Should there be ranking points / podium places available for more than the top 3, in 64 player games?
As a newbie I’m really surprised that the top 3 score points in 8p games, and the top 3 score them in 64p games.
My question is prompted by what happened in my 2nd game on the site. I’m simplifying things a lot, and I may have some of the details wrong (apologies to everyone involved), but this scenario makes my basic point.
It’s a 64p game, has been in progress for over a month. In the last few days, there are about a dozen sizeable and active empires remaining. I’m in about 7th on the leaderboard. The top 6 players are all in the same alliance, but suddenly 2 of them split off and attack the rest. I choose to fall in on the side of the rebels, and the scene looks set for a really exciting final phase of the war.
But instead, 3 of the remaining allies decide to give up lots of their stars to the player in 1st spot, so that the game suddenly ends in a matter of a few hours, without a final showdown. I leapfrog them on the leaderboard into 4th place at the finish.
It’s not that I wanted to get rank points for 4th. What I wanted was to play to a natural finish — a battle between the two factions — after we all put so much effort into the game.
I realise I’m new here. I’ve heard that this behaviour does happen sometimes, and many people think it’s acceptable given the current setup. I’m wondering if a change in the rank points system might change the dynamic. If there had been rank points for the top 5/6/8/10 finishers, out of 64 players, maybe the game would have played out instead of ending so suddenly.
Thanks for any thoughts & comments 
1 Like
I think there’s 2 points to address in your post:
1) Should more than 3 players earn Rank points in 64 player games?
I think the answer is obviously yes. In my opinion, the Rank points should go as follows:
1st place – 64 points
2nd place – 32 points
3rd place – 16 points
4th place – 8 points
5th place – 4 points
6th place – 2 points
Everyone other surviving player – 1 point
This would essentially be equivalent to 8 player games, just extended to match the larger game. A player getting 4th place is a real achievement in a 64 player game and deserves a sizable reward.
2) Would this change the dynamic such that the ending of games is significantly different? Would this encourage players to fight for 4th/5th place significantly more than they do currently?
I think the answer is likely no, or at least not significantly so. In my experience most players don’t care enough about Rank points for this to have much of an effect. Most players would likely still happily sacrifice themself for their allies because helping your ally achieve a 64 player victory is seen as so much more valuable than 8 or 16 Rank points. Plus, helping an ally win a 64 player game will keep you in their good graces in future games.
The real “problem”, if we want to call it a problem, is that winning a 64 player game is seen as much, much more valuable than getting even 2nd place.
But none of this means that Rank points shouldn’t be extended beyond the top 3; they absolutely should.
4 Likes
That’s a good distinction, thanks. I agree with you about point (1) independently of point (2) – it just seems fairer. Thanks for your thoughts on (2) – I haven’t been here long enough to have any view.
Well put, I couldn’t agree more.