As a possible solution to the buying of points at the last possible second, perhaps you should set a limit of one star to be purchased per day. I assume this wouldn't incur any added costs from PayPal for the extra transactions that will be made. This allows those who want to buy points a max of 2,500 per day, or a total of 75,000 points for the month (based on 30 days). This is still a large amount of points, but at least it requires some work on the part of the player on a daily basis, and it eliminates what happened last night. It also allows Ryan to continue to pull in money from those who "wish" (no pun intended) to take advantage of the extra points.

No offense to your idea Woody, but that will encourage farming in my humble opinion.

Suggestion:

First point buy = actual points for playing and final placement.

Second and subsequent point buy(s) = "virtual" points that will allow access to high-rated tables, but will be *subtracted at end of month* for calculating final placements.

Good point Thraxle, but doesn't the current system encourage farming anyway?....maybe just highest % of 1sts would be best (wish we'd used that in March)

All is fair in love and war. In kDice and in life, people do all kinds of nasty stuff to get to the top. That's the way the world works. If you need a 1st place trophy so bad you're willing to pay for it, then good for you. Kinks, bugs, ninjaflags (whatever that is), pgas, pges, and general tomfoolery will never go away. If you want 1st, then do what you have to do to get it. If you're not willing to fight for it at any cost, don't complain about people who are.
So, my fix is this: require everyone who wants to win to play the game to they're advantage. I

disagree wish knew the game and had a better strategy, he just was willing to buy the little trophy. btw wish, you are welcome to buy all of mine too, including two earned top 5

I like the idea of teams 3 v 3

I think you need to take the "bombardier is played by different people" idea with a grain of salt.

I am sure you don't think I'm the most honest person here, but I do believe he deserves the medal over everyone else, because for what it's worth, he played 1600 games, and got all his points.

That is, if you are taking away medals. I think, again, that the entire website is a game, and if you find the best way to win, you deserve it. If that is the case, then wishbone deserves this one, because he did just that. He played the game. He won.

I seriously doubt it was multiple people just because I know how hard it is to have multiple people play your account. In the long run you might as well just dig down and play the games instead of letting other people do it.

Besides where do you draw the line with a person being multiple people or it just being one obsessive person. Take Mr. Anderson as an example of another player who's accomplished over 1k games http://kdice.com/profile/9773458, why are there no cries of multiple players? because he's never finished top 100?

or how about someone like fin or grun who can manage close to 1k games per month. are they multiple people? does 500 more games mean it must be 2 or more people?

SORRY, REPOST BUT IT FITS BETTER HERE NOW,:

Wether point buying is a good thing for kdice or not is another question. You can change it back for the months to come maybe but I don't think you can change it after the end of the month. changing rules afterwards can be unethical too.

Although Ryan never explained the new system (or confirmed wether it was permanent or just a bug.... it would have been better but he can't be forced to explain all his descissions so i accept that) it was clear from day 1 or 2 that point buying was possible.

Every winner will have pro's and con's, some people will object to a winner who plays 1500+ games, some to a winner who buys his points,or to a winner who only relies on lots of friends and avoids strong opponents, or to a winner who uses the chat window more than his dice to win...

I agree buying points is the most difficult of all examples given to accept as a first place winner... but who dares say that wishbone is a bad player, I think nobody will dispute he is a good player (ok with cash to spare but still). In many sports, the team with the most cash or best equipment has a big edge on the competition too.

to me it was evident from day 2 someone would "buy" 1st. Maybe it is a good thing, just to show how ludicrous it can become.

I don't object to point buying but it should be limited to say 8 stars (20k won't get you a blue medal). and it would be a good thing to counterbalance it by giving extra monthly starting points for medals earned (200 for each white, 500 for each blue medal,1000 for 3rd place, 2000/3000 for 2nd and 1st. That way, all that hard work (apparently some people call it hard work) will finally be rewarded by more than just a shiny medal.

OK, consider this my monthly contribution to the I like/hate this months winner debate

SIDENOTE:

Ryan, I would leave ranking as it is for this month, changing things afterwards is always food for new debates. Maybe consider my medals = extra points as counterbalance for the future?

Each month, you have the impopular job of playing referee. There will always be discussion, you can't please all players. Just try to make the best descissions and don't regret if mistakes were made. In Football matches, referees sometimes give undeserved red cards or award unjust penalties or forget to punish a crucial foul play. It just happens and even though it can influence a match outcome, we are only human and we can't turn back time.

If you think bomb is clean you can award him a gold medal too, that won't hurt anyone elses rank.

The standings should be left as they are. Each of the players used the system in the way that he/she believed would provide the most benefit. There was no "cheating" involved. Everybody who paid attention knew that buying stars resulted in more points. Is it a cheap way to win? Of course it is. But it was totally legal.

The problem with the ranking is that it has never clearly represented who is the "best" player. There is no serious competition anywhere that compares total points generated by someone who plays a 1600 game schedule with someone who plays a 150 game schedule. The entire concept is frankly ridiculous. Was Bomb the best player last month? I would say no. Was he the most dedicated? Anyone would have to say yes. (Arguments about possible team play notwithstanding)

I suggest that you have four different trophy classes each month.

1) Total points generated. Keep the current 1-100 ranking system based solely on total points earned regardless of number of games played.

2) Either highest point per game or highest placement percentage based on players who compete in at least 100 games. Only reward the top 10.

3) Highest number of games played. Again only reward the top 10.

4) Top financial contributer. Again only reward the top 10.

This way people can shoot for whatever goal they like the best and the community can argue about which award means the most, or the least. (We wouldn't want to deny them the traditional end of the month drama)