I am wondering would it be a good idea to award points in games of 5+ players if you get 2nd or 3rd place. Survival points, etc.?

probably

Hi,

I can see 2 problems with that. Guys like me like to surrender if I have no chance winning the ffa any longer and by some this is seen as good sportsmanship. It's especially annoing if I won a 1v1 situation after picks but the other guy keeps throwing everything at me, making it impossible for me to win the game against someone who was able to expand freely. Secondly it might not be that much fun for the guy with superior income, having to finish off each and every player.

Edited 1/13/2019 03:06:37

I'd agree with Norman that currently a lot of games end by the remaining players surrendering once a clear victor emerges.

Adding a second place adds an incentive to draw out the game for as long as possible (Blockading yourself into a hole so that it takes 20 turns of income to break through for instance)

Who even cares about points?

Who even cares about points?

People under level 56

Don't think it is good idea - in FFA such concept can have multiple accounts and/or players unknown to the rest playing together as a team and putting the remaining competitors in bad position. Even now you can find players cooperate in FFA games.

I agree with the most that has been already sad.
No points for 2 place, tnx.

You want a prize for almost winning? No, almost doesnt cut it. Thats like asking for participation points and a consolation prize.

Solution: Get better and win!


Sorry for being toxic, I play too much League of Legends...

psshhh points? you want points? go play QM