I was always against the participation award points. I always argued if you lose you lose, you don't get points for losing.

I was in favor of losing 10%

But in general, if you lose, oh well, you caught the loss.

No offense to LeeRoy, hahah, but he's at least 1-1 and ahead of me due to a loss. xD

I am actually for participation points. It allows someone to feel better about fighting someone that they aren't sure they can win against, because even if they lose they still get something out of it. I think it also makes people less desperate to win if they know it is not a complete loss. So they play more fairly. It's just my take on the matter.

I actually thought I was losing points for losing the fight, so no offense taken.

You shouldnt get points for participating. You shouldnt lose points for losing a fight. But to get points for playing? No. My nephews get a trophy for playing soccer and if they don't win or place in the top three they refuse the trophy. Reasoning is it is meaningless to get something for losing.

@LeeRoy Nah, it was widely decided that those who lost got 25. Participant.

@Skallagrim I like your nephew's attitude. I never really got participation trophies. You take the L, you take the L and get some knowledge behind it. That's why I decline my 25.

Or one person starts off on the far side of the map and takes half the fight to reach the action. By which point someone has already died. >.>

Don't make it sound like it was my choice, heh.

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

Don't make it sound like it was my choice, heh.

He would hate watching you vs Tuuj. Hahaha.

That fight is still going on? I thought they'd have figured no one was there and gone home.

Tuuj has a wind wall, and is self proclaimed a counter to Jok/Melon. There is some concern he is more powerful than what was originally thought to be the limit, but that's on Innue.

*Chuckles*

Participation points I suppose exist for one reason: to motivate players to participate in more fights.
If somebody has more points than you because of it that means you weren't as active as them.
Of course it begs to question whether such motivation method is right for a forum RP setting.
I mean we only RP for fun and when we have free time. If somebody plays more and gets ahead because of it then I suppose many people would feel cheated. Or worse, be motivated to play and compete at the expense of their offline lives.
So perhaps abolishing this system may be preferable, given if the majority agrees.
Of course for the sake of fairness I'd also suggest retroactively removing all the point gains from lost matches.

As for losing points for lost matches, that might be counterproductive, too. I mean it works fine for raising the stakes but it'd also result in some players getting dropped off the tournament. It also increases the gap between players which while can be preferable, also can destroy the motivation of lower ranking participants. Say you lose 100 points while the victor gained 100. That'd mean he's 200 points ahead of you. A system like this may only work if it's necessary to edge on the competition. Our arena environment in comparison seems to be almost lukewarm. No offense here, I actually prefer it that way. We play for fun and not for the desire to beat each other at all costs.

Maybe you only get participation points if you are below a certain point total. Newer people would need the participation points more to catch up and feel motivated while veterans wouldn't feel as big of a need for participation points. This would also allow people to catch the veterans easier, getting up to a certain number before loosing participation points and having to catch up the rest of the way on their own two feet.

I am still for incentive to fight more, but maybe some balancing is in order. Perhaps only 10-20 participation points in stead of 25. So it takes more then initiating and losing/forfeiting only four battles, to equal a win.

I think considering the nature of Arena, what you gain from losing in experience is more important than some consolation points, but for the sake of an accurate as possible leader-board I think it would be best to have no change when you lose a fight.

No one is so far out that keeping the point gain for a loss is gonna help them much. The furthest is only 2 wins away from the lowest, so everyone is still well within range of the winner.

Just use something like this:

Two participants. The points gained for victory of that match is calculated based on the difference of points between them.

If there is a 100 point difference between the two and the lower ranked person wins, they get 90% of the point difference between them. If the higher ranked one wins, they get a flat amount, such as 25 points. In the event that 90% of the point difference is less than 25 (in that they are very close in rank to each other), then the winner would get a flat 25 points.

Something like that.

@InnueI feel this kind of system would bring too much complexity to an otherwise simple game.
100 points per win is enough.
The only question is about the point gain for the losers.

Maybe you only get participation points if you are below a certain point total. Newer people would need the participation points more to catch up and feel motivated while veterans wouldn't feel as big of a need for participation points. This would also allow people to catch the veterans easier, getting up to a certain number before loosing participation points and having to catch up the rest of the way on their own two feet.

This method could work.
The only problem is, like Rilla said, that people aren't anywhere that far apart that we can determine a limit. So this would effectively mean that, at least for the time being, we leave the system as it is.
I'm fine with the idea and really I have yet to gain any points but this effectively doesn't solve anything.

@ImpaqtYou may feel that's unfair for people to lose their 25 points but there's perhaps an even larger group who never benefited from it yet. If we make a change to the "rules" then it has to be done consistently. Neither those who made matches before or after the change should benefit in any way.
Taking away points these people got by losing may leave a sour taste in a few people's mouths but remember that points are technically a "reward" and as it goes such things only go to the winner.
That being said I also support ImportantNobody's idea, but of course I leave the decision about the details to more experienced players.

It still is simple and that isn't the only question/problem.

The current incarnation would require a ladder reset otherwise some people would have little incentive to participate if someone were to get far enough ahead on the leader board, as it would require an enormous number of matches to catch up from the bottom rungs. I'd prefer to utilize a system that doesn't penalize newcomers.

Percentage math isn't hard. Everyone on the boards should be capable of doing it and since Rilla would be the one editing it, I have full faith in his ability to do that math.