4) I think that most of the players who play at the nolimit tables don't care about the rating and don't know how it works. They just want to play kdice for fun. Some of them play to get a better rank and they would benefit from the new system because there are lots of away players down there in the "jungle" who get more points than them.

5) I posted almost the same idea in the forum.... Most of the top players don't want to start again with 1500 points every month. This system will only reward lucky players and players who have the time to play many games.

You can still have monthly awards/tournaments without a monthly reset, the only reason for monthly reset is for use with a new scoring system that intentionally rewards activity.

I am disobeying a rule, as of not having played enough games on the test server(3 maybe 4) but I will say something.

So far, the scoring seems to be much more controlled (obviously) and that it does restrict the somewhat free-thinking style of play I've seen: 1)truces now seem that they sould be made for a good reason, not frivolously. 2) Selfish/ignorant people. I've had problems (only on 2 occasions, but it's enough for me) with people taking me out b/c I'm in their way, and they leave behind a single-space wide trail that can easily be cut, which shows they don't care that you were eliminated out of vain.

Tactics seem to be more important, but, I agree that there should be a "simpleton" way of explaining it. All I can tell, comparing the styles of scoring after over 300 games, is that I need to take my time more, and that the nuances like stupid people and alliances are cut down. This makes for a more thoughtful game, if your score depends on separate requirements, and is less addicting, and that can be good and bad (?).

It seems like it is more of a thinking game than just a click and hope for luck game.

i played some more games today and i have more questions then comments:

1) how does flag / unflag affect your average size?
2) is the number of territories in a map going to affect scoring?
3) sometimes it's benefical to be 3rd than be 2nd. Is it logical?
4) why is there no bonus points for taking out an opponent?
5) if the #1 player has over 80/90% of the territories, can he/she forced to end the game without everyone flagging? i have seen some stubbon people (when there are 3 players left) who refused to do so as they though they still have a chance and/or trying to drive down the 2nd place player's AS so that he/she can be 2nd.
6) scoring is less predictable. with the old system, we know for a fact that 6th place is going to get less points (or more negetive pts) then 5th place. but it is not the case now. pretty confusing. how about totally get rid of placement and just report the score.

can you explain in more detail how the new system works so that people can have an idea before trying. in that way i think you will get more valuable comments.

thanks.

I like it, makes people play more. Good job Ryan!!!

1) how does flag / unflag affect your average size?

it doesn't

2) is the number of territories in a map going to affect scoring?

no

3) sometimes it's benefical to be 3rd than be 2nd. Is it logical?

its not. 2nd always gets more points with the same average size

4) why is there no bonus points for taking out an opponent?

one thing at a time

5) if the #1 player has over 80/90% of the territories, can he/she forced to end the game without everyone flagging? i have seen some stubbon people (when there are 3 players left) who refused to do so as they though they still have a chance and/or trying to drive down the 2nd place player's AS so that he/she can be 2nd.

you might be able to influence the score +/- 2 points by driving AS down... its not really worth it.

6) scoring is less predictable. with the old system, we know for a fact that 6th place is going to get less points (or more negetive pts) then 5th place. but it is not the case now. pretty confusing. how about totally get rid of placement and just report the score.

yes you don't know your score till the end but you can get a sense of how well your doing. The score is a balance of placing well and how well you dominate the map. If you do both you'll have a positive score, if you do only one you'll have a negligible score change, if none you'll have a negative change.

4) why is there no bonus points for taking out an opponent?

4a) one thing at a time

I hope there never will be one! Why should the one taking the last field get any bonus, when another took 99% of that player?

I love it!

Hey Ryan,
I like the new system a lot. it's much more logical and maybe people will start to play smart again (i didn't play for a long time with my dice_horst because i had the feeling that the playing style developed in a wrong direction)...


2 thoughts:

this scoring system could encourage alliances between the two biggest guys...(?)

people will let you live with one country after they've taken you down just to reduce your domination score if you were first before (yes they will!)... so maybe there should be a maximum number of rounds that influence the average size if your size doesn't change.
this wouldn't affect ppl with one territory for the whole game cause the average of one is one... and so on, i think you'll get me ;-)

but no matter if you make this change or not, the new system is still much better! i would start playing again if it was official.

(and if his madness thinks it's fine, there should be nothing in the way ^^)

"3) sometimes it's benefical to be 3rd than be 2nd. Is it logical?

its not. 2nd always gets more points with the same average size "

The average size will differ if the game goes on. So if you still are 2nd with AS and know your AS is gonna fall to 3rd then it might be beneficial to suicide.

Alliances: The scoring system is beneficial for alliances that don't have touching territories or a big stack near each other, they wouldn't move otherwise.

If I was first I would try to truce 3rd or 4th in order not to get outnumbered by 2nd or make sure getting first while trucing 2nd.