3x3 BLD format in competitions

[Sakarie]

And those aren't so fast that they're the most competitive persons.

Anyone who averages ~2 minutes has incentive to DNF. And they're in contention to do reasonably well at a competition. Also, why that matter?

What I meant was that those who cares so much that they would want to purposely take a dnf to get another scramble, they're probably sub-2 anyway. But I realize that was more of a hope than a statement.

And also, you could put a small clausule to avoid it.

I don't see how.

I just wrote: "I thought of something in line with " and then I realized I didn't know how to put it in formal words. No, I no longer see how too. Should've thought that through...

 

[ExoCorsair]

And those aren't so fast that they're the most competitive persons.

Anyone who averages ~2 minutes has incentive to DNF. And they're in contention to do reasonably well at a competition. Also, why that matter?

Perhaps change the winner of the event using some algorithm that factors in both best accuracy and time taken?

 

[Mike Hughey]

I'd still prefer average of 5 instead of best of 5. Then if you get a legitimate average (only one DNF out of 5 attempts), you automatically beat someone who just got 3 out of 5. And if you get all 5, you even get to throw out your worst time (along with your best time). If no one gets at least 4 out of 5, the winner is the person with the best single, just like today.

But as everyone knows, I'm weird. I realize that probably most other people disagree with this.

Except Clément, who would win almost every time he competes, probably.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

I'd still prefer average of 5 instead of best of 5. Then if you get a legitimate average (only one DNF out of 5 attempts), you automatically beat someone who just got 3 out of 5. And if you get all 5, you even get to throw out your worst time (along with your best time). If no one gets at least 4 out of 5, the winner is the person with the best single, just like today.

But as everyone knows, I'm weird. I realize that probably most other people disagree with this.

Except Clément, who would win almost every time he competes, probably.

In my opinion this is against the nature of BLD. BLD is about speed rather than accuracy, I'd say. For example: I'd rather win with a 1:10 solve and 4 DNFs than with a 2:30 avg5. I'd also rather have a person with a 1:10 solve and 4 DNFs win than a person with a 2:30 avg5.

 

[Tim Reynolds]

I'd still prefer average of 5 instead of best of 5. Then if you get a legitimate average (only one DNF out of 5 attempts), you automatically beat someone who just got 3 out of 5. And if you get all 5, you even get to throw out your worst time (along with your best time). If no one gets at least 4 out of 5, the winner is the person with the best single, just like today.

But as everyone knows, I'm weird. I realize that probably most other people disagree with this.

Except Clément, who would win almost every time he competes, probably.

In my opinion this is against the nature of BLD. BLD is about speed rather than accuracy, I'd say. For example: I'd rather win with a 1:10 solve and 4 DNFs than with a 2:30 avg5. I'd also rather have a person with a 1:10 solve and 4 DNFs win than a person with a 2:30 avg5.

Well, it's certainly against the nature of BLD as we view it today. I probably agree with you.

Best of 5 would take long enough, I'd be concerned about how long people would take to do an avg5. Once you miss one, if lots of people have been DNFing, you're best playing it safe, which takes a while, and thus the round takes a lot longer. Just something to consider.