You are quite correct that the writeup doesn't make clear that kill bonuses are subtracted from the person who is killed. I've corrected that so that the rule is now clear.

Its importunat to understand that for the FFA rules to be consistant with other kinds of games, the points awarded has to total zero. That's why the kill bonuses had to be subtracted. Otherwise people (like me) who play lots of games will slowly move up the ladder just for playing lots of games, rather than actually have to win many of them.

But that aside, you raise a valid point that the minimal score benifits that have been showing up for games are being outweighted by kill bonuses, and are particularly dangerous for those at higher levels. I'm not particularly fond of the way things are working at the moment.

Personally what I'd like to do is change things so that all FFA games are worth a fixed number of points (Three- 5, Four&Five- 6/3, Six&Seven- 8/5/2, Eight- 10/7/4/1) and lower the kill bonus to be 2 points in general, 1 point if the person killed is 2 levels below you or a zero gamer.

But I'm open to suggestions. The only real rules is that the totals have to equal zero.

I just don't remember...

Why is there a kill bonus in FFA ?

And what's the problem if we remove that bonus ?

There was a kill bonus because one was requested (by greenmonster in specific.) The idea is that if you come in second only by turtling up that you shouldn't get as many points as someone who goes out there and works to defeat the other wizards.

I'm perfectly happy to remove it, if there is a consensus for that.

"There was a kill bonus" ... be careful, there still is lol

Can you explain a little more this : "Personally what I'd like to do is change things so that all FFA games are worth a fixed number of points (Three- 5, Four&Five- 6/3, Six&Seven- 8/5/2, Eight- 10/7/4/1)"

I suppose Eight means 8 players FFA and +10 points for the winner while -10 points for the loser, +7 for the second, etc.
But I don't understand "Six&Seven- 8/5/2" ...

Anyway, here is another idea:

Why don't we use this list from the Team games ?

Winning team is 61+ points higher..........1
Winning team is 46-60 points higher.......2
Winning team is 31-45 points higher.......3
Winning team is 16-30 points higher.......4
Winning team is 6-15 points higher.......5
Winning team is 0-5 points higher.........6
Winning team is 1-5 points lower..........6
Winning team is 6-15 points lower........7
Winning team is 16-30 points lower........8
Winning team is 31-40 points lower........9
Winning team is 41-50 points lower.......10
Winning team is 51-60 points lower.......11
Winning team is 61+ points lower..........12

If it's a 5-players FFA, then consider that the player ending 3rd doesn't win or lose any point, and consider the 2 winners as the winning team and the 2 losers as the losing team...

[This message has been edited by Chascal (edited 04-26-2004 @ 04:16 AM).]

Quote:

Six and Seven-player FFA basically have same results - as in only 6 people gain/lose the actual points (atleast that was the theory, I believe but with this killed-penalty, even the middle guy loses/gains points).

The team points idea has one drawback - it is a fixed amount of points without consideration for the number of players. Hence, a 3-player FFA and an 8-player FFA can have the same difference in points - and the players who won in the 8-player FFA will get a bad deal w.r.t the points awarded to them.

My suggestion is this:
Everybody who plays in a FFA game will contribute 1 ladder point to that particular game's "wizard's hat bounty".
Whoever kills another wizard will take his contribution - meaning 1 ladder point - from the kitty for himself.

Even though this way is similar to the already existing algorithm, players wouldn't have to lose 5 additional points just because they got killed - they lose just 1.

So, in a 5-player FFA, the "bounty" will hold 5 ladder points (LPs).
Say,
Pl.1 kills Pl.2
Pl.1 kills Pl.3
Pl.3 kills Pl.4
Pl.2 kills Pl.5

The "bounty" (with the contributions, specified by -1) will split up like:

Pl.5 (-1)
Pl.4 (-1)
Pl.3 (-1 +1 = 0)
Pl.2 (-1 +1 = 0)
Pl.1 (-1 +2 +1 = 2)

The additonal "+1" for Player 1 is due to his "bounty" not being claimed by anybody. Since there is nobody left to claim it, he gets it for himself.

Edit: To clarify, the bounty bonuses would be in addition to the point pool split up. Since the point pool split up results in the total being zero and this bounty bonuses also result in a sum of zero, the objective that the net points in a game is zero is also satisfied.

This might also force people to kill another wizard, as otherwise, they lose a min. of 1 point if they don't kill anybody else. This will make the turtling strategy not a viable one, I feel.

[This message has been edited by Timelord (edited 04-26-2004 @ 05:12 AM).]

Chascal: The reason I don't want to treat it like a team game is that I think that the 1st place player should get significantly more points than the 2nd place player. Right now I use the team game concept to decide how many total points a game is worth, but then give a larger share of those points to the winner than the second place player. If we just removed the kill bonus then we'd have pretty close to what you suggest there.

But the reason I wanted to go with fixed values though was so that 1) I could make sure the games were worth something with lowered kill bonuss and 2) we could balance the effect of kill bonuses and position points. If we keep the kill bonuses, something needs to be done.

Timelord: What you propose is the same thing, mathematically, as keeping the kill bonus the way it is, and setting it to one point. Not that that's a bad thing though I think I prefer 2 points to one.

[This message has been edited by hiranu (edited 04-26-2004 @ 08:50 AM).]

Quote:

Yep, it is.

But the effect of the kill bonus (and more importantly, killed-penalty) is reduced enough so that people don't get scared that they will not gain any points (or even lose some!!) even if they come second.

Another suggestion: (maybe totally crazy lol)

How about considering that when a player kills another player, we calculate it like a 1vs1 result inside the FFA game.

For example, if player A (rookie) kills player B (good rookie), the changes are +9/-9. Later, player A is killed by another rookie (same categorie) and the changes are thus +6/-6. So when the FFA game is over, player A has won +3 points, and player B has lost 9 points.

Just a thought but do the points have to equal zero? I know that people can get inflated scores just by activity but is that a bad thing? People could climb the ranks with losing records but, if someone has played 60 games, they'll be tough competition. Maybe they were just playing against tough opponents?

Also, FFA games take a long time to finish compared to a 1vs1 so will the points be that diverse? Or could you give the same kill points to all games?

(I'd answer my questions with statisics but I haven't even been able to figure out my ranking before it's updated.)

I thought about that, and there are a couple of problems.

1) You only get points for people you kill. The problem with a kill-bonus only game is that its not at all impossible to almost defeat someone, and have an "ally" swoop in and take the kill. Having kill bonus

2) The point factors come out looking wrong. For exmple, in the recent Game #345: FFA: Hiranu(97->110***)...greenmonster(142->142*-)...Evil Roc(142->139-)...Alex Mars(83->79-)...Gryffone(76->70-)

Under your proposal that would have been
Hiranu vs greenmonster +/- 12
Greenmonster vs Evil roc +/- 6
Hiranu vs Alex Mars +/- 3
Hiranu vs Gryffone +/-3

SO I would have gained 12+3+3 = 18 points
Greenmonster would have gained 6 and lost 12 = -6 points
Evil roc would be -6 points
Alex Mars would be -3 points
Gryffone would be -3 points.

So despite coming in second, Greenmonster would have walked away from the game losing six points, more than the person who came in last place.

I think there shoudl be a balance between kill bonus and position, but if we're going to pick one or the other, I'd lose the kill bonus before the position points.

Tibbs: When I had finished my first 60 games, I was a "rookie" with about 70 points total. And I truly deserved to be there. Now that I've finished more than 100, I'm doign better, but you have to be careful. The games average out over the long haul, and if I got even half a point for every game I played on average, then I'd have the high score on the board right now. And as most of the better players can tell you, I'm ok, but I'm really not that good.

Leaving the case study asside, the problem with ladders where you can accumulate points like that is that people who have been around for ages get to a place where they can't really be brought back down by someone who joins up recently. The advantage of this system is that a relativly new player starts in the middle, and its not at all impossible to get to the top in a relativly short time if you win most or all of yoru games.

Battlefields works in a way that is mostly zero sum, but with a few differences. And they reset their ladder every year to keep it from getting out of control. (I was the #1 player earlier this year on that board for awhile cause I played a few quick games. I'm still in the top 5 cause I accumulate points.)

Lastly, before FFA games were added, the games were all zero sum. We really do want to stay consistant so that one type of game doesn't dominate the ladder. And as such, it really needs to stay zero sum.

As for FFA games taking a long time to finish, that really varies. I've been in two player games that lasted much longer than some of the 4 player games I've been in. With the right people (and tibbs you know what I mean since you are one) you can finish a several FFA games in the time it takes people to finish one large 1v1 game.

But more importantly we're not rewarding people based on how much effort they put in, or how long it takes them, or what size map they do it on. (Though battlefield does, to a limited degree). We reward people for winning.

[This message has been edited by hiranu (edited 04-26-2004 @ 01:11 PM).]

I think it would be a good idea to decrease kill bonuses a little (something like +3 if "killer" is two or more categories lower, +1 if he is two or more categories higher and +2 in other cases), but I think that points for positions should be higher (about 150% of the current level).

Quote:

After a bit of quick math (of the example game) my results show that Hiranu would gain a couple more points, Greenmonster would not be at zero but plus 2 or 3, Evil Roc would be close to zero and Alex Mars and Gryffone would lose the most points. This could be wrong because I couldn't get it to balance zero math taunts me again! but if it is correct, I think that the winner of a FFA should get a lot of points and the first couple of people out should supply them. Second place would receive something, but not much, and the middle player is unaffected. Sounds good to me--- if it is actually that way.

[This message has been edited by Tibbs (edited 04-27-2004 @ 10:18 AM).]

Ok. Looking at this here's what I'm thinking of doing.

3 player = 5/1/-6
4 player = 7/3/-3/-7
5 player = 8/4/1/-4/9
6 player = 10/7/3/-3/-7/-10
7 player = 11/8/4/1/-4/-8/-12
8 player = 12/9/6/3/-3/-6/-9/-12

Kill bonuses are 2 points by default, 1 point if the person you killed is 2 or more categories lower, 3 points if the person is 2 or more categories higher.

The person who takes the lead gets at least one kill bonus for finishing, so in a few cases I've skimmed a point off of his total to give to the "middle" player. Since the "middle" player counts as winning for win/loss record totals, I thought it would be nice if they get one point.

So what do people think? Is this better than what we have now? Or worse?

Ok, actually that was a dumb idea. I've remmebered why I didn't do that to begin with, and what it would break if we did it that way.

[This message has been edited by hiranu (edited 04-28-2004 @ 11:44 AM).]

i like that point system better, but I think the kill bonus needs to be worked on still.

I think Timelord may have been on to something with his 'point pool' idea.
Or there should be a flat bonus, that does not take player level into account.
I think its that 'level' that is screwing things up, and I dont think its important in a FFA game; the 'more skilled' player is usually ganged up on in a FFA anyway, and if they have to kill almost everyone, AND have to avoid being killed in order to avoid losing points, then I forsee alot of 'higher level' players avoiding FFA games, which is the opposite effect we are looking for.

I have NOT plugged numbers into these ideas to see how valid they are, but here are a few 'solutions' to be kicked around;

1 - Flat 'fee' - all wizard kills are worth 2 points.; very simple and easy to track. can lead to problems in a 3 player game, since the middle man still loses a point (unless he makes a kill), and we dont want a 'win' giving negative points.

2 - Flat 'fee' according to game size - also easy to track, and it avoids the problem above. game with 3-4 players = 1 pt per kill, 5-6 = 2 pt per kill, 7-8 = 3 pts per kill. This may also encourage large FFA games, since players have plenty of opportunities to get kills to help negate any ladder point losses, and can only lose at most an additional 3 points.

3 - the 'betting pool' - all players agree before the game how many points a kill will be worth. If the player who reports the game gives Hiranu the info, it shouldnt be too complicated to track. Could add some fun to the game. Limits for the amount of points you can 'bet' would need to be limited somehow... perhaps no more then 1-5 points per wizard? Perhaps poinst bet would be 'capped' by the experience level you were at, letting the 'big boys' play for larger amounts of points (although if they played vs another level, they too would be capped by that limit amount).

4 - the 'experience pool' - players are worth a number according to either the rank they are at (ex; all inters are 2 points, all high inters are 3, etc..), or according to the level they are at VS the average experience level of all players involved. Could get difficult to track.

5 - 'middle man' - points are calculated as normal, but the person who finishes in the middle of teh pack in a game with an odd # of players gets 0 points. if they would have lost points according to the current rules, then those points are instead substracted from (choose 1) a - the winner; b - the person who finishes just ahead of them (who can no worse then gaining 1 point, or theose negative points keep traveling 'up' until used up); c - negative points spread evenly among (again, choose 1) a - all players involved ; b - the 'winners' ; c - the 'losers' ; d - the players on either posistion of the man in the middle.

6 - 'bounty hunter' - players are worth 'x' points (decided by rank, or rules, or player agreement; whatever; could be an equal # for all involved, or some players have to kick in more then others...), and will get a score equal to the total value of the wizards they kill... but there is no 'score for rank' included! 'camping' and 'turtleing' are completely discouraged, since points are based solely on kills. Players would still get a 'win' or 'loss' according to rank however (or would they?), but it does not effect their ladder points.

7 - no wizard kill bonus; points for placement only.

8 - wizard kills are NOT SUBTRACTED from you when you are killed.
this is the way the rule was written originally, and it seemed everyone agreed with it. Hiranu has raised a point that someone (like him ) playing in a ton of games would eventually find their way up the ladder really quickly if this was the case (which I'm not too sure if I agree with, since you lose points if you dont rank well), so perhaps the kill bonus would need to be lowered; maybe 1 point per wizard? I think the nature of a FFA puts a player at more risk, and even the best of us can be killed off first and lose hefty points, so I dont see the need to require things to balance out to zero.
If it NEEDS to because of the wizard ladder tracking program, then perhaps we can make a 'ghosty' named "FFA" and take all negative points away from its score? I'd then challange the community to see how fast we can make him plummet down to zero!

9 - Chascal's idea from post 8 ('all kills inside the FFA game are treated as if they were a 1 on 1 WL game'). I like it, although it sounds like it may be alot of work for poor Hiranu!

------------------------------------------------

after coming up with a few of these ideas, perhaps its best to NOT have 1 official way.

perhaps we can have a few, and players choose ahead of time before they play, and keep track of things themselves to lessen Hiranu's workload?

I really like the 'betting pool' and 'bounty hunter' ideas (basically the same, only 1 involves points for where you place) the best, but I know my tastes are usually the most universal.

I also dont see the need to have player level factor into a FFA game (although some people may), but wouldnt mind seeing it factor into the game somehow (like the 'betting limits' idea in idea #3). I think it throws a wrench into the scoring system, but then again, maybe thats just because I felt 'screwed' for finishing second in a 5 player game (with a kill), and getting no points!

I ALSO see the wizard kill points as more important then the placement points, and would hate to see them gotten rid of... I've seen way too many games where a player sits back and does nothing, but still finishes in the top few. It makes for a long and boring game (I've also seen a wizard run around by himself for many days just to place higher, even though he had no kingdom and should have been eliminated). That said, I realize that some people are all about the placement and dont care for the wizard kills. Diversity is good. Its kind of like Major league baseball... Purists love the National League, and Hate the American League because they employ the Designated Hitter (DH). I know alot of people who hate the National League, because they hate to see the pitcher TRYING to bat, and see it as a 'free' out. the Purists (in the majority) want the DH eliminated. While I'm an AL fan, I would never want to see the NL adopt the DH rule, since I appreciate the different styles of play, and love the diversity (although I think watching NL games is a bit boring ).... (can you tell its baseball season, and I'm a bit 'involved' in it already?! )

[This message has been edited by greenmonster (edited 04-28-2004 @ 02:06 AM).]

about the new points for placement levels, I think that there should be more of a reward for placing first, and more of a gap between finishing first and second, especially in larger games... more of a 'bell curve' point distribution;

8 player = 15/9/5/2/-2/-5/-9/-15

perhaps that may be too harsh on the losers, and it should look like this instead;

8 player = 15/8/5/2/-2/-6/-9/-13

I like the "betting pool" idea - with a slight modification. Either the players can choose a single point-worth for all wizards playing or players can "bet" points. As in each player can put forward a stake of how many points he wishes to bet in the game. This way, each player bets some of his ladder points in each WL FFA game he plays - and each wizard is worth different points. Can lead to complications in-game but should be fun.
Of course, there should be a min and max cap to the amount, as already suggested by GM.

One thing that should come out of all this discussion is the removal of negative points for being killed. We can even create a ghost player as GM suggested and include it in all games - to take those negative points away.

I like a lot of ideas here... it's hard to make a choice!

And I also feel like there should be a second WL... one for Team and 1vs1, and one for FFA games.

Do we have to choose just 1?

• I think the winner of a FFA game should get a lot of points. In the last one I was in, I was beaten everytime I went north and had an alliance to the west. It was 'forced turtling'. The net result was that I finished 2nd and I shouldn't be rewarded for that effort. (Especially since 2nd and 3rd teamed-up on the winner and still lost)
  
• Betting rocks! High-stakes pbem. I'd enjoy those.
  
• Referring to the first point; Wizard kill bonuses are needed
  
• I don't like the idea of a seperate WL for FFA games because if someone was leading it, I know that I'd be the first person (and not the only one) to gang-up on them. In Survivor All-Stars all of the former winners were the first to go. (bad show by-the-way)
  
• I love the idea about a seperate Team Wizard Ladder. People challenging 'set' teams that could even be named. That would be great. How much time do you have Hiranu?
  

I appreciate the feedback everyone's given, and I need to reply to all of it, so I'm going to break up my responses into several posts. However we all need to remember some of the assumptoins that we're starting with.

1) There is only one wizard's ladder. Right now I don't have time to make the kind of changes adding a ladder would take, and it would also require time and effort from people higher up than me, who have even less time.

2) Because the FFA rules are being grafted onto an already existing wizard's ladder we need to be consistant as much as possible with the points as they are awarded in non FFA games. This boils down to 2 principles.

a) All games must sum to zero points.
b) Player get more points for defeating higher categories, and fewer points for defeating lower ones.

Because of this we're going to reach an imperfect solution no matter what we select. But its necesssary, otherwise FFA games will break the list, and need to be removed altogether.

Comments on Greenmonster's Ideas

I'm not as woried about the middle perosn not losing points, but we can move things around if that's important to others. In my opinion of you die in the middle and you havn't killed anyone, you deserve to lose a few points.

The other thing I want to poin out is that this is all done in a script that I wrote/modified, rather than figuring things out by hand. So some ideas may be easier to impliment than was implied.

That being said, let me make some comments on the individual ideas.

1. Flat fee - workable, but a bit dull.

2. Flat fee based on game size - Since the winner gets more kills in larger games, having them also be worth more escalates things rather quickly. I don't tihnk that's worthwhile, but again if the change is 1-3 points, it wouldn't hurt much.

3. Betting pool - Like everyone else, I like this idea. But the caps are important, and having higher caps for players with higher point totals might have some merit.

4. Experice pool - also a good idea, wouldn't be hard to track at all.

5. Middle man - could be messy to code having the points travel up. But doable if its important.

6. Bounty Hunter - I think there should be some bonus for the overall winner, but having most of the points come from this method could be interesting.

7. no kill bonus - Doable but boring.

8. Kills not subtacted - Adding a fake player is just another way to make the point total not balance to zero, and so is not an optoin.

9. All kills are treated as if 1v1 - Actually not that much work for me, but I'm not sure people will like the results. It works best for the goal of keeping with the general theme of the ladder, but if you play with actual numbers, it can get ugly. If you are one level above all the other players, you will gain 3 points for each kill made, but lose 9 points if you get killed. So in a five player game if you come in second AND you killed every player before you, you would break even with 0 points. Not a good idea.

I can impliment multiple ideas and its not all that much omre work in the long run. It takes a bit of work when I first write the code, but after that its just picking what button to push to pul up the right algorithm to grade the game. But even if we impliment mulitple options, they all need to fit the basic criteria.

And I agree, wizard kills are more important than placement points.

Some specific ideas from me in my next post.

[This message has been edited by hiranu (edited 04-28-2004 @ 04:02 PM).]

One idea should have been stated before. We do need to do something for player level. I've been in a lot of FFA's, and it doesn't look like the more skilled players are being ganged up on. In fact for the most part (with one notable exception that started this thread) the more experienced players are winning. And even in that exception, the experienced players were 2nd and 3rd of 5.

As for defining what a "win" or "loss" is for win/loss record, that will remain the same regardless of the scoring changes. Top half are winners, as is the middle man in an odd number of players game.

People seem to think having a copule of different optoins is good, so I've put some concrete numbers on ideas people have been suggesting. I can impiment any or all of these, and people can chose when they register the game.

1) Betting/Experience pools -

Player "ante up" based on where they are on the ladder (Rookies/GR - 1 pt, Low Int/Int - 2 pt. High Int/Exp - 3 points) and that will be devided between the winners with the ultimate winer geting the lions share. Then people agree to a level between 1 and 5 and put up that many time their ante, and that is the kill bonus for whoever kills them.

This has the advantage that you know the most you can lose before you start playing, and if nobody kills you, you get your whole bet back. The drawback is that you don't have that big of a reward for position.

2) Winner take all

Every player kicks in points as above, but the player who comes in first gets all the points in he kitty, and everyone else gets nothing (just loses their investment). probably kick in only 1 or 2 multipliers, no more than 4.

3) Assassin/Bounty Hunger

Players are worth points based on thier position on the ladder. 1 for Rookie, 2 for GR, 3 for Low Inter, 4 for Inter, 5 for high inter, 6 for Expert. Either there is no position bonus, or everyone kicks in 1 point to a kitty to be given to the overall winner.

4) "Survivor"

No kill bonuses. People contribute points based on their rank, 3 for rookies, 4 for GR, 5 for low inters, 6 for inters, 7 for high inters, 8 for experts. We divide this pool amoung the winners as currently defined except that middle player, if there is one, gets one point from the player coming in second.

5) Current system with modifications to raise kill values

He point point is left as is, determined by the relative point totals of the "winners" and the "losers". Base kill value 5 points base, 6 points if two levels higher, 4 points if two lower. This means a "winner" could end up with negative points if they don't make kills, but is lowers the spread so if you make one kill and then are killed the worst that spread could be is 2 points.

6) Current system with modifications to lower kills

Leave the overall point values of the game to be based on a comparison between the winning side and losing side's total points. But add a multiplier so there are about half again as many points to devide, and drop current kill bonses to 2 points, with 1 point for 2 levels lower and 3 points for 2 levels higher. Tihs puts most of the points in position rather than kills.

So which of the above do people think are worth making available for options? Is there tweaking you think will make any of them more functoinal? And are there other options you want me to consider?

You should create a poll, you know... lol

Okay, here is how I see this after all the suggestions...

In a FFA game, I tend to think that there's only 1 winner! The others are losers.
Although it's also true that you deserves something if you finish 2nd or 3rd if there are many players.

Kill bonus: (fixed) +2/-2 points.
(I think WL ranking shouldn't count here.)
Otherwise why would I join a game with many lower-rated players ?
I would have more to lose than them, and so I'll be the target, because everybody would want to kill me!

3 players : +4 -1 -3
4 players : +6 00 -2 -4
5 players : +7 +2 -1 -3 -5
6 players : +9 +4 00 -3 -4 -6
7 players : 10 +6 +1 -1 -4 -5 -7
8 players : 12 +7 +2 00 -3 -4 -6 -8

That way, "turtling players" will find it hard to gain points!
In an 8-pl FFA, if he doesn't kill anybody, he only doesn't lose any point if he ends 3rd!
While an active player ending 4th will win 2 points if he's killed 2 wizard!

Quote:

The same question would apply to 2 player or team games. Why would you play with a lower level player if winning only gets you 3 points, and costs you 9. Or even worse if they are 3 levels lower winning gains you 1 point, and losing costs you 15.

The structure of the ladder discourages high level players playing with lower level players. All of the suggestions for how to structure the ffa games are in fact easier on high level players than a 2 player game would be, but there needs to be some affect of level on the points gained or lost.

hiranu, I kinda disagree...

in a one on one game, an experienced player risks more points for the chance of small reward when playing a lower player, but there is really very little at risk, since a good player should win. The experienced player really has full control of their destiny.
almost the same can be said of a team game, only you have to rely on someone else for your success (or failure).

In a FFA game, there is very little one can do to save themselves should others decide to gang up.
making an experienced player worth more points would only encourage the 'gang-up' syndrome.

Discouraging better players from playing with the less experienced is not a good idea. It is through those games that we develop better players in our community... I know I took alot of beatings in aow1 before I got good. Now I enjoy playing with the less experienced, not to thrash them to gain cheap ladder points, but to teach them a few things so they become better players.
FFA's are great for this purpose, since they bring a large blend of experience and playstyles together.

----------------------------------------------

Quote:

I also disagree with this. I think the only thing that needs to be consistant with the other game types is the amount of points that can be gained/lost at 1 time. What we dont want to see is a whole bunch of FFA games being played just becausze they give you a good chance to fly up the ladder quickly!
Of course, we COULD allow multipliers for normal WL games so they could be worth more points, too, if we wanted. * more on this below *
The 'zero sum' principle isn't neccesary, especially if the kill bonus was just 1 per wizard, but I can see where it could cause some problems, so I have no problem with it.
point 'b', I just plain dont agree with. I think it CAN be part of some of the solutions, but I dont think it NEEDS to be a part of all of them. In fact, when reading through your last ideas, implamenting the 'catagories' tends to make all of those different scoring systems sound the same.

keep in mind that my ideas were just guidelines, and I assigned no values or hard and fast rules to any of them. I also meant for those systems to be used (or not used) in conjunction with the posistion scores.
I should have time this weekend to come up with a set of 'game options' for the community to review.
While I think its great to have a few different ways to play and score, I think having too many will be too confusing and unnecesary for our small community, so I'll try to break the styles down to the bare essentials.

-----------------------------------

*** about the 1on1/team game multipliers ***

if the point system(s) we adopt for FFA games allows for an abundance of points, then something should be done to allow the other game types to also keep pace. For this, I suggest a multiplier.
for example, if an expert plays a low inter, the game is worth 1 point to the expert, but 15 to the low inter. IF, before the game, they agreed to a x2 multiplier, then the game would be worth 2 to the expert, and 30 to the low inter. Similarly, a multiplier could be agreed to before a team game, also.

now, as you can see in that example, the points can REALLY add up quickly with a multiplier, so we would need to come up with some restrictions, but it should also be pretty self-regulating... take for example, that example is a low inter really going to beat an expert? perhaps even a bigger factor is that what expert would take the risk vs reward on that challange? Yes, its an almost guaranteed 2 points, but you COULD drop 30?!?!?! No Thanks!

Quote:

at the same time, this can really add some spice to those matches on the same level... 2 inters going at it for 6 points is no big deal, but slap a x3 multiplier on that grudge match and the community will watch the turn logs!
even better, let 2 experts duke it out with a x5 multiplier!

some restrictions I suggest from the top of my head are:
1 - zero gamers are not allowed to have multiplers in their games.
2 - a player can only be involved in 1 multiplier game at a time (since it could easily make them drop a level and effect other ladder game values)
3 - rank determins the maximum multiplier you can use... if you are an expert, we assume you know what you are getting yourself into, so you can use a x5. x4 for high inters, x3 for inters, x2 for all others.
4 - an expert (group A in the above chart) can not use a multiplier against those from groups E or F. a High Inter can not use a multiplier against group F.