Basically this is a nice gift for whoever happens to be active near the top when you implement (or reset) this scoring. And to some extent it rewards players for simply playing a lot. Meh.

How about at least giving us the option of listing "top players" either way, so that someone interested in who is really at the top can see that without hunting through the new scores?

PS: I enjoy playing the game and I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. But maybe the time and effort that you are spending screwing around with the scoring could be better spent solving the HUGE lag problems.

ich verstehs nicht. kann das mal jemand auf deutsch erklären?

Somebody mentioned this in the chat, and i agree with it: "New ranking encourages people to play with one account only, otherwise the score points get divided between accounts"

That is an amazing side effect!!!
It used to be that any skilled player with some time on his hands will create account after account and bring them one by one on the top 25 page. It was becoming annoying to see the top 25 filled with the same avatars, same names (slightly modified, of prefixed by numbers).

Take a look at top 25 now, only joshuaxls is still fighting on 2 fronts.

Another thing that I am so pleased to notice is that some players in theis desire to get more points take so much risk that they actually destroyed their rating. Hope that Ryan, will do the "earned points" resets rare enough so that these people will ignore the futility (maybe this is a little too strong, i want to say the fact that these points are only temporary) of these points and keep playing. It is so much easier now to get a game at any level...

On the negative side, the addiction to kdice can only be fueled further by the some egos' need to get and stay on top 25 page.

Hmm, 1 over ranking. Isn't that gonna be a pretty steep graph? Finish 3 games a first, and you up at the top of the list, but you'd need 15 games as 5, and both of these people are on the front page. And 25th place? That takes seventy-five games to get 3.00. It's real steep...

I raised this issues too, the increments are too big at the top 1, .5, .33, .25, .20 ...
well, you have to get there first ...

but I agree the increments seem way too big, the difference between being 1st or second can be as low as a couple of rating points, do not really justify getting the double increment.

1/rank is an easy equation, but in the future it can be adjusted.

exactly, you're only going to be able to compete on the top 25 if you can get your rating up high.

increment(x) = 1/x
where x is rank_of_rating

we need a new function(x), such that:
function(1) = .20
function(5) = .10
function(20) = .05 (same as 1/x)
function(100) = .01 (same as 1/x)
function(500) = .005
function(1000) = .001 (same as 1/x)
of course these are just arbitrary numbers, but something that starts lower and doesn't decrease at fast at the top *might* make the competition for points more interesting.

The problem with a less steep curve is it means that it favors more games for score rather than higher rating for score.

For example with your numbers. Its not that important that you reach #1 rating since you can compete with #1 as #5 by playing twice as many games.

I still want the goal to get a higher rating taking more priority than player more games.

With the current function you can't really compete with the first place rating unless you can get a first place rating yourself. I like the difficulty in this better. I think it gives good value to high ratings.

But isn't getting first place competing with first place in and of itself?