I noticed you get no points for winning a game and it bugs me especially if your playing a really good game but you end up losing or you team mate gets booted and you lose the game and the points you could've won. This would also better reflect players activity lvls cause not everybody who is really active wins the majority of there games.

If this is a good idea and t be implemented in war light i would like it to go like this. You still get points like normal for winning the game but as you play on you get few points or so for conquering territories, bonuses, making armies stacks etc.... and depending how long and the difficulty of the game both players get X amount of points for just playing the game and then the winner would get the extra bonus points for winning the game as normal.
However to abuse prevent booting if you get booted on the first turn you gain no points (but your opponent will still gain some points), with then every five turns you play but still get booted you lose 5 percent less than what you would've if you got booted in the first turn so 95% of you points would be forfeited between turns 2-5 would be 95% (considering that not every game lets you pick your starting position), 90% for turns 6-10 etc.... till you each 5% which then it would stay at a flat rate for the remainder of the game. Surrendering would not affect the amount of points you lose. Voting to end to end the game would give everyone a slight bonus in addition to what you would've gotten for just playing but not as much if one person or team won.

I fell like this would be a good idea because it would greatly help Diplo/RP games so that everyone would get points for taking part in them and not as many people would be tempted to make the games go longer. This could convince more people to play if there teammate gets booted especially in the early stages cause there a team should get bonus points if they play at worse odds (that only happen due to booting). I fell like this would also convince more people to play more games and play them out longer. This will also will better show how active someone is because if you get points for not wining a game you still get point and points in my opinion show how active you are better than if you only got points for winning cause lets face not everyone wins the majority of there games and sometimes people have breaks on the line of days or weeks in between games that end.

Thoughts? Good idea? bad idea? Did I miss anything? Should I add anything to this idea? Why? Constructive criticism wanted

It sounds like you might have an idea worth considering. Nevertheless, right now it is a really hard text to read. Please look over your grammar and make sure your sentences make sense.

(Tip: Write shorter sentences)

Edited 12/12/2015 03:34:47

Can you sum it up in 3 words or less?

Maybe the number of points the loser gets should be proportional to the length of the game (that would only be 1vs1 though)?

Idk just throwing some ideas out there.

There is a point to be made for runner ups in tournament or FFA getting some point suppose, but certainly not in 1v1. FFA would have the problem of how to decide who is runner up so that doesn't not seem feasible (if it is by elimination we will get people not e.g. blokading themselves in instead of surrendering dragging out games a lot). Proportionate points on the length of the game would have the same effect with losers dragging out the surrender when there is no point in doing so.
So as I see it, XP to looser would generally have a bad impact on the game experience.


It would seem a good idea that if a teammate gets booted and the team wins the game, the booted played get no xp.

The xp to looser seems like a bad idea. Activity is rewarded as it is (and points are scaled in FFA's to give you the same average output). I admit that diplo players may get too litte because the often end in VTE (as far as I understands at least). A solution here would be that Vote to End players share the xp that a winner would have gotten (and thus nothing to people who lost), but this could possible create perversities as well.

And if you really want XP that bad, can't you just go play some lotteries?

Proposal: you get some points as the loser if you surrender before turn 10

^ lol +1

You just gotta win more games, bro. Don't expect nothin as a loser.

Find some active players to team up with you for the team games if you hate randomers bailing on you

This would make level-farming with alts way too easy... Also its a nice lesson for real life or actual war: You only get rewarded if you WIN.

I don't particularly care for the level system based on points accumulation. It doesn't show a players real level of ability. All level 60 players are not created equal. Is there a way to rate players based on skill level like the chess rating system? I know it's a lot easier to rate with chess, because everyone is playing the same map with the same settings. But there's a lot of smart guys here with some serious math skills that should be able to figure something out. How's that for a suggestion?

^
Ladders?

Edit: Also Level doesnt mean skill, it means experience.. if the experience, you gained over the time, actually helped you becoming better is another story.

Edited 12/12/2015 18:52:26

Leveling is just a way to stop new players from creating 40 player custom scenarios with super-bonuses LD and army cap...

Beyond that it means nothing, try and keep that in mind people ;)