[SCSY] Points for Second and Third Place

[mikey6rocker]

people should get some points for getting 2nd or 3rd place, because staying in the game is hard to do exspecially when its a big game. And 2nd place in a big game is almost as good as 1st.

[mikey6rocker]

I think in big games ( 4 or more) the 2nd and 3rd places should get some points. To last that long should be recognized.

[moz976]

I think that you should get say 5 points per person you eliminate if you do not win. But no get points just based on being second or third. You can be second or third just by staying out of ppls way.

[Volkmar]

You should at least have some points or break eaven for second

[lackattack]

I used to always think the guy in 2nd place was the biggest ass-kisser and it's more honourable to be 3rd. But that was back when I played "analog" Risk and NYMEX would win by manipulating some fool to do his dirty work.

The idea of getting points for each kill is interesting... maybe a 4th type of game. i.e. standard, doubles, triples, and murder (maybe someone can think of a better name)

[thegrimsleeper]

I used to always think the guy in 2nd place was the biggest ass-kisser and it's more honourable to be 3rd.

I think the idea of getting points for taking people out is pretty intriguing. Maybe you get as many points as the number of players? So in a six-man game, taking out all 5 of the other players would give you 30 points, plus whatever points you would accumulate for winning normally.

Would it be BAD to reward being the most Cut-Throat player? That might be a better name than murder, btw...

[joetalk]

ok i second the vote for a piont system based on the removal of other players, an extra 10 I think would be good for each elimanated player, as generally doing so in any type of speed really limits a persons defence from other player in a game.
Joetalk OUT

[lackattack]

I really don't like this idea. Then weak players can make a deal with the game leader "let me help you cruch them and in return kill me last". I think that's poor sportsmanship.

[mikey6rocker]

i agree, it wont work by taking out players, because if u do all the dirty work but cant get the last country because it is on the other side of the map. another player can just take that one country and get all the points. i just think coming in 2nd or 3rd place, you shouldnt loose points or something.

[thegrimsleeper]

Why should you get to keep any points? You didn't keep any countries. You lost 'em, fair and square. If the game were timed, that would be one thing, but it's not. You play until there's only one player left on the board. If you deserved points for the game, you would have won it.

[apwessen]

Unless I've not noticed this, you lose pts if you don't win. What about big games? If you get second amongst 5 people do you still lose points? I would think second of five people is still worth not losing points.

[cowmonkey]

The problem with awarding points to 2nd, 3rd, etc. (or for that matter penalizing 2nd, 3rd less) you change the nature of the game. Instead of trying to team up against the person who is doing best on the board you end up trying to take out other weak players before you are taken out.

[Lt. Bung]

I think that there should be some benefit from being 2nd/3rd place and all the way down.

A couple of not well thought out ideas:

The point based system that is set up now, but instead of the winner taking points from everyone you only take points from people you conquer and award bonus points for coming in a certain place.

A system set up where each place awards/penalizes a set amount of points based on where you finish. Could be modified by amount of people in the game or game type.

As it is now a person that has less points than I starting a game will lose less points than me no matter where we end up (except for winning that is). Game 871 shows that I lost 1 more point than a person I took out.

I know that 1 point is nitpicking but it adds up. Especially when your 'score' reflects how 'good' you are in this game. I don't think I am great at this game but you'd think I was terrible with how quickly my score is plummeting

Now the problem with implementing a point system based on end game place has been noted in the previous post. People will play differently to get whatever points they can.

Last not thought out idea as this post is running long, maybe a point per round that you were active in the game.....errrr nevermind this is definitely not a good idea.

[lackattack]

I like the idea of a Cut-Throat / Assasin game option where you only get points for eliminating people.

But otherwise I agree with cowmonkey, there is no honour in being 2nd place. It's all or nothing!

[Lt. Bung]

I'm glad that one of my ideas was ok

I'd like to try out a cut-throat/assasin style of game. If you end up coding one up please let me know.

Thanks for all your great work!

[mjtrish]

the point system should be relative to points that each person has. I.e. if you beat a person with 1600 points you should get more than 20points from that person.

[Pedronicus]

There should be some sort of points for taking out someone. Even if you lose, you showed guts and ruthlessness

[HULK]

Hey I do not know if everybody would think this is stupid, but I found that often games ends on who gets their cards at the good moment once in one-on-one. I know I lost a lot of games where at one point we were even strengh and only two players and I ended up not only winnig 0 pts, but I lost pts. It is true that the game of risk is a simulation of a nation trying to rule the world and it is true that in real life, if someone manage to control the world, nobody would care about having been the last nation to be under domination, but you have to have made good decisions to finish 2nd.

What would you think if a 2nd place out of a single game (no team) doesn't loose any pts. Am I the only one who thinks that would be nice.

[SprCobra]

So the winner gets less points unless the otehr players lose more points to make up for the points your keeping

[qeee1]

I don't think there should be points for second, because then people will just strike deals that will hand cheap wins to whoever's the strongest player. ie. leave me to last and I'll help you win, or even just trying to develop some strong fortifications in a corner in the hope they will be left last.

I admit sometimes it's unfair to lose points when you played far better than some of the others, but I think on balance it'd be better not to implement this.

[Vladsky]

Just play games with a flat rate or no cards and quit complaining.

[HULK]

The flat rate or no cards is a good idea. Thanks, I did not think about it.

[Matteo_zelenko]

Only problem is that those games take much longer to complete, which in turn makes you less eligible to attain points.

[mikey6rocker]

i agree with him. i think the winner should get the normal amount of points, but 2nd place shouldnt lose points or somehting. Coming in 2nd place in a 6 person game is hard. i think 2nd place should get some reward for lasting that long.

[Itrade]

I agree. Getting second place would be a last ditch effort to break even. First place will still be worth risking it because of all those juicy points you'll get.