Players shouldn't lose points for anything other than booting. I agree with Fleece, though, just give everyone the features from the start. It's not like lotteries don't exist, but they're just an uneeded timewaste.

Players shouldn't lose points for anything other than booting.

I don't agree. Not fully. For the surrendering I wrote before,I do now. After thinking,nobody can say if the team could win or not.

But for the time waste,I think... He should be suspended with something. That's my idea.

No offense,

Should points be given out for losing?

This depends on how you look at a game. 1v1's are most easily looked at like a standard match of whatever, where one team loses and one wins. If you look at a 40 player FFA, its more like a F1 race, where people come in different places, and progressively lesser awards are given to lower positions.

I think yes. Just my opinion

Although I am new in this game (regarding my record here) I agree with first poster that not only winner should be awarded with points. In ladder games there are points for losing side, but there is only important average (or something like that).

There is side back when more people get points as, for instance in FFA, two players can fight others while doing all cooperative, so at the end they both remain alive, and fight each other for first place. If that fact is not known to other players they will be in disadvantage over cooperative couple (or teams).

But, in large FFA games, one can lead all the time, and then, suddenly, come between 2nd and 3rd by the strength, and lose everything.

So, it is not easy to say what the one will deserve for his contribution in game. We now have absurd situation that booted player, if his team wins, also gain points although his contribution may be none or neglibible. Surrendered players, too. So, picking points for not doing anything will be easy, just enter in few hundred games (ruin them, of course) and get spoils.

But, how to award players who contribute most to the game and still lose? There may be 2 different ways to achieve points - by calculating army/income per turn comparing to winner, so second place can be awarded with 10% points (not the only possible solution), or by voting by other players (after the game ended) who, by player's opinion/choice was best player save winner, and such player(s) will be awarded with 10% points (I said players as in large FFA there may be few players who should take points).

one can lead all the time, and then, suddenly, come between 2nd and 3rd by the strength, and lose everything.



You still lost though.

Would it be better if a player earned 10 Xp for losing via surrender or elimination, but gained nothing for boot. Then the gain is none or negligible.

if it's going to be neglible might as well be nothing

No, cos then people would have even more reason to drag games out.

I hate the leveling system and xp system, it creates complete ass-hats in games. That's why I tend to make more and more of my games practise, the chilled environment is what Warlight should be about imo...

Maybe leveling should just be easier or something? I mean, thoretically as players on the whole level up, then leveling becomes easier as you can beat higher level opponents (getting up to about level 40 on Kongregate is a real mission, when I transfered to here I jumped to level 50 or so just because there were so many level 50+ around to beat)

should people get points even thought they lost. This of course wouldn't nearly be half the amount of point you would get if you would win.
0
To open to abuse, We will start seeing alot more games finish if this was passed ^ ;)

Yes, brilliant idea.

We should also reward getting booted, going PE in diplos, stalling ladders, and hijacking clans!

Makes sense in large FFA's when you come 2nd out of 40 players. But not worth the effort to implement in my opinion.

@Ox i so agree that is best idea ever you should user voice it

but i would add rigging games to that

Edited 3/6/2016 18:28:40

I still demand points for 200 games that I won years before the whole level system.

okay okay people, i get it

I generally feel that in an FFA, maybe second or even third could potentially win points.
However, I'm okay with the current system.

+1 buns.

In a 20+ player Ffa:
1st 100
2nd 33
3rd 11

In a 10+ player FFA:
1st 100
2nd 25
3rd 8
In a 5+ player Ffa:
1st 100
2nd 20
(percent)

2nd in what regard? Most armies? 2nd man standing? 2nd highest income? I think armies is the way to go tbh if you're going to give points to multiple players.

The actual definition of second or third player might be difficult indeed, but I like the idea of them getting some points in (team-)FFA games. That way, people are encouraged to keep playing even if they are losing, thus making the game more about strategy instead of "my early neighbour surrendered after I got the upper hand and yours didn't, so I win the game".