As far as i know, the winner of every JDC duel gets five points and it always was like that. But i think it's not really a smart idea...for example, if you make ten "mini duels" to 2 roasts and you win them all you get 70 points (20 roasts+50 winner points). If you made a 20-roast-battle and win it, you'd only get 25 points (20+5).

See my point?

I would like to suggest that the "winner bonus" has to depend on the amount of roasts. Like when you play a 50-roast-game the winner bonus is 25 and in an 10-roast-game its 10. would be more fair and could prevent cheating.

GOOD READING FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS OF JDC:



Yes, about the scoring system; we're always getting opinions on that (and thanx for you input).



I personally believe that it is a balanced system. All dueling decisions are really a "2-person check". Its not just the player that's offering the rules, its also about the player accepting the rules. If the two cant agree on the said rules of play, then they compromise (or don't play). Also, more towards 1-roast games, I think it's completely fair because it's more of a gamble. Its your decision on wheter or not to accept the challenge. You win, you get points; you lose, you give away points.



Also, about 100-roast games: Bobby and I put a rule in effect starting Season 4 (Fall 2000) that disallows any duel above a 25-roast limit.

Oh yeah, and JDC Events are good for fudging around the scores a litte (esp. if you don't duel often).

Oh yeah, be a smart player, too. If you challenge someone to a bunch of 2-point duels, after your 10th concurrent win your opponent should have the brains to find a different partner to duel with (either that or they have a gambling problem ).

I still think a seperate ranking by streak would be cool.. not as the main ranking but more like an "extra" option to see how the people are listed ordered by their quality.