Dude, honestly, quit bitching about scoring. If scoring didn't benefit second, there would be no truces in this game. And why not take second? You can get bad ass points if you dominate and also take second. There is no real woody for getting first. I will take second if it means I rank up, I'm not greedy and worried about firsts.

What you're saying is probably bull. Some kids made a truce and you lost because of it and took third or something, so you are angry it wasn't you in the truce and you accuse them of stuff. Don't worry about it, go play, stop crying.

Don't worry about it man.

cant believe that u accept people who play for 2nd place...

There is nothing wrong with second place. If there is no damn chance of me taking first, I'd rather truce with whoever is taking first and help him kill the rest. You're a damn moron if you'd rather take less points so that you can die with the rest.

You can argue that's no fun, but I love truces, it's what makes the game more legit and not all crappy luck.

Truces suck for the most part. If I wanted to play psychology, I would be a psychologist. I'd rather win first and I will rarely accept a truce and never with numero uno. That's just chicken shit. Oddly enough, my highest percentage of finishes is second place, but not one was a result of a 1-2 truce. I really would like to see an unrated table where everyone is playing to win first place.

Madz, what you really seem to be complaining about are "pre-game-alliances". Which *are* generally frowned upon! Generally we understand something different under fairness :-(

That has nothing per se to do with scoring.

Regarding scoring, I agree that playing for 2nd is rewarded too much, in the sandbox it seemed the new system reduced this, and that was the main thing I liked about it. However, in actual games that has rarely been the case.
A rating system rewarding people to play for the absolute highest position they can (realistically) get would be an improvement. The current one seems to reward people who settle for the top four too much. However, I wouldn't change too much because if 4th is losing points every game then people will become frustrated and completely quit when they have a bad start, and other problems would arise.

The current system looks nice and works, but a mirror version where 7th is best and 1st is worst would also look pretty and work. The backwards system would be a problem because it would too often reward people who play for 7th instead of 1st. I'm saying the current system has the same problem and can be improved, people are settling for top 4 (or whatever) too often instead of working together to play their shot at a higher position.