I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you elaborate a little? What does the points system have to do with avoiding ridiculous players?

"like bad play for ex. I could babble on, but some get the gist of it. . .
--> Draws are worth more than 'losing' ;-)

Dhar the words coming out of your mouth are gibberish. (We can't make heads or tails of your post) Please do not post while drunk or high.

Thank you very much.

So you think the points system encourages people to play for a draw rather than a riskier strategy which could result in a win but is more likely to result in a defeat. Is that right?
Could you suggest a system where this would not be the case? Maybe only wins count?

Total waste of a thread. And you comment on 'dumb' players, Dhar???

Also you have not really touched on the issue of being forced to join non-anon games. What's that all about?

@damina, quit pot, never drank really -> Yuck. ... Never heard of peotic thinking ?

Ah, whatever, played a bunch of live games, & the players were (&*&%?%?%$/"()"&_

Dhar. Poetic thinking yes I have have heard of it. However to do so you ideas do have to be clearly presented, or at the very least speak for themselves. Which yours do not. You hardly address the points you've made.

While I agree with some of them I'm wondering what you are trying to convey as you seemed to switch ideas in your second post.

The first one is unrelated to the point system far as I can tell. Just that to avoid crappy players you have to play non-anon games so you can see them coming and bail.

I have heard the standard of play in live games can be inconsistent.
I suppose time constraints might be an issue - not enough time to properly consider options, plus I think metagamers are attracted to live games (friends playing together knowing before the game that they will ally).

... nothing to do with the points system , though.

You could try password protecting games and then recruiting players from the forum. I find that tends to ensure a higher standard of play.

penguins

Your penguins can go die in a hole

rofl penguins

The poetic thinking bit actually explains a lot about that game

Ya know...

gosh, I forgot to Realize that There Exist Different Styles of Thought, Attitude and Play.
|||
PPPenguouwins rrr kkkkewll

'survive' gives 'points' ... it seems that you 'survive' by having unit(s) on boars when game 'finished' ... not necccesssarily any CDs Left !

That is true, it's happened to me once where I got a survive with no supply centres left. It's not exactly how I'd imagine the game working, but I don't see it as a huge flaw...

LOL, indeed, there ARE a number of 'quirks' to be addressed ;-)

What about sportsman like behaviour, like, when you are gonna do a sweeping win, why not leave 1 unit of those you 'liked' ;-), won't change anything 'bout yer RANK, but a few measly D's.

"You could try password protecting games and then recruiting players from the forum. I find that tends to ensure a higher standard of play. "

I've been doing this. It solves 90% of problems with CD's and foul behavior.

hum, quite, I should consider this, Thx.

"'survive' gives 'points' ... it seems that you 'survive' by having unit(s) on boars when game 'finished' ... not necccesssarily any CDs Left !"

No it doesn't. They're actually separate. Points in PPSC are proportional to number of SCs you have.

However, you can get a zero SC survive if the winner took your last SC on the turn they won.

Correct. It won't get you any points though.
Also note currently you don't get a retreat if someone has 18SCs, which can (rarely) cause the adjudicator to be wrong