Add a “Semi-Tie” to the individual multiplier format
PipungKhunpee
Right now, even a 1–2 point difference (e.g., 4800–4801) still gives the winner the full multiplier (+0.5), even though it can come down to tiny clicking differences.
Maybe introduce a “semi-tie” for very close scores: the closer player gets the full multiplier (+0.5), while the other player gets a half multiplier (+0.25) instead of nothing.
Possible ways to define a semi-tie:
- The score difference is only 1–2 points, or
- The score difference is within 5% of the missing points from 5000 (based on the higher score).
Example (option 2):
4000 vs 3951 → missing points from 5000 = 1000 → 5% = 50. Since the difference (49) ≤ 50, it would count as a semi-tie.
Kai Tschu
I think 1 or 2 points won't really matter in modes other than moving, where the semi-tie doesn't really make sense imo. But the second option sounds great!
It is really frustrating when you have 4000 against 4030 three times in a row and suddenly the other player is on 2.5x and you are on 1x but still with 5900.
I do agree with Elijah Foster that expanding to smaller countries enhances the game, but does it really matter if you go max west or max east if the location is right in the middle in a small country. Both players clearly had "no clue". That's why I'd absolutely advocate for option 2
TurboNZ
I think it shouldn't reward either with a multiplier. Making the multipliers start so early means a match finishes a lot quicker on average now, so mulitpliers should be given out less frequently.
Wind [moving hater]
moving also shouldnt be changed really the individual multis are good for moving but i dont play moving much so dont trust me
Elijah Foster
I originally was on board with this idea, BUT then I realized the current system of whoever's simply closer expands the game so much in terms of smaller, forgotten countries.
Before, no one would go and learn the provinces of Luxembourg. This changes everything.
The current system also values regionguessing/5king within cities, rather than simply plonking wherever, once you find the city you're in. Another expansion to the game's depth.
As such, I have removed my upvote on this post.
SleepyDragon67
Elijah Foster You could still use a system like this one to reward 5k'ing and knowing Luxembourg while also not rewarding random pixel plonks.
You take the ratio of how far each guess is from 5001 points. If that ratio is greater than or equal to 2, then one player gets +0.5 and the other players gets +0. If the ratio is 1, then both players get +0.25 and for any ratio between 1 and 2, the individual multiplier increase is on a linear scale.
This means that if one player gets a 5k and the other gets 4999, then it would be +0.5 and +0 accordingly. But if one player gets a 4200 and the other player gets a 4000, then it would be +0.31 and +0.19 accordingly.
Ayli
I would also like to add on to this that, for option 2, you could vary the tie-score depending on the gamemode. For example a 0% tie-score in moving, 5% in no move, and 10% in NMPZ.
PipungKhunpee
Ayli I agree with this. I think 0% for move, 5% for NM, and 10% for NMPZ makes sense.
In move, a score like 5000 vs 4999 is probably not a big issue, because the player who pinpoints better deserves the multiplier. So the current system is already fine there.
But in NM and NMPZ, very small differences (like 4500 vs 4495) can still give one player the full multiplier, which feels a bit unfair. I think this part should be improved.
SleepyDragon67
PipungKhunpee
A similar take on what you are saying... you take the ratio of how far each guess is from 5001 points. If that ratio is greater than or equal to 2, then one player gets +0.5 and the other players gets +0. If the ratio is 1, then both players get +0.25 and for any ratio between 1 and 2, the individual multiplier increase is on a linear scale.
This means that if one player gets a 5k and the other gets 4999, then it would be +0.5 and +0 accordingly. But if one player gets a 4200 and the other player gets a 4000, then it would be +0.31 and +0.19 accordingly.