Forum
Example of the need for higher scoring payouts
|
Tenacious Dio wrote
at 10:15 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT I came in 3rd in this game and got -4... Slice finishes 2nd in round 12. Rank: 1443rd Score: +4 to 19â—†. (+5 for 2nd and -1 for dominance) rugbyjoe finishes 1st in round 12. Rank: 231st Score: +17 to 87â—†. (+9 for 1st and +8 for dominance) +17 for first, +4 for second (come on!!!) and -4 for 3rd. It's not enough. You can argue that everyone is under the same system, but I'm talking about gameplay satisfaction. Why bother to play and get 4 crappy points for 2nd place! Someone who jumped out at the beginning of the game gets -5 or -6, and you get 4 points for 2nd? Please up the scoring payout for 1st 2nd and 3rd at the very least. |
Replies 1 - 5 of 5
|
JKD wrote
at 10:22 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT Personally I think people settle for 2nd more often than they should, hopefully this shall encourage allys to switch back and forth like on the first day of kdice.
|
|
|
JKD wrote
at 10:28 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT But I also expect that casual players shall hate getting negative points for 4th every single time it happens, even a year from now.
|
|
|
Tenacious Dio wrote
at 10:39 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT "casual players shall hate getting negative points for 4th"
That's the problem. I'm not saying 4th should get points, but I think that this low scoring system will diminish the amount of people playing this game. It's not as satisfying of an experience. Think Vegas. GAMEPLAY SATISFACTION. I can't say it enough. |
|
Ryan wrote
at 11:09 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT One thing to note here is that every game is different and you don't always get -4 for 3rd.
The amount of points you gain or loose are directly related to how every round of the game is played. As you play more you'll find different strategies to improve how well you do. Another thing to note is that when we first added dominance to scoring back in feb there were a lot of people playing with older strategies and getting negative points for second. The problem wasn't with the scoring it was that they were using older strategies. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 11:10 PM, Monday September 3, 2007 EDT another thing to note is that as far as scoring goes this change is a simplification of dominance and one that works much better and is much fairer. We've even provided a transparency to the scoring in each round to help everyone understand how it works.
|
