dyin' to go try it, but I'll have to wait until there are more players there. Good luck... I like the direction your thinking is going with this. Hope it works as advertised.

I like the new format but it still needs a bit of tweaking. People tend to suicide attack to gain a large number of territories making it a bit unpredictable at times. Truces don't seem to happen quite as often, but there is enough to keep it interesting.

Could you please post the current formula used for territories? I think it would clear things up and allow people to properly develop a strategy.

I've heard a few people say it isn't quite as addicting, and I sort of feel the same way, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet.

I have no thoughts from personal experience because I simply can't get a game on the test server. No one is around when I am

I can say I'm thoroughly looking forward to it going live though, because I love the idea :)

I really enjoy the new scoring system for the most part. My only issues is that the average size component of the score being calculated seem to be the component that is easily messed up. I realize the average size is a average across the whole game, but the fluctuations in players with relatively the same size connected territories (and yes I know it's figured from the begining of rounds) seems pretty severe. The main time that it seems to be very severe is when a player that goes out early gets a decent average land score. Once that higher score goes to the early player, one of the 2nd or 3rd players seems to take a fairly stiff penalty because of it. (roughly -10 from what I've seen) I'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but I know the average lands of the 2nd and 3rd tended to exceed that 7th player, but since placement is done at the time of killing a higher average land placement score seems to be taken out earlier than it probably should.

Kehoe

Whatever you do wrt the new scoring system, once it goes live please explain it in detail on a nice webpage that's easily accessible.

only my third game so far. 2 things
First i guess the new scoring system although it maybe flawed is better than the one we got so i say reset score and put in new score.
Secound to be sure about my final opinion id like to see the domination rank the game calculates for you actually displayed alongside the score if its not that much of an efford to you please.

thx so far
His Madness

Hard to say but so far I like all of it. Fun to win and fun to lose.

Is the average size based on connected territories or just territories in total? What do you mean by ‘average’ exactly? Is it ‘total connected territories in all rounds/number of rounds you survive’?

I have played more than 10 games and here are two cents:

1) I think if scoring is based on average size, you should add a counter for each player showing their total size and round played so that they have an idea where they are at during every point in the game

2) List the scores of each player at the end of the game, and show how many places they move up/down the rankings.

3) The games seem to be longer. Sometimes the 3rd place player refused to flag since he/she thinks there is still a fighting chance and the remaining two players have to be stuck with the game.

4) There seems to be only a handful of “regulars� testing the game. Their comments may be a bit biased consider they are usually more skilled players with 1700+ scores in the regular game. I think you should hear from the “general public� what they think of the new scoring system.

5) I think you should reward trophies to the top 100 players each month and reset the score each month, just like poker. In my opinion, this would alleviate some of the concerns that the new scoring system is not as addictive as the old one……people will just play and play in order to earn trophies!

6) A general comment: give people the option of disabling chat (and show to others which player has disabled that). There are just far too many bullying going on.

7) Another general comment: create donor only tables and use their names as table names. Isn’t there a scam going on where people allied in order to make another person #1 in ranking. Do you really want to name a table after such a person/team?

Thanks.

3) Really? Also, is it hard for the people in 1st and 2nd to knock out the guy in 3rd that doesn't flag (therily giving them both better adjustment)? If it is, then doesn't the guy in 3rd have a good point then?

I like it. Let's make the change.