I dont understand it.
My fist game (10 players):
1nd place: +91 (200 np)
2nd place: +72 (135 np)
3nd place: +51 (108 np)
4nd place: +17 (38 np)
5nd place: +11 (0 np)

Second game (8 players)
1nd place: +79 (200 np)
2nd place: +38 (169 np)
3nd place: +25 (96 np)
4nd place: +19 (28 np)

How it calculated ? In second game i take 2nd place and take only +38 points.

Yeah I'm curious too. I just dominated a game (won by 120) and took 1st but received less points than 2nd.

amount of outposts? that could have an effect. also the lesser players. maybe game length. quicker games higher points?

In other games the number of points you get in ranked games depends on how high your opponents are ranked. Can't really say if that's the cause here because I don't know which place you were in the first. Also the number of players could affect the points too. Less points for shorter games.

Yeah it probably depends on the current ranking of everyone in the game.

For example, if you're the absolute top player in the global rankings, ending 2nd should make you lose points. While if someone who's just starting out gets first place in that game, that means that he has beaten you, the top player, and he should get a massive reward for that.

So for players high in the rankings, it'll become more difficult to rise in the ranking. At some point you'll only be able to gain points by ending in 1st place.

That doesn't explain why I received less points than 2nd place when I finished 1st

philbailey wrote:That doesn't explain why I received less points than 2nd place when I finished 1st

Do you know what rating each of you were?

It's very possible. If your rating is good, and 2nd place's sucks, then they'd get a huge boost and you wouldn't.

philbailey wrote:That doesn't explain why I received less points than 2nd place when I finished 1st

So you were first in the first game and second in the second? Then you got 91 for your first place and 38 for your second. I don't see were you got less points with a better place. Even if its the other way around you would have 72 for the second place and 79 for the first place. Still more for the first place.

Also, this perfectly explains how you could receive less points for a 1st place than for a 2nd. If the points you get are based on the players ratings you could get more points for a 2nd place against strong players than for a first place against weak players.

The higher your ranking the less points you win for beating lower ranked people. (And the better you need to do to get any positive improvement at all!)

In a perfectly matched game where everybody has the same rating points then you will receive +10 points for every person you beat and -10 for every person that beats you.

If the person in 2nd is receiving a bigger boost than the person who won the game then that means that the person who won has a much higher rating than the person who finished 2nd. If a person receives a big gain then that is reward for finishing much higher than their history suggests they should. In your game we could explain it by saying that you winning was more expected than the guy in 2nd coming 2nd.


For those wanting a more specific answer; go and have a look at how the Elo rating system works. This is the system being used with a k value of 20. And it's adaption into a multiplayer game is that your rating is calculated against every opponent in a game (so an 8 player match would see you personally being involved in 7 different 1v1 battles when rating is calculated) and these values are all added together. I'll write something more specific on the wiki when I get a chance.