more than by-products of the format. The fact that the OP included 2-means in the poll shows how contrived it is .
- Making them official does not change the strategy of a competitor (as fastest single will win in competition)