I think you'd still get points for winning
The secret being getting more points than the losers. The exact number
points can be from what Clint set out before.
What I'm trying to do is factor in an incentive to move on to the
next game - sure this could be abused, but I see the sbuse as coming
from a team in the last round having won a bunch of games and having
a points lead...
I'm agreeing with you that we need an incentive.
But being from Oz I naturally look for loopholes for profit from (I have
many rolemodels to follow from real life in Oz). I imagined the free in game
34 folding on t12 for 10+ points as the losing side. The winners getting
lots more. Then the aussies could fold in the reverse call, so both the UK
and OZ sides are now sitting on a lot more points that the other sides who
are battling each other until less than a half a dozen are left on the
winning sides. Tactically it makes sense to surrender early for the points,
but, but I don't want a side surrendering if it could have won.
Why, thats like an aussie side going slow in a world cup cricket game so
that they get a low overall run rate. And the opposing side goes along with
it, as they then get into the final. Would we ever do that ?
Nevertheless, the scoring as is is bad for ending a game early...
some of you are winning as DS - this system means you'll either need
the one ring or have to find every last hidden noldo MT...
Because of the scoring system they will not drop even if it's 11 DS
to one freep...
11 DS ? G34 started with 12 DS, and I wonder which one you think would drop
out in such an interesting game ?.
Now I've heard something famous that starts with beaches and landing
grounds and goes on to never surrender, but this is a game.
The way that someone threw lives around makes me wonder if he felt if it was
also a game (actually I think he make the tough calls to lose a few people
in the hope of saving more).
thanks
m
p.s But I agree 100% with you on giving out points for surrendering. Its a
much better improvement.