eliminating points

[Moodie]

From what I've seen elimanting points would be a very good thing. Look at Wheaties game 15750 (the number im not sure about.) Also there are other games that I've played on where the person winning at that time seems to think they can just ask someone to surrender game over. They actually said it on the shoutbox that they actually asked people to surrender. That shouldn't happen. Exhibit B: on Wheaties "haro" or something like that was winning, 1 or 2 supply centers away from winning, and some guy joins and now hes going to win when the orders are due. Is it me or should points be elimanted, sure its nice to keep track of the more skilled players using points but my point is some people are jumping into games that are 1 turn away from winning just to get a point or 2. It's not right. Plus with current events it would be one less thing to maintain, spend time and worry about.

As anyone else noticed or played games like the ones i mentioned or had problems like that? Does anyone share my opinion?
I understand that users who are up there in the top 10 would probably vote yes lets keep the points, but stay open minded please!

[bb82]

There ARE problems here. But taking away an important gaming feature isn't the answer. It will just force many competitive players to join another site. If you don't want points, just play unranked.. And as long as the person that joined isn't cheating, you should be happy that he took over for a surrendered nation, thereby allowing the game to continue with less NMRs.

But I am with you that there needs to be some changes.. To ease some of your problems with the current system, perhaps don't allow players to join surrendered nations after a certain year or don't allow nations that reach a certain size to be taken over for.

[Moodie]

sounds good, are there any settings for not letting people join after a certain year?

[QueenOfHearts]

sounds good, are there any settings for not letting people join after a certain year?

As of now, no

[Pedros]

Hi moodie - before I reply, can I suggest you change the title of the thread slightly because the discussion's widened out to include limiting joining surrendered games? (Edit your original post and change it's title)

I'm not commenting on the eliminating points suggestion - although I certainly agree that the current ranking system is being so manipulated that it's completely meaningless. (I was about to start ranting, so I'll stop on that one!)

But I would be seriously against limiting the ability to join games late. The loss of a player is just as important then, and the game should be played out properly. The other thing is that quite a number of players have said that they enjoy taking over countries who are not about to win and seeing what they can make of them - occasionally with spectacular results. It's obviously better if playeres see the game out from start to finish, but if not, the least bad option is to get them replaced as soon as possible.

Perhaps points shouldn't be awarded when people join late? (Haven't thought that one through, and I suspect when I do I'll probably feel the same arguments against!)