Yes, but doesn't it sacrifice the exploration of alternative approaches by focusing on a single save each round?
Yes and no.
In the
official sense,
yes, because only the best ball save is 'required' to be continued upon; so the possibility is always there no shadows are ever played, and the alternative approaches are never explored.
In the
unofficial sense,
no, because [concurrent] shadows aren't discouraged; so it's likely the most popular and strongly supported alternative approaches will be explored.
If I am given two saves, one following obsolete's single city early wonderspam, and one following a more traditional REX approach, I don't know that I would ever take the wonderspam save. It's only in the subsequent rounds, and I emphasize the plural, that the strengths of alternative approaches are demonstrated.
This argument supports longer turn sets.
It also supports an idea I suggested about 4 posts back -- an idea I now see isn't as good as it seemed to be earlier today.
I previously thought it was a good idea, but ...
If we're willing to organize an extra concurrent shadow game now, what happens when 3 or 4 different approaches are submitted? Do we then begin supporting 3 or 4 concurrent shadow games? How do we then decide which strategies to use and which to discard?
Especially in the interest of keeping this format simple and straightforward, I think the current model of a single, main game using each Round's Best Ball is going to be the best approach.
If there's significant interest in alternative approaches, I'm convinced players will be present and ready to heed the call.
... it's me who has to convince you that you could do more for the community by maintaining a highly organized concurrent shadow game rather than a concurrent succession game.
Again, I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I'm unable to commit the amount of time I foresee being required to organize concurrent shadow games.
If something like that is going to be undertaken, then I think we will need 8-10 total players. After everybody plays the 1st Round (perhaps to 1000 BC or even 10 AD), the two best approaches are chosen, and the large team is broken down into 2 smaller teams of 4-5. Each small team would then follow the same posting guidelines and play concurrent shadows based on their preferred strategy.
That would create two main games but would still leave each player with no more workload than before, since they're still each only responsible for observing and judging their 'timeline' of saves.
I think the games could be discussed and posted in the same thread, which would allow readers to follow one thread while still getting the A vs B view of both posts and discussions.
It can work, but I doubt it's anything we should try to implement in Game 1 (at least not for this Round).