RE: Discussion on scoring systems ...

Ok, now I get it.  I originally slated it to be a player level metric like on-time orders but it's really more of a game level.  There should only be a total of 100 points for the game, not the player.  That's definitely something to think about for the next iteration.  Maybe scale the 100 points based on how many years.  The only difficulty is that it could be possible for an early eliminated player to gain more points than the remaining powers in say a 4-way.

I'll keep this one in the maybe pile.  I need to think it through and I want to see what players say about how it affects any tendencies to eliminate players.

 -- Sam
W: 425.228.3440 x.3363
P: 206.469.1305
F: 425.656.5558

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sloth
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dpjudge] Discussion on scoring systems ...



I know, self-responding - on reflection, the inequality of survivor points actually encourages needlessly eliminating players, since it denies them points, and denying points to someone is almost as good as earning your own.  On that basis alone, I'm not digging it.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Sloth <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Sam Tyler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> RE: A.  While people are venomous in face to face play, I don't find that in a lot of my on-line play experience.  To be sure, there are exceptions.  The biggest problem I have as a GM and as a player is that people don't talk after 1901.  As a GM, I see the number of press go down by much more than half, even in "super" games with people who are well known.  I wanted something to promote more communication and this seemed a good way to do that.
Some people are just more efficient in their communication :)

> I don't understand "an unlevel playing field" in "E".  Could you provide an example?
Game 1: One player is eliminated.  That player gets 0 pts, everyone else gets 100 pts, for a total of 600 pts.
Game 2: Four people are eliminated.  The first person eliminated gets 0 pts, the three survivors get 100 pts, and everyone else gets 0 >= X > 100 pts, for a total of 300 >= N > 600 pts.  N cannot be 600, so survivor pts between the two boards are unequal.

Personally, I don't really see this as a downside - players *should* get punished for killing players, since it actually takes them further away from a solo.  :)
--

Jonathan Swift  - "May you live every day of your life."



--

Samuel Goldwyn<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/samuel_goldwyn.html>  - "I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong."





DISCLAIMER: 
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s)
and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this
information is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in
error, please notify the sender then delete this message.