- Details
- Hits: 638
'GMWP Ltd' from the University of Leeds have fought off tough competition to become the MERIT University Tournament 2024 Champions.
They dug in and held on, achieving the win, even though their share price was only 0.15, ranking them fourth in the share price list. They were sixth in the final round of the Early Years Phase and clearly coped well with the increased competition of the final.
Coming second were SWOLE (National University of Singapore). Consistent throughtout the game, and top in share price with 0.22 at the end of the game.
Third Chai Dragons (University of Manchester). Holding the lead coming into and for much of the Final, their strategy did not quite cope with the increased competition of the Final Years. Fourth were Prasinos Aegis ( Uni of Manchester) , third in the Final Round of the Early Phase. Fifth were Task Force 141 ( Glasgow Cal. Uni). GCU were last years winners but fell well behind in the final rounds.
William Martin, Conáran Patton, Riku Gega and Anton Whitehead the team members of the winning team 'GMWP Ltd', share the £2000 cash prize.
Congratulations to all the Finalists, and all those that took part in the MERIT University Tournament 2024.
- Details
- Hits: 485
With percentage improvements generally down, its now time for a rest as the Early phase concludes.
'Chai Dragons', Manchester and 'SWOLE' NUS both hold onto their positions of first and second while 'Prasinos Aegis', Manchester rise one place to third as 'Task Force 141', GCU slip to fourth. It's Task Force 141's poor performance this round that let 'Prasinos Aegis' get ahead. Whatever 'Task Force 141' tried it clearly didn't work so their tactic in round ten could be described as foolhardy!
Now its time for the Final phase where we reset the scores and maybe tweak a setting or two!
Starting with two Early Year rounds, just like the early phase, the game will transfer into the Final Years. The four rounds of Final Years are much more competitive as each team will be competing against all the other teams and the simulation for work and project managers, and they'll have less time to make decisions.
For now the teams need to pause and take stock, the Final phase is just around the corner.
- Details
- Hits: 578
'Chai Dragons' of Manchester swap places with 'SWOLE' of NUS. So 'Chai Dragons' improving by 11% are now first and 'SWOLE' improving by 6% are second.
All others are in the same place as last round 'TaskForce 141' of GCU improving by 10% and 'Prasinos Aegis' of Manchester improving by 13%, the highest improvement this round, failed to move up.
'SWOLE' are 111 points behind 'Chai Dragons', so 'SWOLE' would need to score 111 points or just over 5% more than 'Chai Dragons' to overtake them. If 'Chai Dragons' improved 10% next round 'SWOLE' would need to score 15% to overtake them. Not an impossible gap to overcome so its still competitive. 'Task Force 141' are 145 points behind 'Chai Dragons' and would need to score 145 points or nearly 7% more than 'Chai Dragons' to overtake them. If 'Chai Dragons' improved 10% the 'Taskforce 141' would need to improve by 17% to overtake the. Not impossible but getting more challenging. Similarly 'Prasinos Aegis' are 166 points behind 'Chai Dragons'. So 'Prasinos Aegis' would need to improve by 166 points or 7.8% to overtake 'Chai Dragons'. So if 'Chai Dragons' improved by 10% 'Prasinos Aegis' would need to improved by 17.8% to overtake them. Not impossible but getting more challenging.
The next round is that last round of the early stage. How will the teams react. 'Chai Dragons' need a good solid average performance to stay ahead. They can’t afford a mistake. So they will be careful maybe even cautious. This might restrict their score. If Chai Dragons' caution guarding against a mistake only produced an improvement of say 5% in the next round then it would be open for the following teams to overtake them. This thinking perhaps leaves the following teams to be more adventurous pursuing a higher score. All the decisions and their consequences should be well understood by now. This allows teams to make judgements assessing risk as they pursue a higher score. If they take risks and do well they will be praised for the wisdom of their judgement. If they take risks and get a low score they will be described as foolhardy!
Its time to scrutinise the see-saw decisions as we teeter-totter into the last early stage round.