King of the Hill rules
Posted:
Nov 10, 2016, 9:53 AM
There are 2 aspects of the current KotH rules that have caused some friction. The first is no empty steps, and the 2nd is no punishment for declining an invitation.
I introduced KotH as an alternative to the leaderboards/rankings, which are dominated by the strongest players by definition. One of the properties I want to maintain is to level the playing field a little so that it doesn't have to be dominated by the strongest players and that other players feel they have a shot at the crown. Allowing empty steps, even if I limit that to just one, and making players go down a step for declining an invitation are rules that tip the advantage towards the strongest players.
Granted, I could limit the punishment to scenarios where the declining player is the higher ranked player, and only in cases where the days-per-move is sufficiently high. But I dislike a complexity of rules and rules like that don't help.
For these reasons I'm inclined to keep the rules as they are but I wonder if I'm missing something, and if so, do let me/us know here.
Posts:
7
Registered:
Mar 23, 2004
From:
Michigan
Age:
41
Re: King of the Hill rules
Posted:
Nov 17, 2016, 2:30 PM
I am inclined to agree with madmike on this. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if someone declines my invite to play on any step. Except when that person has the crown. The crown should have to be defended. It is not easy to keep and shouldn't be. That is part of the fun. I don't think a penalty for declining an invitation is needed. You should be able to play whom ever you like, until you get the crown. My two cents.
Re: King of the Hill rules
Posted:
Nov 22, 2016, 11:23 AM
I have altered the rules a bit, if the timeout is 5 days or more, then declining an invitation is punished by lowering a step if the invitee is king of that hill, or, if the invitee's rating is higher than the challenger's rating.
There's also no reward for the challenger if their invitation got declined.
