I think Geo's idea has a lot of merits, too. I'd prefer to do it with the "straight-line" method (the easier method he referred to), after all, not sure there is any really detailed need to be so careful to adjusting points in a ratio'd manner (I mean, why make sure we give the highest rated player a bigger proportion of the points when HE may be the next player out). And, I've always liked the idea of computing it as a player is beaten (assuming I get a report...
).
One of the good points, I think, is one of the points I worry about, though. And that is the skew that prevents the lowest finishing player getting points subtracted any worse than a 1 x 1 game while allowing the winner to gain points equal to 2 "1 x 1" games (or even more). While this is appealing to those who fear a person may hang around hoping that someone else will go out a turn before them, this could also lead to people overwhelming multi-player games. After all, you have a chance to gain an equivalent of winning 2 or 3 "1 x 1" games but NEVER having the fear of a loss being any worse than a single "1 x 1" game. In other words, you risk as many points in a "1 x 1" game as ANY multiplayer game yet the fruits of victory could yeild much more in point gain.
I'm not against it, mind you, I'm just listing my concern. If we get a lot of people who prefer this way to rate multiplayer games, this is what we will use.
