Draw! [Survivor button]

[nicestash]

How about a new game type called survivor where everyone alive at the round limit splits the points?

That's what I was thinking.
The problem is determining how many points every player gets (as shown in my previous comment where it was beneficial for a higher ranked player to hold a hostage).

[Metsfanmax]

How about a new game type called survivor where everyone alive at the round limit splits the points?

That's what I was thinking.
The problem is determining how many points every player gets (as shown in my previous comment where it was beneficial for a higher ranked player to hold a hostage).

Yes, it's problematic to calculate an average number of losers' points and split that evenly among the winning players, because a weaker player who manages to survive to the round limit should presumably earn more points. So instead, split up the points won from each player proportionate to the relative rating of the surviving players, weighted towards the lower ranked players more. As an example,

Player A: 1600 (loses)
Player B: 1400 (survives)
Player C: 2200 (survives)

The average surviving score is 1800, so Player A should lose 22.5 points. Player B then gets 2200 / (2200+1400) of that, and Player C gets 1400 / (2200+1400); that is, Player B earns 13.75 points and Player C earns 8.75 points.

In your example, if we used this approach, in the second scenario the 4000 point player would actually only win 1.6 points from each losing player (instead of 5 if he had outright won), as seems more appropriate.

[thehippo8]

How about a new game type called survivor where everyone alive at the round limit splits the points?

That's what I was thinking.
The problem is determining how many points every player gets (as shown in my previous comment where it was beneficial for a higher ranked player to hold a hostage).

Well, that solves the question I posed at the commencement (ie that in a two player game where there are two survivors the points are divided equally making a nil sum game or a draw!) but at the same time taking recognition of more complex modes (ie four sets of doubles in an eight player game where two teams survive - as an example). I like it - call it the survivor option!

NOTE: I have updated the initial post to include this as a more thorough explanation.

[TheForgivenOne]

Could this not bring in a whole different area of cheating? "I'm friends with player B, instead of me taking all the points, I can split them with him." Yeah yeah, we could punish them, but people are still going to try to find a way to tip toe around it.

Edit** Just throwing this into the fold, Don't believe I saw anyone post about it.

[greenoaks]

I hardly ever play adjascent reinforcements

me too

[thehippo8]

Could this not bring in a whole different area of cheating? "I'm friends with player B, instead of me taking all the points, I can split them with him." Yeah yeah, we could punish them, but people are still going to try to find a way to tip toe around it.

Edit** Just throwing this into the fold, Don't believe I saw anyone post about it.

Can't see how such cheating is any different from the same rationale in, say, three player games - or indeed anything else. CHeaters get caught then they get biffed out of CC ... good sport for the staff and the idiots have to live with themselves. Frankly, it is a non issue with the setting.

[thehippo8]

Here is an example of a game won within a 20 round setting ... against someone who really knows their stuff ... it makes the win that much more satisfying knowing that you faced a chance of getting squat if you didn't do it in time! Game 12486524

[greenoaks]

we should not be rewarded forr coming 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

play to win. winner takes all.

[thehippo8]

we should not be rewarded forr coming 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

play to win. winner takes all.

If you play in a team and get knocked out then you will still win points ...how is this any different? But your point is well made. Once I get some more feedback on the issue I may set up a poll.

[greenoaks]

we should not be rewarded forr coming 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

play to win. winner takes all.

If you play in a team and get knocked out then you will still win points ...how is this any different? But your point is well made. Once I get some more feedback on the issue I may set up a poll.

even though you are eliminated from games you live on as part of that team.

this will allow players to say 'hey, i'll help you to eliminate the guy coming 2nd and we'll share the points. this has been suggested before and rejected.

[thehippo8]

we should not be rewarded forr coming 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

play to win. winner takes all.

If you play in a team and get knocked out then you will still win points ...how is this any different? But your point is well made. Once I get some more feedback on the issue I may set up a poll.

even though you are eliminated from games you live on as part of that team.

this will allow players to say 'hey, i'll help you to eliminate the guy coming 2nd and we'll share the points. this has been suggested before and rejected.

Without putting too fine a point on the issue, just because a half baked idea has been rejected is no reason not to let a full baked idea as here be considered and accepted.

There are two issues. The first is whether we should have a setting that allows people to select the mode that round limits work. The second issue is how points are allocated. As to the first issue, by allowing round limits it is a logical extension to allow modes. As to the second issue, I am satisfied that the correct method for allocating points is to the survivors (and there might be, say, 3 in an 8 player game). If you can think of a better idea then let's have it because the only other valid suggestion (and we have moved on from that) was to not allocate any points to anyone on the basis that no one won!!

Are you advocating we go back to that suggestion just to stop cheaters cheating? I have some deep seated philosophical objection against allowing criminals and swindlers from running my life and I would need some serious convincing to suggest that there is any meaningful benefit to the CC community at large to pander to a few fools! But I digress

[greenoaks]

i am flat out against giving points for coming 7th and that's what will happen if only 1 player is eliminated in an 8-player escalating game

[thehippo8]

i am flat out against giving points for coming 7th and that's what will happen if only 1 player is eliminated in an 8-player escalating game

Well, sort of. As explained abouve, if you lose then you lose a set number of points given the nature of the ranking of the players. The points you lose (if you are the only one of eight) get split between the other 7. kind of like you were a team of one and they were a team of seven. But then again, no one is forcing you to select the option any more than you chosing adjascent reinforcements

[kuma32478]

Why not just have the round limit games go into overtime on a round by round basis. Currently it defaults to the player who joined first, which is arbitrary.

[spiesr]

Why not just have the round limit games go into overtime on a round by round basis. Currently it defaults to the player who joined first, which is arbitrary.

That is a completely different idea which is attempting to solve a different issue. Your idea would only come into play if there is a tie at the round limit, whereas this suggestion applies whenever a round limit is reached. Would you like to have your idea made into a separate thread?

[rishaed]

In chess where one player cannot beat the other in time setting and the flag falls without a win the game is a draw. Why not here?

As in chess, if you cannot win then you will play for a draw and that might affect the entire outcome of a war. Aside from clan games it would be an interesting setting generally. Kind of a putting your money on the line, are you really good? Or just lucky?[/list]

I am going to debunk your chess analogy, The second one is correct, however In the first one the player who runs out of time first loses. Its why there are such things as speedgames, where people have to move quickly so not to lose because they ran out of time. Draws happen when, There is insufficient material to checkmate, three move repetition check, or when both players agree to call it a draw.

[nicestash]

i am flat out against giving points for coming 7th and that's what will happen if only 1 player is eliminated in an 8-player escalating game

The idea is that, being that they only get points for eliminated players, people will start to attack the weakest people at the end in an attempt to eliminate them and thus get more points. This gets the game moving a lot faster at the end in case of a stale.

this will allow players to say 'hey, i'll help you to eliminate the guy coming 2nd and we'll share the points. this has been suggested before and rejected.

Each of the players would only get half of the points as if they'd one so this isn't really beneficial to either one.

[thehippo8]

I am going to debunk your chess analogy, The second one is correct, however In the first one the player who runs out of time first loses. Its why there are such things as speedgames, where people have to move quickly so not to lose because they ran out of time. Draws happen when, There is insufficient material to checkmate, three move repetition check, or when both players agree to call it a draw.

While you are quite correct in tournament over-the-board and causual time games there is an exception. It has been years since I played in tournaments and I now play almost exclusively on FICS. I typically play 3 minute games. At the end of the game if I run out of time but have insufficient pieces to win the game then the FICS server adjudicates the game as a draw (as long as my opponent has sufficient material to win - ie a rook, pawn, queen, two bishops etc). Because of that experience on FICS I had forgotten about the tournament rules. There is also an exception to the tournament rule in speed chess (ie 3 minutes) where the players can agree on terms similar to that delivered by FICS. When you are running out of time on FICS, you go hard out to remove the opponents winning chances and you will secure a draw rather than lose. I accept that I could have been clearer earlier. So you are right and I am right - just we were not speaking on the same terms ... sorry about that.

[chapcrap]

@thehippo8

Do you propose that this system replace the current round limit system or that it be run along side it?

[thehippo8]

@thehippo8

Do you propose that this system replace the current round limit system or that it be run along side it?

I propose it be an option, not a replacement,