rd45 wrote:You set up a scoring system that rewards draws, and then complain that people play for a draw?
I personally have no problem with draws especially in online games. If people have stopped having fun, why can't they agree a draw? I assume from the first part of this sentence, you would prefer a scoring system that only gives points if you solo. My personal view is that would make a lot of people unhappy. But of course you are entitled to your opinion; it just seems to me that if people get nothing for stopping a solo with other allies, then a lot of games would be pointless after the first few years for some players. People who have no chance of soloing would be quite likely in my mind just to jump ship since they have 0 prospect of anything, even if they team up to force a stalemate.
Jack007 wrote:You could, if people choose ranked at the beginning, count a solo as ranked (one is winning the points, the others lose points as usually), and in case nobody reaches 18 (be it because of a stalemate, be it because all players decide to stop) you could simply unrank the game and nobody wins or loses any points. Can't see why this should be difficult to realize.
An interesting idea, but doesn't that hit the rating system? What you are doing is limiting the 'risk' part of the risk/reward equation. I would think strong players would always choose solo only games; they know that if they are playing lesser opposition, a draw will usually lose them points, but by playing solo only they are protected from that because as long as they do not actually lose, they are guaranteed not to lose any points, even if it is a 5 way draw. It feels like you are having your cake and eating it, doesn't it?