[geoschmo]

In the insterest of compromise though, I think Gpa's "Round Robin/2" suggestion is a step in the right direction. I also think Joachim has a decent point that losing a 20 player game should cost more then just losing one game, as the "fractional" system allows for.

The problem is how do you come up with a modifier that works for all number of players in a game? Dividing by 2 might give you a number you like for a 20 player game, but what about a 5 player game, or a three player game?

Here's a suggestion. Let's call it the "2/N" system. Take a 20 player game. The first player eliminated, you calcualte the points lost to each player as you would in the round robin system. But then you multiply each of those by a modifier which is equal to 2/number of players. In a 20 player game the modifier would be .1. So assuming equal rankings the player would lose 1.9x points. Each of the 19 winners would get .1x points. This is twice the amount gained in the fractional system. Plus keep in mind each player isn't getting an equal share here. x in this system would be a different number for each player, unless they all have the same ranking.

In this system assuming equal rankings the points would range fomr -1.9x for the loser, to +2.2x for the winner. Less on the high end but more on the low end then the straight fractional system.

The advantage of this system over a straight x/2 modifier is that the formula works for any number of players. 2/2 (1x1 game) = 1.

This system also has no point inflation since 100% of the points awarded to the winners comes from the losers. It has a little multiplication, but that's what we are wanting, to give a winner of a big game a little more then a 1x1 game.