I hate to harp on this issue, and vengance you make a good point. But, I think my point is somewhat being made and this is why. There are over 2500 members of this game. Yet tonight for over 4 hours I have struggled to even play because there are so few people sitting at games. To me, that shows that less people are playing. I was forced (after waiting for 20 minutes with one other person) at a 1700 table to go to a 1500 table - and of course got obliterated because of shitty starting postion - and lost 137 points.

I know some of you don't agree with me - but you own statements support what I'm talking about. With as many players as this place has - there should be 30 tables going at once..... you can't even get one table every 10 minutes. People are leaving after playing a couple times because of the scoring system.

I just found a new game ( http://www.mythicwars.com/mythos/default.asp?id=17575 ) and doubt I'll be playing this much more. I hate to see this game die - I played Dice Wars all the time - but nobody wants to listen to the warnings.

As i see it, the system is fair because it's the same for everyone.

I can see all of your points, but the strongest point is that people get high ranked. I think the system is flawless. Mi rank is geting higher. If it went the other way, i'd still think the system is flawless.

If it's the same for everyone, it sounds fair enough.

I have lost 145 points in a single game, and i figured out why it was in one instant.

I think you should watch high ranked players and see how they do it.

As of cheating, i never cry when it's all against me. Nor when som1 "betrays" me. Nor when people make alliances, aloud or silent.

Besides there are "social skills" in this game, or so it seems. I find harder to kill a girl, or som1 i played with several times. I find it easier to kill som1 who didn't even say "hi". I'm talking about you. I killed you a couple times. Nothing personal. Just the opposite. I wasn't cheating.

Actually i wouldn't like to come across any rule about teaming up. It's like real wars (luck is involved even in real wars, same with alliances, plots, whatever).

I love this game, and i really hope to keep seeing you around.

chris, if I ditched ELO the top players would be ranked based on the highest 1st place percentage. You would still be very low.

lardhat, I understand how to raise my rank. My normal complaint has been about the system in general, I was just pointing out that I really do think the rating system is effecting the people who play the game. The best I can tell, there are 13,000+ players of this game. However, you can't even get 7 people together in a reasonable amount of time at a 1700 table. It is a Saturday afternoon at 3:07PM Central time, and I am watching the SirGuppy table (1700 table) sit for at least 5 minutes just to get 7 people. That tells me that no matter how great this system is - it is not giving people an incentive to stay around. With that number of members - it should take seconds to fill a table.

Ryan, I appreciate what you are saying. But look at it this way... in theory you could have a person that plays 10 games and finishes first - ahead of a person that plays 20 games and finishes first or second 20% of the time. It would be like taking baseball for instance and saying that whowever beats a team that was in the world series gets credit for 5 wins, but if you beat a team that finished last, it counts as 5 loses. I understand the point - and in a game like chess (which the scoring system is designed for) it make sense. But chess is pure skill. There are no dice... there is no wheel to spin. Here, about 51% of this game is chance and luck. Your starting position could be grouped or spread out. You could get corners or in the middle. You could go first or last. You could be surrounded by people with tons of dice - or you could have the big stack. And... most of all - you could attack with two and beat six... or attack with six and lose to two. With this much chance - a "skill" based scoring system just doesn't make sense.

And.... I'm glad to those of you that are high up in the ranks. I have briefly been above 1850 a couple times - but all it takes is bad LUCK - and now I'm currently at 1550.

Oh yeah... and just to clarify. I know I seem like I'm whining - but I'm really NOT a sore loser. I know that this is just a game. I get pissed when I get a shitty break - but I do the same when I just miss a green light, or forget something at the store. I don't take this as seriously as you might imply from my comments. I am a guy that likes to kill time at work (when I'm not busy), and at home by playing these types of games (online multiplayer). I played online poker for cash for a long time and got tired of it so I started playing gpokr (more fun than the free tables at the casino sites). I also play lots of other games and dicewars happens to be a favorite, so when I saw this I was excited. The reason I am so passionate about this is the same reason I'd get pissed playing poker when a guy with a 2/7 offsuit would beat my pocket aces.... it is frustrating dealing with that element of chance. I just feel that either this is a "skill" game - and should be scored accordingly.... or, this is a "chance" game - and the current system should remain in place.

(... sorry.... didn't word part of that right...)

At the top of that last post what I was trying to say is that you could have a person that plays 10 games and finishes first or second in 8 of them... rank higher than a person who has played 200 games and finishes first or second in 75 of them.

I like the scoring system but it needs tweaking definately. Maybe a different spread on the scores.

For example:
A1:
7th: -76
6th -64
5th -42
4th -10
3rd 32
2nd 40
1st 120

The difference with this would be 1st place is much better than 2nd or 3rd so players will go all in to get it. Rather than turn to killing other weaker colours just to finish 2nd instead of 3rd, there is insentive to keep fighting.

Also for people that get killed out of the gates in 7th its more forgiving.

Keep the system, it's fine as it is. :)

chris: 5 days ago I was slumming in the 1400s after having fallen from 2000, now i'm back to the 2000s

keep the system the way it is

Elo's not a good ranking system for games involving a lot of luck. It's better for games of skill like chess, where it means more when a high ranking person is beat by a low one.

the game has a luck factor in it.. but only in the short term inmo.... what i mean is this: u will def loose some games even if u have the better strategy due to luck, but in the long term, if u have better strategy than the opponents and u are willing to callibrate ur strategy to each unique situation, and u make the correct choice of who, where and when to play.. u are bound to reach the rank u deserve.. like i would never play using my 1st acct any player below 2200 at this point, since that would be too much of a risk for me... if i lost due to bad luck, i would loose too much compared to what i would gain if i was lucky and was able to beat strategecally the opponents.... now if i was at 1700 range i would try to play with higher ranked players in order to move up quickly, and as a bonus, if i lost (due to bad luck or bad ingame strategy, or ppl teaming up against me), i d loose much less than if i played in a 1500 table with everyone having lower rankings than me..... its all about chances u take.. not just in the game itself.. but in the battles u choose to play as well.. thus my original point: the luck factor gets eliminated in the long run... in 100 games 2 players will have the same luck on average.. what differentiates them is how they used their luck to gain points in this system... did they use their opponents faults to their advantage? did they strike at the right time? did they grow too fast so that everyone would target them? theres many factors that come into play in this game..... u just have to be aware of them and try to make the best choices in each situation....