Forum
New System, New Problems...
|
*Brubaker* wrote
at 4:39 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT
OK, this is a bit of a heavy duty one, so bear with me.
I've played 14 games under the new system, 6 of which I have finished 3rd or higher. I have a overall score of zero. I'm sure there are hundreds of other players in exactly the same situation, and I'd like to point out a few reasons why the scoring system (not the system itself) should be reweighted. 1. With hundreds of players rooted at zero, the only tables available to them are the free tables. This means that there is always a queue of players waiting to sit down, as very few have enough points to sit at advanced tables. Earlier on in one room, there were 40 people watching from the sidelines waiting for a game. 2. The only way you can be assured of gaining any points at all is by winning outright. Again, earlier I finished 2nd and amassed -10 points. Admittedly there was a point where I could have flagged for third, but the amount of territory I had meant that I had to try for the win. 3. If you are rooted at zero and are being offered a negative amount of points to flag, flagging is pointless. You may as well fight to the death in the hope that you can recoup at least one point. This will draw games out way beyond R20, and again I was personally involved in a game that went to R40, with the winner being the only player to accrue any points whatsoever. 4. With games being drawn out as a result of the aforementioned, this means waiting times for players will go up. This will (and already has) caused a good deal of frustration amongst those waiting to play. 5. With the scoring system so heavily bias towards the outright winner, players will forced to truce more often or resort to PGA/Multi-Play tactics. This can only be a bad thing. Apart from that, I really like the look and feel of it. Honest I do. ;) |
|
2Blue wrote
at 4:43 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT i agree it's more of a winners take all system.....
|
|
|
2Blue wrote
at 4:43 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT i agree it's more of a winners take all system.....
therefore you initial position is more important as ever....too bad it's still not a fair distribution every time |
|
super strut wrote
at 4:45 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT I´m not really sure if I should like the new system - I liked the old system so much...
But there is one thing I hate in the new system: being greyed kicked out after a lag!!! That´s not fair! It´s ok to stop getting dices after 3 rounds, but beeing kicked, only by an automatically flag?!? That´s bullshit! Please think about another solution for this, ryan! |
|
FemmeFatale wrote
at 6:24 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT Did you try the test server at all? Thats the whole reason ryan was testing it! Too see if it was a good idea. if you didn't take the time to test the new server and make your comments then, its too late! Its like not voting and then complaining about the outcome.
|
|
Sinth wrote
at 6:32 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT @Brubaker:
Agreed at the zero tables will always be somewhat like this. However, it's incorrect to say that it's "pointless" to flag for negative points when you're at zero. Flagging a hopeless game at zero points means you can move on and go play a different game that you might win at. You should point this out to zero-point non-flaggers, that they are wasting their time. Secondly, the "not enough zero tables" problem will be resolved shortly. Ryan will be adding more tables tonight so you don't have to wait. @super strut: Auto-flag after 3 is for your own protection, so you don't sit in the game indefinitely being milked of points. |
|
Elithrion wrote
at 9:42 PM, Saturday September 1, 2007 EDT I have to completely agree with the first post. It's basically completely useless to finish anything but first in a prolonged game. You get ~0 points for second and lose for 3rd or lower most of the time. The only option seems to be to flag whenever you just pull into the positive, which is still a rather poor tactic and detracts from the game either way.
And please stop it with the "why were you not on test servers?" thing. That's like saying (to use your elections example) that because Bush got voted in, no one should complain about Iraq. (or, to be more precise with the parallel, about medicare) |
|
Hypernode wrote
at 2:04 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT This game is now about knowing when to flag, and hopefully the people in the lower places flagging before you when they logically should. Of course if they have zero points, why flag- just cause havoc for other players. Often I wanted to flag for 3rd, but the 4 and 5 spots were still hanging on.
Maybe if the points were less stingy, things would be better? I would like to see at least a couple of points for fourth.... |
|
|
Hypernode wrote
at 2:35 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT Maybe things will get better once people get above 50 pts and then have somthing to lose. Then logic will prevail and people will not be so reckless.
A couple of suggestions. 1. Don't start at zero. Spot people say 50 or 100 points. 2. In the short term, make some 50 pt rooms so people can get away from the angry zero pointers who seem to relish in wrecking it for everybody. I know I did when I had zero. |
|
|
Hypernode wrote
at 2:35 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT Maybe things will get better once people get above 50 pts and then have somthing to lose. Then logic will prevail and people will not be so reckless.
A couple of suggestions. 1. Don't start at zero. Spot people say 50 or 100 points. 2. In the short term, make some 50 pt rooms so people can get away from the angry zero pointers who seem to relish in wrecking it for everybody. I know I did when I had zero. |
|
|
Sinth wrote
at 2:47 AM, Sunday September 2, 2007 EDT @Hypernode:
I agree it would have been nice to start everyone at 50 points, and that was the original plan. However, that plan was scuttled by "jss4". In other words, it became clear that players who dropped below 50 would have too much incentive to just create a new account to get back to 50. |
