Sorry if this is somewhat a long post, I really wanted to be clear on the subject. Skip it if you're not going to read it.

---

Don't get me wrong, I love the new system. It has been tested a lot and I believe it is a great improvement over the last one.

I also want to state clearly (and now) that I do not blame players for playing the way they do in the new system (I do it too).

---

Before I start breaking the rating system, I think it would be fair if everyone understood it and why there was a need for this new system in the first place. It might be obvious for some, but not so much for others.

The main problem with the old system was that it rewarded players that used a "hiding strategy". It consisted on hoping your few (or 1, or couple) territory(ies) would overlast the stronger players fighting for the top spots. It was possible to score very good points by having a single territory for the whole game by being killed last out of generosity from the winner.

The point of the new system, obviously, is to reward those trying to win: "The better game you played, the better score you should have." If you are dominating the game and an alliance turns against you and defeats you, you still get many points for the great game you played, and don't get shafted by that 1 guy who had 1 territory all game.

---

The flaw.

I believe it is very possible to play a great game, finish 2nd, even first, and get screwed on domination nonetheless, EVEN IF YOU MADE THE BEST POSSIBLE CHOICES over the course of the game, which ultimately led to a very good finish, but marginal rating gains.

And why is that, you might ask? Simply because domination points are not calculated correctly. This is my personal opinion, so please bare with me. I don't not claim to have the ultimate truth on the matter, but I do believe I do.

As far as I know, here's how the domination points are calculated: (I might be wrong, but the last time I tested in the sandbox, that's what Ryan told us)

- At the begining of your turn, the number of connected territories are added to your grand total. When you are eliminated, your grand total is compared to all the other remaining players and your domination rank is calculated.

It works fine as it is, but I truly believe it is flawed and could be easily fixed. That is simply because that system does not necessairly encourages good play (aiming to win), but aggressive and self destructive plays (taking useless chances to up your territory count).

Example:

- Player X has 4 territories, fully built (that expression means they all have 8 dice stacks). He's been playing very solid, but somewhat conservatively. He has a good chance to win, are take a top finish, since the board is generaly low stacked with a lot of fighting going on. There are big stacks around him, however.

- Player Y has been playing wrecklessly. He's overly agressive, while luckily maintaining an avg of 7 unprotected territories.

- 2 turns later: Player Y is eliminated, not having sufficient dice to protect his empire. Player X now has five 8-stack territories and a good shot at winning with the leader, player Z, having seven 8-stacks. Player Y gets -7 for rank 5, +15 for domination. (+8 total)

---

So, what's wrong with that? I simply don't think player Y is given the right rating. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this. He played like an idiot trying to abuse the system. It's fine to abuse the system, I do it too. And there is nothing wrong with playing like this, under this system. Therefor, the system is flawed, rewarding poor play.

What's the reason, then? Territories mean nothing. 3 territories with 8 dice on each > 7 territories with an avg of 3 dice. 3x8 = 24 dice, 7x3= 21 dice.

Wasn't that simple enough? The solution is clearly to count the number of dice, NOT territories, at the begining of each turn. The goal is to have dice, afterall.

Aren't we playing Dice wars?