Runner-Up Points

[saxitoxin]

Concise description:

• As an option in all games, "Runner-Up Points" (RUP) can be selected.
• If RUP is selected, the last player to be eliminated will not lose any points (and, consequently, the winner will not receive said players points).
• If multiple players are simultaneously "last player eliminated" when RUP is selected, whichever has the most troops will receive Runner-Up Points.

Specifics/Details:

• see above

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Lessens the risk for highly-ranked players to play lower-ranked players in large multi-player games.
• A slight discouragement effect on highly-ranked players who are losing a game attempting to take-out the low-ranked players in their last breaths.
• Creates the opportunity for "friendly" games; in 2 player games where RUP is selected, no one will lose any points.

[clangfield]

Concise description:

• As an option in all games, "Runner-Up Points" (RUP) can be selected.
• If RUP is selected, the last player to be eliminated will not lose any points (and, consequently, the winner will not receive said players points).
• If multiple players are simultaneously "last player eliminated" when RUP is selected, whichever has the most troops will receive Runner-Up Points.

Specifics/Details:

• see above

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Lessens the risk for highly-ranked players to play lower-ranked players in large multi-player games.
• A slight discouragement effect on highly-ranked players who are losing a game attempting to take-out the low-ranked players in their last breaths.
• Creates the opportunity for "friendly" games; in 2 player games where RUP is selected, no one will lose any points.

I appreciate the principle but against it in practice in case of accidental selection (ie joining a game that has it when you don't want it) which may lead to an increase in deadbeating.
I think it will also impair the speed at which games will fill up, as freemium may be less likely to go for it. Might be okay for friends, but personally if I join to play a higher ranked player it's because I want their points.

[owenshooter]

sorry, not everyone gets a trophy or a parade...-Jésus noir

[mrswdk]

Yeah, this isn't Cuba saxi.

[TheForgivenOne]

All I see is 2 friends supporting/teaming up in this setting.

[owenshooter]

All I see is 2 friends supporting/teaming up in this setting.

can you imagine the influx of C&A complaints if this was actually implemented? wow...-Jésus noir

[saxitoxin]

Hi clangfield, owneshooter, TFO, mrswdk. I'd like to invite you all to SUCK IT.

[owenshooter]

Hi clangfield, owneshooter, TFO, mrswdk. I'd like to invite you all to SUCK IT.

and i would like to invite you to creating a good suggestion... you should try it sometime... the black jesus has responded to your flame...-Jésus noir

[clangfield]

Hi clangfield, owneshooter, TFO, mrswdk. I'd like to invite you all to SUCK IT.

Is that really warranted?
You made a suggestion: like ALL others, it should be subject to critique before implementing. If you can provide counter-arguments to our objections or concerns, then feel free, and we'll reach a consensus; simply sulking is not going to get any suggestion implemented.
As I said, I appreciated the principle, so it's not as if I've said anything derogatory, merely pointed out possible flaws. If you don't think they are, then tell us why, in an adult way.

[Evil Semp]

As Charles Barkley said "WIN OR GO HOME."

[rockfist]

I'm in favor or the runner up being given an additional allotment of -10 points because as an old mentor of mine once said "second sucks."

[saxitoxin]

I'm in favor or the runner up being given an additional allotment of -10 points because as an old mentor of mine once said "second sucks."

more like you suck

[Donelladan]

Runner-Up means nothing. Runner-up deserves nothing.
If it is escalating game, runner-up is obviously meaningless.
In assassin this wouldn't work at all.
Could kind of work in terminator but would be a shame.
In a standard flat rate / no spoils game,runner-up option would destroy the game.
If there is a clear leader, the only chance for the other players is to team up against the leader, if the 2nd player know he will not lose point he will not help and game balance is destroyed.
Btw, if you finished 2nd in a flat rate/ no spoils game it means you sit on your ass letting the leader get away with the game, and you deserve to lose points imo, not the small guy that couldn't do anything anyway.

Plus, ofc, SD problems. You could find a partner that throw game away as long as he finished 2nd, he lose no points, you win all, and you can do it again exchanging 1st and 2nd. Not saying it doesn't happen already but why incite people to do it even more.

Lessens the risk for highly-ranked players to play lower-ranked players in large multi-player games.

Doesn't help at all for this issue.

A slight discouragement effect on highly-ranked players who are losing a game attempting to take-out the low-ranked players in their last breaths.

I don't see the discouragement, only work if there is only one high ranked player and he is 2nd.

Creates the opportunity for "friendly" games; in 2 player games where RUP is selected, no one will lose any points.

That's good but it's better to create non-point game for real.

[rockfist]

In a way, I have a theory in Terminator games that is a cousin of this - I play only to be the last one standing when the game ends. Yes, I take eliminations if they are available and I will not overextend to do so, but they only elimination I truly care about getting is the last one. You gain points in a Terminator game if you get the last elimination...as a higher ranked player you can get 3-4 eliminations early and still lose points.

But this simply will not work. Having the 2nd player sit around and do nothing will pro-long and ruin the game play.

[Endgame422]

I agree with this suggestion.
For 1v1 games only.

[saxitoxin]

I agree with this suggestion.
For 1v1 games only.

So that's 8 in favor and 2 opposed.

[ManBungalow]

BONUS SUGGESTION:

A trophy awarded to a frequent runner up. Available in bronze ✪, silver ✪, gold ✪ and platinum ✪ varieties, in no particular order.

[clangfield]

BONUS SUGGESTION:

A trophy awarded to a frequent runner up. Available in bronze ✪, silver ✪, gold ✪ and platinum ✪ varieties, in no particular order.

I think that risks people deadbeating in order to avoid winning, just so they can get the trophy. I don't think you should be encouraging that.
OP - if you ever want a suggestion to be taken seriously (as it's possible you may come up with a good one), I suggest you change your attitude.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

I agree with this suggestion.
For 1v1 games only.

You may prefer this similar suggestion.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=213990

[Endgame422]

So that's 8 in favor and 2 opposed.

Please show your work in the margin.
This answer is correct but im afraid you might have copied off of wings paper.

[ch0rn]

Not a fan of this. Here is a scenario, 1 player is dominating the game, multiple other players left who are all about equal. In a normal game, those other players best strategy would be to band together and help fight down the current leader. If you add this rule, the best strategy then becomes to pucker your butthole and hope you are the last one eliminated. I can see even worse scenarios where one of the other players forms a truce with the leader saying to eliminate them last as part of the deal.
The point of the game is to win, not to be the last loser.

[betiko]

This suggestion has been rejected! Suck it!

[saxitoxin]

This suggestion has been rejected! Suck it!

no, you



betiko

[owenshooter]

Offial Team CC Response to Saxi:




Thank you for your suggestion. REJECTED and *LOCKED*-Jésus noir

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

You cannot post one clip without the other. Greatest film ever