[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I believe I did average them.

I agree with your Last post. My comment about the second place player getting more points wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that what you saw as a flaw in the system, ie the 2nd place player not getting enough points, might nto be a flaw at all since so much of it is dependant on the player Ratings going in to the game..

If you say your suggestion called for averaging, I won't bother going to look .

In the example I used, everyone was @ 1,000 points. I used it as a "flat line" example. Yes, at different Ratings, point gain and loss would differ but would be hard to get an idea of how well the adjustment to the formula was working...so I used 1,000's. And with 4 rated players at the same score, to have come in second should have yielded something, IMO. Looking at the other side of the coin, 2nd place DID lose. But coming in second in 4 people isn't bad.

I'm not too worried about an adjustment to a multiplayer rating game "disturbing" the formula too much, after all, in a multiplayer game, the number of events (and players) affecting the outcome are more than what is found in a one-on-one game. So, the multiplayer game results already will be skewed a bit due to those circumstances.