I was thinking about the scoring system.  The numeric system itself, I don't have a problem with, it works for me.  But I have to confess that I am [ab]using a quasi-loophole in the system:

Suppose you have two games that are nearing completion.  You are about to lose in one, and you are about to win in the other.

Scenario 1: If you complete the winning one first, you gain some points.  When you complete the other game, your loss is a greater loss, because your score went up before the time of the loss.

Scenario 2: If you complete the losing game first, you lose some points.  When you complete the winning game, your win is a greater win, because your score went down before the time of the win.

Lesson: Always try to complete your losing games before your winning games.

In fact, I sometimes save up my losing games and delay my winning games, so that I can fire off the losses in one shot, thereby making my wins beefier.

Overall, I think this isn't really good to have in the game.  My proposed solution is to calculate the awards and losses based on a comparison of the players' scores at the START of the game, rather than the end.  That way, people like me cannot exploit this "feature" of the game.  No matter when you finish a game, and no matter what your score is at the end of the game, you stand to gain or lose a known, fixed amount of points.

This isn't an issue with chess, etc. because you can only physically be at one tournament at a time, playing one game at a time.  You don't play concurrent, rated tournament games (as far as I know).

So, I think the award and loss should be calculated at the start, and then maybe even displayed somewhere.  "Win: +8 points.  Loss: -19 points."  Each player, of course, would have his own different award/loss numbers shown on the game screen (since they would be different for each player).

That's clever to earn/lose points based on game start score.

I did not 'abuse' the system but I was aware of this. Since most games I play are 4 players, I play asap in order to move my games toward completion, and don't worry too much about more or less points. But I totally agree on the loophole thing. In fact you sort of get punished by pacing your games with the slowest player. If you play a lot chances are your score moves upward. People that play less benefit from you earning points with your 8-10 games.

+2 having game scored points from the initial player score.

I see a mini-window under the inspector showing 'Player Points at Start', while leaving the current chat window with the evolving (current and updating) player score.

How about you deposit a set amount of points based on your score when you started a game? Any everybody plays for those points. Like we do when we play poker.

nice, mad mike/hb/pistos.

madmike: Well, that would be a different system.  I like the current system, my only issue is at what point it is calculated, since your rating can vary from start, to middle, to finish.

Calculating points at the start makes the most sense, since it provides a consistent reference point to the skill levels of both players.  MM's idea about depositing points at the beginning of the game is basically correct; you just have to allow players to 'ante' different numbers of points based on skill level.  At the start of the game, compare ratings and calculate how many points are gained/lost for each player from defeating/losing to every other player.  Freeze those values and award points as players are knocked out.

Also, I suggest the computer to determine the amount automatically based on the number of players and skill level for each player, not the individual player. Currently the system does this, but it does when a player loses. I don't know how the system determines award points right now. Does anybody know how weewar calculates point loss?

They claim it is by the ELO rating system, as used in chess tournaments.  Google for it, and read the Wikipedia article, etc.