I violently agree with Sunny Corner about the timing-out of players in the lobby who remain inactive for some period of time.
Here's a thought for others to weigh-in on as it pertains to scoring:
(1) No regressive penalty for higher-ranked players losing to lower ranked players, which might serve to minimize the risks higher ranked players consider. I firmly believe higher ranked players hold an edge over lower ranked players in any game but they prefer to play with more skillful players to minimize the downside risks novices can bring to the table. Changing the scoring will not change this factor. I'd rather play with someone who understands the subtle nuances of passing a moon to an adjacent player to keep the game alive. Novice players just don't want to come in last.
(2) Winner gets 10 points, regardless of a player's or competitor's ranking. Non-winners get 3 points deducted, regardless of position at the end of the game (2nd, 3rd or 4th). Ties? Well, that's where the rub comes. I'd favor the winners share equally, getting only 5 points each and the losers don't get dinged double, still losing only 3 points.
(3) Such a system will, over time, be self-correcting as players who advance up the ladder, will want to play higher ranked players (ego-based) and will find the competition gets more challenging. More skillful players will face the conundrum of whether to play with players of similar abilities or go bottom feeding simply to advance his or her ranking.
Using a net gain of only one point per game in the system, 10 to the winner minus the 9 ( -3 for each of the 3 losers) may keep the rankings more tightly compressed.
Resetting all of the players rankings is probably not the best idea as the natives would revolt...but, hey, I love anarchy and chaos sometimes. How Cool Is That?
Last edited by HowCoolIsThat
on Jul 10, 2019, edited 3 times in total.