Hi Sic Vic, I really wish you were one of the people part of the long-winded Admin debate.
I proposed the following reasonable options:
+2 -0.5 -0.5 -1
+2 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2
+3 -0.5 -0.5 -2
+3 -0.6 -0.6 -1.8
For all of the options above:
1) Notice how: 1st > (2nd = 3rd) > 4th
2) One needs to study 4PC FFA Opening Theory, and play it well, to survive the 4P Stage.
3) One needs to understand material balance in the 3P Stage... and playing for 2nd is not an option.
What are your thoughts?
UPDATE: The following ideas are meant to generate a discussion and not to suggest an immediate change.
To my knowledge, most agree that the optimal FFA scoring system has a discrepancy between 2nd and 3rd, and 4th. If we are to follow through with this system, I think the next question is what the optimal values for 2nd and 3rd are.
I don't think that the answer to this question is obvious given multiple pros and cons. So far, I have seen the following suggestions:
2nd 3rd
+0 / +0
+0 / -1
+1 / +0
+1 / -1
-1 / -1 (UPDATE)
Potential cons of +1 / +0: players playing for second place when they could play for 1st
UPDATE: Will this cause players to team to the end? As I state in a later post, I wonder if giving 2nd a + may, ironically, prevent teaming by allowing not only the strategy to play for second, but also allow the strategy to punish one who plays for 2nd into 3rd (I sincerely do not know if this alternative is true and do not mean to suggest that it is. I just want to raise it as a consideration).
Potential pros of +1 / +0: the option to play for second place as a means of punishing others playing for 2nd
These cons and pros also exist for +0 / -1, but may further dissuade playing for second place. Still, one could choose to play for 2nd out of spite for or fear of 3rd in such a setup.
Potential cons of +0 / +0: constant shifts in 2 vs 1 alliances in the 3-player stage, which may result in duller play.
UPDATE: At the same time, +0 / +0 may also result in more interesting FFA play if players are crafty.
Potential pros of +0 / +0: the benefits of playing for 2nd place are nullified
Potential cons of +1 / -1: playing for 2nd place may become a viable strategy
Potential pros of +1 / -1: the viability of playing for 2nd place may encourage players to prepare for safeguarding against 3rd place during the 4-player stage (and may thus reduce "strong" teaming with sacrificial play against a player with a passive opposite)
Potential cons of -1 / -1: As stated, I think this leads to duller play and prevents the capacity to punish foolhardiness when one plays for 2nd.
Potential pros of -1 / -1: Others believe that this may help to prevent foolhardy teaming.
What are your thoughts?