What problem? The number of bitter people looking for someone to blame?

I like the increase of maximum stack size to 16.

That said, I think kdice should adopt a scoring policy similar to NASCAR, which is another game (sport, whatever) where there are many contestants with only one "winner" per event, but a need to rank ALL the contestants fairly.

For reference you can look here: http://www.tickco.com/nascar-point-standings.htm

I would set the following rules:

1st place: 25 points
2nd place: 15 points
3rd place: 5 points
4th place: 0 Points
5th place: -5 points
6th place: -10 points
7th place: -10 points

Leading at the end of the most rounds: 10 points
Leading a round: 5 points (not cumulative)
Probably should not be able to receive BOTH of the above two bonuses
Also, maybe there shouldn't be a bonus for leading at the end of the first round

Finally, some type of bonus for successful attacks. This would need a limit, otherwise a back-and-forth stalemate could generate a gazillion points.

It should be noted that in NASCAR, there are no "negative" points, the goal is just to get the most. Whether this would or would not work in kdice is debatable. Obviously, it would favor those who play the most games.

After all your points are tallied up at the end, a multiplier would need to be used based on the difference between your ranking and the average ranking of your oppenents.

"After all your points are tallied up at the end, a multiplier would need to be used based on the difference between your ranking and the average ranking of your oppenents."

So, the exact same thing that happens now (points determine0d by placement and the ranking of your opponents, plus some arbitrary bonus points?

About the 16 stacks. People would just wait until they can fully restack them. Nothing would change except the endgame will take even longer. When you attack without being able to completely refill the territory you are very vulnerable to attacks.

So the 16 stacks wiull not change anything fundamentally.

Yeah, but they'll be really cool!

Actually, you may have a point. We'll see later.

Overlast, its hard to tell. on one side you might be correct, on the otherside it may just be much longer normal game, until the 8v8 (aka 16v16) endgame starts.

(Offtopic)- KimJongIl - Please push the 'Caps Lock' button on the left of your keyboard. If the button is broken and the letters always are capitol, please hold 'Shift' while typing.

I think 16v16 would take longer simply because reserves would be relatively smaller and harder to save up (therefore it would be harder to get a lucky win streak). That's one reason I'd only like to see the maximum raised if the new algorithm is used for the entire game.

I don't like idea three because you directly get a lower ranking for using a defencive strategy, if you guys are doing this because you want "everyone to play for first," directly penalizing strategies does not seem like a cool way to do it. To get everyone to play for first I'd prefer just equalizing the points that 2nd and 3rd receive (and then perhaps other minor adjustments). That way everyone wants to be in the top 3, and everyone in the top 3 wants to be 1st.

"1) change of distribution algorithm for starting distribution to make it more even"

I really dislike this idea. The reason that your back states fill up quicker is that they aren't doing anything. They just sit there and accumulate dice. Your border states keep battling, so there's always some some loss of dice (A loss creates a state with just one die, A win creates a state with one less die, and another with just one die)

This doesn't need to be fixed, it's perfect. It makes sense literally and symbolically. Your front lines are going to take the most damage, and it shows. Your back states meanwhile have the opportunity to prepare reinforcements, when and if they are needed. This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

"2) increase territory maximum to 16 to reduce the luck driven and sometimes tedious 8x8 end game"

This sounds really interesting. I'd like to try it out. I'm not positive, but I think you shouldn't increase the max surplus along with this. Increasing the surplus would, I think, bring back the problem of max stacks battles. Heck, decreasing the max surplus right now might eliminate the need to 16 stacks.

"3) rating change based on performance measured by attack wins - losses/2 making it unprofitable to sit with one territory."

This sounds interesting, too.

"To get everyone to play for first I'd prefer just equalizing the points that 2nd and 3rd receive (and then perhaps other minor adjustments). That way everyone wants to be in the top 3, and everyone in the top 3 wants to be 1st."

I thought this was going to be implemented, but it didn't happen for some reason, or if it did, it got reverted back.