Different -points depending on when you were eliminated

[Billy Jackhammer]

This has probably been said before but here goes, This is for games with more than 2 players.
I think there should be an option where you're deducted less points in a game if you finished 2nd as opposed to if you were eliminated first.

Im not saying get rid off the higher rank more points lost system, just if you were eliminated later on you get a smaller percentage taken away.

I just think it's a bit unfair when you play a (game with about 6 peeps) that could take over a week and and you're one of the last 2 left and you only just lose you get the same method of deducting points as someone how never took a turn and was eliminated in the third round.

so it might look something like this (5 man game example)

1st place Winner

2nd place losses 70% of: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20
3rd place losses 80% of: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20
4th place losses 90% of: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20
5th place losses 100% of: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20

It also adds a bit more strategy:
- You might want to play more aggressive to knock a player out early to minimise your possible losses
- You may want to set up fort a while until someone else gets eliminated
- You may nearing the end of a game against two opponents, one absolutely dominates you in troops the other not so much, and instead of giving up because you're not going to win, u may want to put all your resources into attacking and eliminating your weaker opponent (for damage limitation)
- Also it may be an idea to try and go for the higher ranked players and eliminate them first as they would give you would gain more points if you were to win. (which may help the really high ranked players from dominating every game)

Apologies if this is basically a repost or I've got my facts wrong as im new to this, but what do you think ?

[stahrgazer]

I see the validity, but...
People already do treuces and things, which can target one player over others. Establishing a system where the first player out loses more, would encourage that tactic, probably to the point of near-cheating. Additionally, in team games, a viable strategy is often to eliminate a teammate (for spoils) and some folks already have a difficult time accepting that necessity. Making them lose more points because they were taken out before another teammate would probably create more conflict.

So in all, despite I see the validity in your post, I disagree that it's a viable change; it's a change that has more potential to create havoc than to resolve havoc.

[Jatekos]

Yes, I think I have seen a similar suggestion earlier.

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=114166#p2539680

I would like this to be implemented a bit differently. We already have terminator games to gain points by eliminating players regardless of who wins the game.
I would rather modified the current formula so that the order of elimination would affect the score one will lose. I.e. In a standard game, the first person to be taken out would lose more points than he/she would lose being taken out last.

E.g. in an 8-player standard game, in the order of elimination:
1st player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 1,15
2nd player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 1,10
3rd player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 1,05
4th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20
5th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 0,95
6th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 0,90
7th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 0,85
the winner would win the sum of the above points

There would be 35% difference between the points lost if someone would be taken out first or last in an 8-player game - probably a good incentive to:
* Decrease frequency of suicides/dropouts
* Increase reward for doing well.

Stahrgazer - A valid point you mentioned regarding team games. We could apply the above for teams rather for individual players in team games (e.g. 1st team to be eliminated, 2nd team to be eliminated, etc). I highly doubt that this would encourage truces and things 'probably to the point of near-cheating'. On the other hand, it could decrease the number of suicide attacks and basically the distribution / deduction of points would be fairer.

[Woodruff]

Stahrgazer - A valid point you mentioned regarding team games. We could apply the above for teams rather for individual players in team games (e.g. 1st team to be eliminated, 2nd team to be eliminated, etc). I highly doubt that this would encourage truces and things 'probably to the point of near-cheating'. On the other hand, it could decrease the number of suicide attacks and basically the distribution / deduction of points would be more fair.

I disagree very strongly - I am absolutely certain it would encourage truces to an exceptionally magnified point. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if this were implemented, any player who actually cares at all about their rank would be STUPID NOT to enter into truces and alliances.

Good lord, look at the extent some folks ALREADY go with their point-hoarding.

[Jatekos]

Stahrgazer - A valid point you mentioned regarding team games. We could apply the above for teams rather for individual players in team games (e.g. 1st team to be eliminated, 2nd team to be eliminated, etc). I highly doubt that this would encourage truces and things 'probably to the point of near-cheating'. On the other hand, it could decrease the number of suicide attacks and basically the distribution / deduction of points would be more fair.

I disagree very strongly - I am absolutely certain it would encourage truces to an exceptionally magnified point. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if this were implemented, any player who actually cares at all about their rank would be STUPID NOT to enter into truces and alliances.

Good lord, look at the extent some folks ALREADY go with their point-hoarding.

I don't think so, as it is not about winning more points. The winner would win the same amount of points as previously.
It is about giving incentive to the other players to keep playing even if they are not the strongest. If 2 or more relatively weak players team up on the strongest one that I consider a totally valid strategy (provided that the communication is in the game chat, of course, and not via PMs). During the course of a normal game, the player who is the strongest may change several times - if it means new temp. truces that is perfectly fine by me too.
On the other hand, now if someone gets weak he / she often decides to suicide into another player ruining the game completely. This is just because there is no incentive to keep playing from a relatively weak position and e.g. in an 8-player standared game, the first player to be eliminated loses the same amount of points as if eliminated lastly.

[Woodruff]

Stahrgazer - A valid point you mentioned regarding team games. We could apply the above for teams rather for individual players in team games (e.g. 1st team to be eliminated, 2nd team to be eliminated, etc). I highly doubt that this would encourage truces and things 'probably to the point of near-cheating'. On the other hand, it could decrease the number of suicide attacks and basically the distribution / deduction of points would be more fair.

I disagree very strongly - I am absolutely certain it would encourage truces to an exceptionally magnified point. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if this were implemented, any player who actually cares at all about their rank would be STUPID NOT to enter into truces and alliances.

Good lord, look at the extent some folks ALREADY go with their point-hoarding.

I don't think so, as it is not about winning more points. The winner would win the same amount of points as previously.

It is NOT JUST about winning points, no. It is ALSO about LOSING points. Which goes directly to the heart of why this is a bad idea that would lead directly to encouraging truces and alliances. In fact, I will go so far as to say that this would lead to truces and alliances happening DURING THE FIRST ROUND reasonably often. As I said, a player would be stupid NOT to do so, if they care about their rank.

I don't personally happen to have a problem with truces and alliances - but I do seem to be in the minority on that issue.

[TheForgivenOne]

If this were to happen, higher ranks would be targeted even more so, because they would be at risk to losing ton more due to having a higher multiplier.

A LOT of players would go "Oh teh Noes! I don't want to lose more points if i lose, so i'm going to try and form as many alliance as possible, or form a pack to peg off players one at a time."

Players already team up against the strongest player, unless it's a multi or some bonehead who is stubborn. But I can already see problems with this. Friends would be given a bigger incentive to play together, and team up, as the loser of the friends will lose less than normal.

[Billy Jackhammer]

Hmmm i can see this is a hot issue, what about only giving a little compensation to the person who comes second, only last place loses extra.

I think this would be good for large public games as it would encourage people not to just ignore games an get eliminated as there's more to lose, and it'll make the game flow a little better at the beginning and maybe not have to wait 24hrs every time.
Also this would narrow the teaming up issue down a little bit as only 2 players can really benefit.

It's not for everyone but if it was made as an option when someone created a game then everyone's a winner hey? just saying it would add an extra little spin to those long public games.

[Jatekos]

I think that those, who so strongly object to this suggestion only focus on the disadvantages that they think a partially modified system may cause, without considering the possible benefits a bit more carefully.

A couple of advantages:
+ "reward" (less point deduction) for doing well
+ incentive to keep playing
+ a fairer system - very important!
+ less deadbeats
+ less suicide attacks
+ more competitive games
+ increase player interaction.

From the comments above it seems that the possibility that there will be more truces formed is considered to be the biggest threat that this souggestion could cause.
I beleive that agreeing to have a truce is a valid and sometimes the only logical strategy. This strategy already exists and is permitted. As you know, there are already players who abuse it, and form secret alliances or use multies. We also already have a C&A forum where the mods will investigate these cases.

Do you really think that the number of secret alliances / multies will double / triple.. etc just because e.g. the last player to be eliminated in an 8-player standard game would lose e.g. 15 % less than he / she would lose now? Will this difference make players who already use multies create much more multies or secret alliances with their friends? Or will this 15% difference make those players who do not yet use cheap tactics create dozens of secret alliances at once? I do not think that any of these cases is likely to happen.

Or will the number of normal truces boost because of the possiblility of losing less if remaining in the game for long? If so, is it something bad? I am not sure how much experience you have with truces but if I see it to be necessary in a game I do not hesitate to propose one. Truces are usually temporary, because it does not make any sense to help others win even if you would lose less. Also, I think that those, who already agree to truces will continue to do so, and those who do not like truces (or are just unable to understand that sometimes they need to work together with others in order to survive) will not be likely to change their strategies.

[Billy Jackhammer]

Couldn't agree with you more Jatekos.

A key point being it rewards you for doing well.

Imagine if these rules were set up when the site began, I highly doubt any would of complained saying "there should be an equal loss for all losers"

I know you cant apply all suggestions, but I really think the game would benefit even if it was just an extra game option. If people are afraid it will increase truces then they don't have to enter this type of game.

[drunkmonkey]

Being the last one eliminated in an 8-player escalating game doesn't make you any better than the 3rd person eliminated. Most of these games end when one player runs the board on their last turn. If take out a player, then cash for 25, then take out a 2nd player and cash for 30...the order I take out the rest of the players is based purely on what will be easiest based on their positions around me and how many cards they happen to be holding. It's nothing they planned in advance.

[Jatekos]

Being the last one eliminated in an 8-player escalating game doesn't make you any better than the 3rd person eliminated. Most of these games end when one player runs the board on their last turn. If take out a player, then cash for 25, then take out a 2nd player and cash for 30...the order I take out the rest of the players is based purely on what will be easiest based on their positions around me and how many cards they happen to be holding. It's nothing they planned in advance.

I do not play escalating games but I see your point. It is probably easier and quicker to eliminate the last couple of players in an escalating game than by playing other spoils types. Still, I beleive that better players are more likely to remain in the game for long than not so good players, if you look at more games. This is definitely true for the other spoils types.

[Timminz]

I think the proponents of this suggestion should become better acquainted with Terminator games.

Also, just because you got eliminated later, doesn't mean you played better.

[drunkmonkey]

Also, just because you got eliminated later, doesn't mean you played better.

It could mean the opposite: "I know I can take you 1-on-1, so I'm going to get rid of everyone else first."

[Jatekos]

I think the proponents of this suggestion should become better acquainted with Terminator games.

Thanks for raising this. The suggestion was based on standard games, but you are right, we have to think about this game type as well. You are probably alluding to the different strategies, namely eliminating as many players as possible vs winning the game. In my opininon winning a game is a bigger achievement than eliminating players but being taken out in the end (lose the battle, win the war). That being said, I think the suggested new formula can still be applied. (I suggest discussing Assassin games after the rest has been decided, because we can either leave that game type as it is or we can create quite complicated formulas).

EDIT: What I wanted to say is that it makes sense for Terminator games also to take the order of elimination into account.
E.g. in an 8-player terminator game, in the order of elimination:
1st player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20 * 1,15
2nd player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20 * 1,10
3rd player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20 * 1,05
4th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20
5th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20 * 0,95
6th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20 * 0,90
7th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / terminator's score) * 20 * 0,85
The terminator players would win the points of the players they eliminated lost.

[greenoaks]

i sometimes play on another site that has a difference in points deducted depending on when you are eliminated. (for the naysayers out there - the simpler maps are easier for me to teach my 9yo strategy)

5 rounds in one player will surrender to another to avoid elimination/having his weak defence destoyed which allows him to concentrate on defeating the other players.

all other players are now forced to also surrender and play for 2nd or 3rd.


leave the points system the way it is because in war it does not matter if you almost won or got blitzed early - you still lost.