2nd place

[jlo71]

I think that in 6,7, and 8 man games coming in second should not hold the same penalty as being eliminated earlier. I propose that if you come in second in those games you dont lose any points

[IcePack]

-1 ..

[darth emperor]

I think that in 6,7, and 8 man games coming in second should not hold the same penalty as being eliminated earlier. I propose that if you come in second in those games you dont lose any points

1- A loss is a loss. Doesn't matter when or where.

2- What about peopple who comes third?

3- This can get to abuse. Two people, ally together, till everyone else is eliminated. And then they fight for the first or second place, non of them will lose points. Now repeat this procedure X times. Get the profit.

[sirgermaine]

I certainly wouldn't propose this as a universal thing. Even as a setting that was choosable, it would have downsides. It could encourage hostage taking, or turn free-for-all games into lopsided team games.

For example:
Four players remain in a game. They have ranks of 1900, 500, 2000, and 2500. The player with 2000 points has the lead, and is in a position to eliminate the 500 point player from the game. However, if the player who comes in second doesn't lose points, it would stand to reason that the winner doesn't get those points, since games here have always been point-neutral. It is to the advantage of the winning player to hold hostage the player with the low ranking, since he stands to gain only 4 points from that player, rather than letting any of the other players come in second, forfeiting between 15 and 20 points.

Also, if you thought the C&A forum had too many frivolous reports of secret diplomacy/multi claims now, this would absolutely deluge the forums with complaints, some of which might be more warranted and less punishable. If everyone has incentive to take out the weak players, it will be almost impossible to prove that someone was acting in a manner that was against the rules, even if they would be punishable under current rules.

Basically, any setting where the motivation to win goes down, and the motivation to kill smaller players goes up, you're going to see some strong resistance. Also, I really can't imagine a way to configure this that doesn't really increase cheating (and cheating accusations), while simultaneously making cheating harder to prove.

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[sirgermaine]

I lol'd

[gv1974]

I think that in 6,7, and 8 man games coming in second should not hold the same penalty as being eliminated earlier. I propose that if you come in second in those games you dont lose any points

1- A loss is a loss. Doesn't matter when or where.

2- What about peopple who comes third?

3- This can get to abuse. Two people, ally together, till everyone else is eliminated. And then they fight for the first or second place, non of them will lose points. Now repeat this procedure X times. Get the profit.

I agree with you.

[greenoaks]

i too am against this for the reasons spelt out above

[blakebowling]

I highly doubt this would happen as it would change the strategy in games completely.

[Funkyterrance]

I think that in 6,7, and 8 man games coming in second should not hold the same penalty as being eliminated earlier. I propose that if you come in second in those games you dont lose any points

1- A loss is a loss. Doesn't matter when or where.

2- What about peopple who comes third?

3- This can get to abuse. Two people, ally together, till everyone else is eliminated. And then they fight for the first or second place, non of them will lose points. Now repeat this procedure X times. Get the profit.

This is the best reason why not.
In a perfect world without corruption would be one worth considering though.

[TheForgivenOne]

Sorry, but this won't be happening. Rejected