morphles wrote:If you have government with per nation unit support (not per city).
Meaning, if you came in first, you get 100 points. If you were 10th of 20 players, you get 50 points. If you were 15th of 20 players, you get 75 points and so on. (This should *not* include potential bots.)
Simply, if it is allowed, an advanced player is able to gift a better rank to a medium-ranked player at absolutely no cost to himself, simply because he decided to do so.
morphles wrote:Simply, if it is allowed, an advanced player is able to gift a better rank to a medium-ranked player at absolutely no cost to himself, simply because he decided to do so.
Even if I'm no a fan of tech trade, I think it is at least somewhat important to overall game. Also your statement is demonstrably untrue with my scoring, give free tech -> player gets more score -> gets larger share of total -> your share decreases disadvantage to you.
Scoring of leagues (at least public ones) has serious likelihood to be bullshit. For example crap like basketball soccer and any other stuff like that use stupid tournament structure to build up tension to one final match and sell lots of tickets. Elimination tournaments are seriously unfair, but all over the place due to monetary constrains.
Possibly F1 (I don't follow it) is somewhat better, still I think it likely has simplified scoring for the "benefit of viewers" and not players or fairness. While board game competitions, like chess have a much better and fairer ranking system, most of the time everyone plays everyone and gains/loses rank from every encounter, and it totally does not depend on your place in tournament. If you are by far weakest player and end up lass, but still score couple of wins against high ranking players your rank might increase much more then any of players placed above you.
Now about your scoring affecting behavior "better", well it sounds dubious at best. Leading player might see it better for him to ally weak player, to knock of close match which might threaten him in future, thus giving more boost him in a long run, then gaining few points now from taking out weaker player.
Another thing about your system, scores might end up having insurmountable differences long before game end, and thus your final points and score might be clear long before the game end.
Lastly I think you are seriously overstating how much aggression would favored. You would be rather unlikely to go far while on rampage even if from mid game. Thus I don't see how it would affect early/mid game situation much, for rational players.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest