yay, #3 elicited the post from verm i was anticipating.

I honestly don't get why a war game should be catering to people who don't like competition and want to flag early. Seems totally counter intuitive to me.

But hey I've never really liked Dottir anyways so maybe I'm a bit biased.

(this is actually a late response to Jesse since I just noticed his earlier comment about 1/10 of table wager as kill bonus)

I agree that 10% would be simple and is definitely OK for higher tables.

But let's not forget that there used to be 70 point inflation in each game and that the majority of games is played on lower tables. It should be simulated or whatever but my guess is there would be far less points being injected into the system if there were almost no kill points on 0/100. It would mean less noobs reaching 500 or 2k so the top tables would almost always come from the same small player pool. 1,5 kills on average at 50/kill would compensate well for the old point inflation at 0/100/500

Agree with TBY (gasp)

Also to jurgen's point - since kill bonus are the big way to inject points and replace the old built in bonus, I think it's important to modify flags so that people can't flag at the last minute to avoid the kill.

In another thread, Ryan said maybe go back to old elo era flags where everyone at the table has to have flag up for the game to end (remember the fun of the true ninja flag).

Vermont:

Yes, the TAZD will have to go. Eventually
Ryan will re-do the leaderboard stats and I will have to wait till then to see if there will be anything usable. If he were to report total player buy-in or buy-in per game *cough* that would be useful.

That's not why TAZD needs to go, but I'll take it.

Kill bonuses take the flagging game out of the equation jerks are killing players that flag!

Exactly! This becomes a fighting game instead of a flagging game.

Vermont's reason for the TAZD having to go is his inability to refute its soundness.

Yeah, let's start another TAZD battle! (We could just link to numerous threads where dozens of people have discussed this with skrum, but let's do it again and make sure Ryan gets a +100 thread.)

Any measure of 'skill' that can go up when a person comes in last, or go down when they get a win, is inherently flawed.

A win should always improve your score. A last place finish should always make it go down.

Not a single other ranking or skill evaluation system for any sort of competitive event operates otherwise.