holy convoluted asm!

i'm fine with possibly giving the winner a few extra points, and i can understand the difficulty in placing points based on finish place. I'm still trying to figure out how the current ranking system would not reward early wins at all.

in a current open game doen't the winner of the game get an increase while the rest get a decrease? if that's the case, then the final board would work out that the winner gets a boost while the rest fall back a bit. seems good to me, especially when coupled with the trophy. now maybe you have a bit of a sticky point in the earlier rounds as you could have more than 1 person move on, take your general 4 person dungeon game where the top two move on. you and i eliminate the Turtle and Andernut easily enough, so we both move on. However because I was able to get out of jail quicker than you, I win the board. I'm assuming you'd want a share of the spoils cus you got to move on, instead of losing points like you would in a normal game. Simple: you get 25% of the dropped points, i get 75%. It happens to be a 6 player board with 3 moving on? simple: 2nd and 3rd (who move on) get 16% each (roughly 1/6 - rounded down to the next integer), I being the winner get 68%.

It's a pretty simple way of computing, and i'm sure if somone did the math the eventual winner would end up with a significant advantage in ranking over the next placed player.

weathertop wrote: holy convoluted asm!

i'm fine with possibly giving the winner a few extra points, and i can understand the difficulty in placing points based on finish place. I'm still trying to figure out how the current ranking system would not reward early wins at all.

That was a comment on the suggestion that somewhere between 15% and 1/3 of the tournament players would get points that Tom/Vataro were talking about. I was saying I object to using the current system because it doesn't distinguish between early wins and late wins, NOT because it doesn't reward early wins at all (because it does) - in contrast to that proposal where you have to "make the money" to get any points at all. I don't like that.

I never gave much thought to games where more than one player advance. My humble suggestion would be not to differentiate between "first" and "second" in those games at all. Personally when I know more than the "winner" will advance I just play to go on. Nothing else would make sense to me.

asm wrote:

Personally when I know more than the "winner" will advance I just play to go on. Nothing else would make sense to me.

I do this too, although if the winner of the game actually did get points too and the other person that just moves on doesn't get points (or perhaps gets a few points) then it would give some meaning to the game when it gets down to just 2 players.  Of course this could also stall some games since they would have meaning now too :P

Yep. Not sure that'd be a feature. Especially when a game is holding up the next round and I know everyone left is advancing, I will gladly give up just to move things along.

Just wanted to pop in and say for once I have absolutely nothing to add. I'll be happy with whatever comes out of this. =]