View Single Post
Old 20 November 2017, 08:56   #15
Graham Humphrey
Graham Humphrey's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Age: 33
Posts: 11,061
Originally Posted by john4p View Post
Yes, because if someone has e.g. 20,000,000 points in 1st place due to a ridiculous end of game-bonus and all of the other players have scores from 50k-500k then the one with 500k gets about the same points as the one with 50k even though the one's 500k-score is 10 times higher than the other. This can lead to frustration/de-motivation.
Sorry but I think this is a bit silly. This scenario has never happened and I can't think of a game where it would (in any case, the second place player would get 10 points as a minimum, as I understand it). The closest was Rick Dangerous 2 which did have a daft bonus (there may be others of course) even then it wasn't quite as drastic as this example and as Mike says, that's the game's ridiculousness ahead of anything else.

Originally Posted by ED-209 View Post
The way I see it is that emphasis on the beating the person in front of you is better than no emphasis at all: I think proportional scoring can set seemingly impossible tasks for some players and cause them to give up on a round entirely, rather then focusing on a lesser target that still has decent reward.
Fixed points means there is always even spread of points available, regardless of skill level, available time to play, massive scores at the top etc.
Improving your own score is still important, in order to improve/defend your current position
But surely that's how it is now? At the moment, you can improve your score, not catch the person just above you but still score a small number of extra league points (depending on position) so there's that reward there. Whereas in a fixed system, in the same scenario, yes you'd improve the gap over the player immediately below but you wouldn't get anything extra for that effort.

I accept this system does have its faults, but then I think they all do in some aspect and it's worth highlighting the positive side. I honestly don't think it really puts people off and Predseda pointed out in a private thread over at Lemon that as a casual player, he doesn't put any stock in how many points he gets for his score. In fact the team competition interests him more. I wonder how many of our less superhuman players (i.e. most of us) have a similar point of view. After all, Lemon 64 has used the same system for, what, about 15 years, and nobody (as far as I know) has had a major problem with it.

At the end of the day, though, as has already been pointed out, the top players will always be the top players and whatever system you used, the actual leaderboard and the gap between players wouldn't change much, except a bit of shuffling about lower down.
Graham Humphrey is offline  
Page generated in 0.04510 seconds with 11 queries