@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.
<Snipped quote by ImportantNobody>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.
Reward or not, those fights were still established on the grounds that the winner would get so many points, and that the loser would get so many points. Honestly, other than that, the points aren't that so far apart that it makes a whole lot of difference if we changed it now anyways, and left the points intact. Besides, a person joining later in the year will still have a lot of catching up to do, regardless of loser points. And I don't really support giving new people more points to 'catch up'. That goes against the flow of this. Giving them points simply because they started later would undermine the hard work put in by someone else that worked bit by bit to get their points, only for some new person to come in and possibly sky-rocket up the list with minimal effort. I do support the idea of a reset on points every year with a possible reward for having the highest points at the end of that year, even if it's just being listed somewhere as the highest point earner for that year.
If you want the points, you should earn them. New or not. Back in my day, that was a challenge issued and a push for new people, not something to deter them away. All these reason are the same reason I support abolishing the 25 pt rule. The points should be earned. That still doesn't take away from the fact, that those matches were conducted under the 'old' rules and not under 'new' ones. That would be the same as inducting Melonhead (per say) into the a Hall of Fame, then years later decide that the rules we had then were stupid and because of that, Melonhead doesn't deserve to be there anymore. There will always be flaws, but even when we change the rule sets of battles, those previous battles still stand, driven by the old rule sets. The winner was the winner. The same applies here. The battles already done, and many of them currently going on were established under the specific pretense that 25 pts would be allowed to the loser, unless they decided to wage points effectively possibly forfeiting points. You have to realize, you wouldn't be just taking points from those that have earned points, but removing points from those that also lost points already due to wagers. And again, wagers made under the pretense that a 25 point earn would soften the blow of the possible points they were trying to earn, but lost.
