It should be worth 5 points (half a goal, so it functions as a tiebreaker), but still end the game when caught. That way, the team in the lead is trying to catch it, and the team that’s behind is trying to prevent the opposing seeker from catching it to buy time to close the gap. It’s still important that way, you can’t win the game without it, but the rest of the team is also contributing.
Plus, when there are positions on the team whose entire goal it is to beat the shit out of the other team, it makes sense that you’d want to split their focus between scoring points or ending the game. As-is, there’s no reason a beater should be trying to do anything other than beat the shit out of the opposing seeker.
They need to up the intelligence on the snitch. Make it so hard to catch that it hardly ever happens. Seekers now spend most of their time as normal players, while keeping an eye out for the snitch, then darting away every once in a while for a catch attempt
Another way to balance would be to simply make it not an instant win. Instead it’s just worth a large amount of points, but the other team could still win if they score enough before the game ends.
It’s technically not an instant win, just a ton of points and an instant end to the game. In a lopsided enough match a team could catch it and still lose.
In a lopsided enough match a team could catch it and still lose.
That literally happens in the books
It’s not an instant win. It’s already 150 points and an instant end to the game. It usually happens that whoever catches the snitch wins, but not always. See: Quidditch world cup in Book 4 of the series.
I think it was just a contrivance to both make a sport for the books while also allowing the Main Character to automatically be the most important person all the time (like basically everything else in the books).
Yeah the truth is that Harry is more or less completely useless at anything other than quidditch in the books. He’s just a symbol that actually talented people rally around
Functionally, he’s good at being reliably moral. See: the mirror of erised, the second GoF task, going willingly to his death.
Reliably moral by traditional wizarding standards*. Hermione is more reliably moral by standards external to the wizarding world.
Hermione blackmailed a journalist and kept her in a jar for several weeks. The following year she cursed a fellow student and left them permanently disfigured. I’m not sure that I would consider her more reliably moral… a good person overall, but with flaws.
Idk, just because she doesn’t turn into a human welcome mat doesn’t make her immoral. And Rita is as much a journalist as anyone on Fox News is, which is to say, not at all. Hermione recognized that nobody would do anything about Rita spreading her harmful bullshit and took direct, decisive action.
He’s kind of a dick though…
Fame went to his head for a bit there, then he got pissed that everyone had opinions about him…kinda like a certain author I know of…
Reading Enders Game after reading the Harry Potter series felt like those were two opposite ends of the spectrum.
Harry was special because fate made him special and all things revolved around him regardless of his actions.
Ender was special because the author said he was the smartest kid in the room and all things he did worked because if it didn’t work, then he wouldn’t be the smartest.
With both written by hateful, vitriolic turds.
Man, fuck that main character. He owned a slave and became a cop.
Goes well with the rest of the writing.
