Ryan said this in an old thread titled "Scoring update information", which was from the switch to dominance:

"The perfect scoring for kdice is to just award points for 1st and take away points for any other posistion. Because the game is about taking over the map, like Dicewars and Risk."

So that's why first and second place usually are the only ones who are rewarded positive diamonds.

In the test server, I once saw fifth place get +2 diamonds. So it is possible to get positive score at a lower place, although it is much more difficult.

But that's the point.

Reward more points to the true winner. Before second and third place were considered winning, sometimes even fourth. That was not meant to be true.

i love this game and i thank ryan for all his hard work. we simply want to make the game more enjoyable.

rewarding the true winner is a grat goal. but unfortunately, you winning is so much depend on:

1) you start position - i have seen players start with all 4 territories connected - how can you - with 4 territories in the 4 different coners - have a any chance to be #1 or #2. in this case, you are not rewarding the true winner, but the luckiest one. of course the former player may not end up winning - depending on his/her luck - but i assume no one can agrue that having 4 connected territories is a huge advantage

2) have we solve the proxy problem yet? if not, how can you reward those proxy cheaters as TRUE winners?

@skrumgaer

Well, you don't understand what I was trying to say and why I played in the 10+ tables, I played there because I saw a proportion of "happy clickers" on the tables 100+ that was comparable to what I saw on the 10+. With more risk associated with it and not more rewards (cause of the fast flagging) because at the 100+ tables, they learn when to flag but not how to play.

Sorry if it sounds like I despise novice players, it just feels wrong mixing them like that. Sometimes I'm convinced I am playing against my little sister, even on the 100+ tables.

Jose,

I would think that learning how to flag is part of learning how to play. What happens when you flag is probably the hardest part of the new rules to learn. At least it was for me. As in poker, "you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em....."

Playing against newer players is a bit more chaotic. But I think to be a good player you need to learn how to play them. You're not always going to win against them because you're a better player though and that is to be expected. In this respect its just like poker.

As far as rewards, Wicked makes a good point. The game is to take over the map and the reward is for the one who does it best. The proper scoring for this would be to give all points to first. We don't do this because we want to make the game more fun for other players.

Though i'm new at this game, it seems that the old best players are the new best players as well. the account rnd is high, and the old one was one of the best all time accounts. so he must do something correctly more than 50% of the time

Yeah i understand Ryan, and I'm accepting it as part of the game but I think the ELO system was doing a better job of classifying players according to their skills than the new scoring system

You know what would be a simpler and more enjoyable scoring system, that would amplify the objective of actually winning: a single "winning percentage". No points, no diamonds, no confusion, but a simple, easy-to-understand measure of how well you have done over time at the only objective that should matter.

This system, too, would reduce the incentive to truce, because you get nothing for staying alive until the last couple of players unless you win. And if you had the same resignation system as the new game, there'd be no flagging issues - nor the angst over when you should do it. You would simply pull the trigger when you'd had enough, and that would be that.

The one aspect of versions 1 and 2 that couldn't be replicated under the new system is ranked tables. I personally would not find that a loss. I played every level on the old one, and I did not see a discernable difference in the quality of play between 1600, 1800 or 2000. In this game, the skill ceiling is reached pretty quickly, and luck takes over. It seemed to me that the real point of the high-ranked tables was about being in a clique, and that's one aspect I'm happy to do without.

I respect and appreciate the work that's gone into the new version, I just think there's a much simpler way to make it about the game again.

Jos, your initial point about being too easy to get to 100+ tables and thus making them useless for finding skilled opponents misses the point.

Each new table, bring with the chance to win more points. The difference between 10 and 100 isn't great, but the amount of points on offer at a 500 point table or a 1000 point table will be significantly greater than that found on the 100 tables, and that will mean that good players playing there can gain points much faster than good players hanging around the low tables and taking out newbies. The differential you want does exist, it's just that the divide between 10 and 100 isn't where it is to be found

on the test server, before ryan started messing with the points, most people who deserved to be top 10 were top 10.

so in conclusion, you're wrong. the scoring will even out eventually when higher tables are introduced, it's not even been a week yet and pts are at 300, next week they will double, and the true players will emerge.

I have no doubt that you will not be amongst them.