The first scoring thread is broken as well so I'll post my answer to algios here. As a short summary to everyone else. I suggested a different rating system based on "activity". In case you want to know more click on the link to get to the old thread: http://tinyurl.com/2hgcv2

algios: This rating should be based on number of total countries, border countries total amount of dice in contrast to number of fights.

So a small player has to fight less than a big player to prevent a negative activity rating. eg player with 2 countries has to fight every 4th to 6th round. A player with just one country bordering other countries (sitting on a peninsula) can and has to do just one fight (and this just in case he has enough dice to fully stack up after the end of his round).

Furthermore activity wouldn't have places (so no first for most activ and 7th for least activ). It's an adjustment to Longevity. Rewards for activ players, pointsreduction for inactiv players..

1- Play slightly more aggressively is good, but even w/ the new system I don't think there is any good reason to try a 4v4 other than to perhaps cut someone in half if you succeed.

You have to consider one thing - and I think a lot of people overlook this. AS is an AVERAGE. So it is OK to sit and build up if you have 3 lands in a corner. Is your AS low? Yes - for now. But if you can expand to 5 or 6 lands in a few rounds and hold them, your AS is substantially going to improve as you have gained lands and removed them from others/ helping your and hurting the AS of others.

It's an average. People have the wrong impression that they need to have a great AS ALL ALONG, while that is the perfect scenario, it is perfectly suitable to use a strategy of conservative expansion at first to ensure two things. One that you place higher in how you finish, and also that you improve your AS gradually.


2- Strategy is still related to the tactics one wishes to employ. I don't think the new system forces one to play recklessly. Slightly more aggressive sure, but there's never a reason to do a 3v3 or 4v4 unless you see tactical advantages in the success outweighing the 40% odds or whatever to lose.

2.1- To say dice placement is more important is not really saying much. Dice placement NOW tremendously effects the games too. How many times has some lucky person gotten an 8 stack early and then rolled. That's inevitable with the new system of scoring or the old.

3- I've been trying to test the waters of alliances and i've found that the most effective ones are alliances that go AGAINST the #1 player on the board. If everyone picks at the leader then that hurts their AS and increases ones own. So while #1 most powerful and #2 alliances are effective (as they are nowadays..) it seems to encourage more people to attack the top player.

This is actually kind of interesting - cuz compared to the old version, usually if someone attacks #1 then #1 goes all out on that person to make a point and NO ONE does anything. They squabble and kill to get 2nd or 3rd while the leader conveniently ignores them. The game will be played by how people choose to move the dice, that's the truth.

4- Anarchist, you make a lot of good points and I won't say the new system is without flaws. But I think the current system is imperfect too, we've just gotten used to it. What I think about 8v8 games is that, in general, I believe most people would agree with me that 8v8 endgames are the moring boring aspect of the game, than the early part when one is trying to establish a corner or area and expand. With the old system, there is a tendency to have games TURN INTO 8v8 matches a bit early (a few rounds into a LOT of 1900 games and it is all 8v8s). The new system encourages more jockeying for position and in a sense delays the 8v8 endgame.

It was quite astounding to see a game about 20-30 rounds in with only one or two eigh stacks out on the table. And everyone agreed even when they lost and got knocked out that that was one of the most fun games theyve ever played.

Why? Because there tends to be more opportunities to cut opponents or attempt tactical moves to connect.

4.1- The new system still have 8v8s, that is inevitable. However, there is a substantially higher percentage of games that REACH the 8v8 stage in the game at many more rounds deeper into the game. So if on average 8 rounds into a game it turns into an all 8v8 match, with the new system it tends to be round 14 or higher where it turns into an 8v8.


What is better is that if you play a game well but get bad luck you can exit in 5th place and still be rewarded with a few points for your efforts. On average, I think the new system hands out points for what one deserves at a glance. If you think brown had a decent game, when brown gets knocked out brown probably has a decent score, +5. If yellow was bounced around all game but ends 3rd, then yellow probably loses a point or two. In general I think the scoring is less frustrating. Know those games when you are in first and then get cut and end up going out 6th? Those are utterly frustrating because you leave the game saying I deserved better. W/ the new system you get what you deserve.

Change is always difficult to accept, especially by those at the top of the game, because you've mastered it as it is, but now there are new elements. But think of it this way, you'll adjust to the new game and there will be a clean top 25 for you to climb into anarchist.

I have a feeling you're going to dislike the change at first, and then be in the top 10 and say y'know this new system isnt so bad ;)


You have some points, I won't say that you don't. But I think if I were to write a problem list about the CURRENT system I could come up with a lot more than 5 or 6 points... and that's why the scoring system is being reworked.

-Grun

i am 80% in agreement with you Anarchist.

Here's an interesting observation.
The adjustments are not zero sum. In the last two games I observed I wrote down the adjustments, and both ended with a +5 sum.
If this is the case for many or all games, then it will break at least the idea of an ELO system (zero sum adjustments).
The scores will then continue to grow at some rate, which is not a bad thing in particular, as long as it's carefully designed.

brain: games are only 0 sum if all players have the same rating. Also, the soring system is 0 sum over all games and players with a constant # of players.

Anarchist: games in the updated scoring have more anarchy

A response to:
#4
I think you are mistaking instability with luck.

Stability:
In the 8v8 game you have a stable area with attacks being approx 50/50. This means on a 1 to 1 battle you're pretty stable. The non 8v8 game is not stable because you have weak spots and strong spots. 8v8 is more stable.

Luck:
In the 8v8 game every attack decicision has the same probability of approx 50%. So the outcomes are 100% luck.
In the non 8v8 game you can make decisions to do attacks with higher probabilities, ruducing the amount of luck.

#1 If you play a defensive game and win you will get a very positive score.

If its to hard to win playing defensively then this is not a good strategy in a game where the goal is to conquer the map.

In response to:
"Ok, so I'm left thinking, what is better? Well away people do get screwed like they should and... no thats it."

a) 1-2 territory small players don't truce with #1 to get +20 points. Is being the first to say "green, truce?" worth 20 points?

b) The emphasis on first place makes this more valuable. Currently the in top players there are a lot who have 2nd as their highest percentage. The current system rewards smart trucing 1st, and strategic playing second. The new system turns that around. You'll see the top 25 having high 1st place winnings.

Anarchist: """Now honestly how many 8vs8 games where there has been a clear leader have you ever seen switch. A few maybe. But 90% of the time the guy who's got the most stacks wins. Who has the most stacks? The guy who played better. How is this lucky? """"

I disagree, when 1 player is already sure about his win, I love to organize an "all together against the leader alliance", must times all you gotte do is to tell people that all together still have more countries than the leader. This quite often works out well and see him finishing e.g. 4th after all.

In the new scoring system he gets a good AS score at least :). In the old system he was just screwed...