I know this isn't the top priority of the warlight community, but would make a decent, and very easy update.

Change the amount of points you receive in a game so it isn't based off of the level of the other players (I am pretty sure it is). Instead, it should be based off how good the game was:

- Income, Armies & maybe territory amount difference at the end of the game (Greater Difference is less points, for team games make it team total difference)
- Turns the game lasted (Weight this by 1/100th or something)
- How many boots in the game (More is worse)
- How Lucky you were

Feel free to leave any suggestions or modify anything I said here.

Edited 7/29/2015 00:53:21

Or alternately don't penalise us for playing RT.

I like your ideas, Benjamin. Something else that would be an easy update, would be to give full points to a player when they win a game. I'm new to WL, so maybe I am missing something, but I never get 100% of the points a player contributes to the points pool. I played and won a game today. It says my opponent contributed 2,391 points, but I only get 50% of those points added toward leveling up.

At first, I thought this was perhaps I am a free member, and that paid members get 100% of the points, but when I went to the membership page, it isn't mentioned as a perk for purchasing a membership.

@xtimmiex, you're referring to the modifier. That is determined as follows:

50% for real-time games
75% for real-time tournament games
100% for multi-day game
150% for multi-day tournament games
200% for ladder games
500% for coin games

So ALE has been levelling up through coin games... interesting.

Thanks for that information, Beren! I did not know that.

Is there any particular reason why I'm being penalized for sitting down and finishing a game in one sitting? I sort of understand why a ladder game would give a better modifier, but if I were to take 15 days to play a 15 turn game, rather than finish it in one sitting... I would get rewarded with a 100% modifer? -- Not following the logic behind that.

Edited 7/29/2015 00:58:26

@Thomas, he must not be doing a very good job...

https://www.warlight.net/Coins/Leaderboard

Ale does not earn his points via coin games... He has never been on the leaderboard the last three seasons at least. Also I believe the coin game modifier is 400%, not 500%.

As for RT vs MD the argument is likely that MD is generally more strategic due to more time to consider options and are far less likely to be decided by boots

@Richard I agree but 50% vs 100% is a little much.

wow.. Real-time games are 50%?

Coin games and tournaments I could understand why it deserves and increase in terms of percentage but I don't see why Multi-day games should be a higher percentage?

Is it a "rope" to drag players to play Warlight and to reward them for it?

Doubtful as if this was the case it would visably show this in the open games stating the percentage of points.

and after reading Richards post above ^^ I would agree but there is a counter-argument for it.. Players on the "Real-Time" section would have to be fast in their strategies and would have to be careful to not lose time on the clock risking booting.

I see the reason for the 50% RT games as that you can play a bunch of them in one day, but I tend to play a single, long diplo or huge game with really long autoboot time, then take a break from Warlight for the rest of the day.

I don't play Multi-Day because I don't check my emails often, which I think the Multi-Day games use.

I don't play tournaments either because they take too long.

If it was based off close games, people would suicide armies just to make a win closer.

Not to mention it punishes someone for really outplaying another person. Why would we discourage good play?

I thought nobody cared about points anyway

@Richard: I think multi-day games only seem more strategic. While having more time may enable some players to find a better line of play in certain games, all players aren't able to fully utilize the time allocated to them.

I have never really played in a multi-day game, but I would imagine that you are allowed to use the same settings in multi-day as you are allowed to use real time games. In which case, can anyone justify a 40 player multi-day lottery game netting a higher percentage of the of prize pool than 40 player real time pure skill game?

I think most multi-day games are probably created because people are busy and don't have the time to finish a game in one sitting. I enjoy playing real time games because I play with friends and it is more a socially enjoyable atmosphere.

Perhaps a better idea would be to assign a point value to certain settings?
A few examples might be: 10 minute boot timer +1,000 points, luck factor above 50% -1,000 points, low boot rate prerequisite + 1,000 points.



@ChrisCMU: I don't think very many people care about the points, but the site kind of forces you to at the lower levels. When you are first starting out, it is pretty restrictive.

You don't have full access to: competitive ladders, maps, customizeable settings, open seats, name changes (once every 5 levels). It's not the players putting a value on the points, it is the site. :[

Edited 7/29/2015 06:32:35

timmie, if you think the current system is restrictive I can only imagine what you would have thought about the pre-points landscape. From what I recall, non-members were only allowed a maximum of 6 player games (24 players for members) and also could not alter the luck setting, being limited to the default 75%. They also weren't allowed access to the ladders or a majority of settings such as custom scenarios.

There is a reason so many older players actually bought membership and why you see so few newer players with memberships. The point structure completely destroyed the value of membership, especially with the allowance of lottery games (which should provide zero points).

@Richard Sharpe
It won't change because then people like me without them would whine constantly.