Pro-rata game mode

[FabledIntegral]

Exactly as Bald said.

In escalating games (freestyle) poor players usually take their turns and end early - thus if someone else is sweeping, they are eliminated LAST due to the fact they aren't a threat and can't do shit.

In fact - the WORST players in these situations are often the last to die because it's best to eliminate any threat to winning the game. At the same time, in sequential games, someone may be eliminated last in a sweep due simple board positioning on who the player decided to attack. As well in sequential people who aren't threats may also be ignored, etc.

Very bad idea simply because of the fact mentioned that poor players usually aren't threats and are targeted last in these games.

[vikprez]

2nd is 1st loser.

C.

That's exactly what I came here to say If you want points, win the game!

[happy2seeyou]

Sorry, when I win a game I don't want to share with the person that couldn't win it for themselves. The point of playing the game is to win. Not to hope for second place and get a few points anyways. There is only one winner.

[Dirar]

Sure the point is to win, but what of when theres no way to beat the game leader. whats the point then of playing on when you get treated just like someone who got kicked out rounds ago. Then give an option to quit if you cant win and winner takes all. Its just a waste on bandwidth and time sometimes

[FabledIntegral]

Sure the point is to win, but what of when theres no way to beat the game leader. whats the point then of playing on when you get treated just like someone who got kicked out rounds ago. Then give an option to quit if you cant win and winner takes all. Its just a waste on bandwidth and time sometimes

As you fail to understand, if there's two major players duking it out and someone possibly sitting in Aussie that can't really do anything but isn't a threat with one territory only, and the other two players keep smashing each other and one finally wins, then kills aussie last, that person in aussie will get the points?

Very bad idea, 25% of the time the 2nd to last player didn't do anything special except be ignored for the third player that was tied with the first.

[cicero]

PRO-RATA SCORING MODE thread - [posts Feb 26 to 5 March 2008] - merged with ...
Pro-rata game mode thread - [posts 23 May] - merged with ...
Recognition for 2nd best? thread - [posts since 7 July 2008]

All share the same essential suggestion.

Cicero



[Not sure if there is such a thing as a necro-merge, but if there is I'm sure someone will let me know if it's a bad thing ...]

[Dirar]

Sure the point is to win, but what of when theres no way to beat the game leader. whats the point then of playing on when you get treated just like someone who got kicked out rounds ago. Then give an option to quit if you cant win and winner takes all. Its just a waste on bandwidth and time sometimes

As you fail to understand, if there's two major players duking it out and someone possibly sitting in Aussie that can't really do anything but isn't a threat with one territory only, and the other two players keep smashing each other and one finally wins, then kills aussie last, that person in aussie will get the points?

Very bad idea, 25% of the time the 2nd to last player didn't do anything special except be ignored for the third player that was tied with the first.

Firstly, that scenario seems pretty far fetched. It gives the Austarlian plenty time to build up while the other two smash each other. he either becomes powerful or one of the others eliminates him.
Secondly, you have yourself said that 25% of the time the second to last player doesnt do anything special. My maths tells me that that means 75% he does do something special
Thridly, there are already several game options. Nobody forces an option on you. Give us who want the pro-rate option the choice. If its viable, people will play it. If its not it can be scrapped, and at no stage do you have to join

[FabledIntegral]

Sure the point is to win, but what of when theres no way to beat the game leader. whats the point then of playing on when you get treated just like someone who got kicked out rounds ago. Then give an option to quit if you cant win and winner takes all. Its just a waste on bandwidth and time sometimes

As you fail to understand, if there's two major players duking it out and someone possibly sitting in Aussie that can't really do anything but isn't a threat with one territory only, and the other two players keep smashing each other and one finally wins, then kills aussie last, that person in aussie will get the points?

Very bad idea, 25% of the time the 2nd to last player didn't do anything special except be ignored for the third player that was tied with the first.

Firstly, that scenario seems pretty far fetched. It gives the Austarlian plenty time to build up while the other two smash each other. he either becomes powerful or one of the others eliminates him.
Secondly, you have yourself said that 25% of the time the second to last player doesnt do anything special. My maths tells me that that means 75% he does do something special
Thridly, there are already several game options. Nobody forces an option on you. Give us who want the pro-rate option the choice. If its viable, people will play it. If its not it can be scrapped, and at no stage do you have to join

No it doesn't. You fail to understand the basics of the game, which isn't even about building up in the first place. ESPECIALLY if we're talking about escalating games, which over 50% of the games on this site are made up of (although it would mean that the person in Aussie had to have ended their turn for it to happen, thus he is the last target in a 1v1v1 or something).

The point is, in escalating, the poor players usually end their turn first. At the beginning of the game, they are the first to get eliminated. Yet when it starts getting to the end, and there's only say 4 players left, and one person is sweeping the board, he might ignore the absolute crap player that ended their turn to kill the other 3 that are intelligent enough to not end (in a freestyle game that is, casual or speed).

Math tells you that 75% of the time that person does something special? Who cares - you want to screw someone over 25% of the time for something that means virtually nothing? If you planned poorly - you're fault for losing. 2nd place means nothing better than last. Especially considering the fact that in most escalating games, sequential OR freestyle, which make up over 50% of the games played, everyone on the board is eliminated by a person in the SAME turn. So once again it was merely whoever that person felt like eliminating last vs second last - complete crap.

Lastly more game options aren't better, it's just more crap to have to filter through. Unused gametypes shouldn't be created in teh first place. There should be a reason for the people who change to site to work on a project considering they already have so much work to do in the first place.

[Scott-Land]

Sure the point is to win, but what of when theres no way to beat the game leader. whats the point then of playing on when you get treated just like someone who got kicked out rounds ago. Then give an option to quit if you cant win and winner takes all. Its just a waste on bandwidth and time sometimes

As you fail to understand, if there's two major players duking it out and someone possibly sitting in Aussie that can't really do anything but isn't a threat with one territory only, and the other two players keep smashing each other and one finally wins, then kills aussie last, that person in aussie will get the points?

Very bad idea, 25% of the time the 2nd to last player didn't do anything special except be ignored for the third player that was tied with the first.

Firstly, that scenario seems pretty far fetched. It gives the Austarlian plenty time to build up while the other two smash each other. he either becomes powerful or one of the others eliminates him.
Secondly, you have yourself said that 25% of the time the second to last player doesnt do anything special. My maths tells me that that means 75% he does do something special
Thridly, there are already several game options. Nobody forces an option on you. Give us who want the pro-rate option the choice. If its viable, people will play it. If its not it can be scrapped, and at no stage do you have to join

No it doesn't. You fail to understand the basics of the game, which isn't even about building up in the first place. ESPECIALLY if we're talking about escalating games, which over 50% of the games on this site are made up of (although it would mean that the person in Aussie had to have ended their turn for it to happen, thus he is the last target in a 1v1v1 or something).

The point is, in escalating, the poor players usually end their turn first. At the beginning of the game, they are the first to get eliminated. Yet when it starts getting to the end, and there's only say 4 players left, and one person is sweeping the board, he might ignore the absolute crap player that ended their turn to kill the other 3 that are intelligent enough to not end (in a freestyle game that is, casual or speed).

Math tells you that 75% of the time that person does something special? Who cares - you want to screw someone over 25% of the time for something that means virtually nothing? If you planned poorly - you're fault for losing. 2nd place means nothing better than last. Especially considering the fact that in most escalating games, sequential OR freestyle, which make up over 50% of the games played, everyone on the board is eliminated by a person in the SAME turn. So once again it was merely whoever that person felt like eliminating last vs second last - complete crap.

Lastly more game options aren't better, it's just more crap to have to filter through. Unused gametypes shouldn't be created in teh first place. There should be a reason for the people who change to site to work on a project considering they already have so much work to do in the first place.

I agree almost entirely. I think it happens more than 25% of the time though. The second to last player that is killed (in esc) is the one that was the strongest at one point during the game but through dice or poor drop after the first kill or ones thereafter hung a player to become the weakest. Typically he's had a kill shot or at least made one. Theoretically he's played a better game than the ones that were killed prior.

-but I still disagree with the suggestion of other players getting points.

[cicero]

The nature of world domination is that winner takes all.
Fighting for second place in a war makes no sense.

"I would like a commendation ... yes sir."
"No sir. The enemy won sir."
"No sir, we didn't win sir. But I did make sure that my men were the last to die sir. Surely that makes makes a difference sir?"
...
"No sir. We lost sir. They are all dead sir."

I think the poll result says it all.
I say we let this thread fade and die.

[azezzo]

no this would promote cheating two guys would team up

[t-o-m]

no this would promote cheating two guys would team up

You bumped a dead thread

Congratulations, its a boy.

[e_i_pi]

no this would promote cheating two guys would team up

You bumped a dead thread

Congratulations, its a boy.

Here's another bump

I can sympathise with some of the arguments for and against. If anything were to take place, it'd be better as a game option (like Terminator), but I do think this sort of game would be open to a lot more abuse, especially secret alliance type stuff, which is often hard to prove.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

I come in second place alot. Shouldn't you get some points for coming in second? Isn't someone who comes in 2nd all the time better than someone who comes in 6th all the time?

The thing is that the weakest player is often left 'til the very end to take out as it is only sensible for the leading player to deal with the threats in order of importance. It would also be very often left to the whim of the winner who came second... not good.

[jiminski]

only first-place should get points.
there are so many reasons why this should be the case.. one that immediately springs to mind is that 2 friends could play together in a Singles game and then carve-up the spoils for first and second once all competition is eliminated.

(Terminator offers some comfort to the player who can't quite cross the finish line.)

[firstholliday]

only first-place should get points.
there are so many reasons why this should be the case.. one that immediately springs to mind is that 2 friends could play together in a Singles game and then carve-up the spoils for first and second once all competition is eliminated.

(Terminator offers some comfort to the player who can't quite cross the finish line.)

Talking about me again huh...

[PLAYER57832]

I come in second place alot. Shouldn't you get some points for coming in second? Isn't someone who comes in 2nd all the time better than someone who comes in 6th all the time?

Definitely not.

In most cases, whether you were eliminated fifth or first is not a matter of better skill. IN fact, often times you want to eliminate the better player first, if you can, because they are the bigger threat.

This is not always the case, but often is. As was noted, terminator is an option if you don't like the "all or nothing" approach.

[cicero]

PRO-RATA SCORING MODE thread - [posts Feb 26 to 5 March 2008] - merged with ...
Pro-rata game mode thread - [posts 23 May] - merged with ...
Recognition for 2nd best? thread - [posts since 7 July 2008]

All share the same essential suggestion.

Cicero



[Not sure if there is such a thing as a necro-merge, but if there is I'm sure someone will let me know if it's a bad thing ...]

PRO-RATA SCORING MODE thread (ie the sum of three threads merged above) merged with ...
Score Suggestion thread - [posts 24 to 27 April 2007 and 15 July 2008 to date]

Thanks for digging up another version of the same suggestion.
Keep going like this and we'll have the whole forum merged into just a dozen threads I think ...

Cicero

[What about necro-bump-merge-tennis ... ?]