> If you increase the relative value of a win, people are more likely to try to win. I really don't see how you can argue the opposite.

no, what i'm saying is they won't try to stop someone from winning because it doesn't pay off. because you don't win if you stop someone who is close to victory, but you make a stalemate and a draw. we have a problem basically because you don't understand how the game works. as i said you were playing only 5-pointers and don't know how stalemates work, how to make them etc.

I think the simplest way to look at it is to look at what each of the two setups are trying to achieve:


- Points-per-supply-center is all about giving players something for sticking it out until the end. It's not very rewarding if you're a new player and you only get a payout when you win, even if you did very well.

I think points-per-supply-center has shown that it is better at getting newer players to be diplomatic and less willing to give up on a game, and it helps separate good from bad more quickly.

I think you're much more likely to get a decent share of points from a points-per-supply-center game if you're above average than you are to get the entire pot from a winner-takes-all game, just because when only 1 out of 7 can win luck is bound to be a factor.

This way that points-per-supply-center is more suited to newer players is why I decided to disable winner-takes-all for players with less than 101 points, and I may make it even more restricted.


- Because of this winner-takes-all is intended to be a high-stakes game mode, for players who have proven themselves already. This way the winner-takes-all points system doesn't have to try and prevent players from leaving, or being more diplomatic; at this level they should understand this by themselves.

The idea is that without these restrictions the system can give incentives for gameplay that's more fun to more skilled players. The problem is that what is fun varies depending on whether you think it's okay to play for anything less than complete winner.


So for now I'm going to go with Chris' advice and wait on it a bit, and see what happens. People complained about the points system and the map colors when they were first introduced, but after everyone's points/skills ratio balanced out and everyone's eyes adjusted everything turned out somewhat OK.

(Sorry my sleep deprived mind can't make this post any more concise)

Thank you Kestas. I shall keep my eye on the site and no doubt return in due course with a resounding "I told you so!"

Well that'll show me :-|

Remember this is beta software, and tweak/improvement suggestions like the ones in this thread are why beta testers are useful, no need to make these feedback discussions into bitter arguments

i would like Noodlebug to be able to play his variant (which is probably WTA with starting bets returned to all players in case of a draw), but i would like the current WTA to remain, because this is the way i like to play - i feel like this it's the most interesting variant and completely in the spirit of original rules. i think Noodlebug's variant has certain value, but still i value it below current WTA or even PPS, because for me it has the least amount of diploamcy and skill involved (this is personal opinion!)