I was wondering how the distribution is?
Cause right now, the number 1 gets 81/81, and the number two is WAY below that, even if the scores are not that far apart.
e.g.:

(place,name,score,GP,EXP)
-------------------------
1 Alpha 37233 81 81
2 PhaE 37143 19 38

Thought it had something to do with difference between score also, but in above example the scores are not that far apart. Or is 19/38 the max for 2nd place?
Just wondering :)

The distribution can change if the community feels it's not working. I tossed it together one night when I was really tired :)

All it does is this....

1st place gets 75 exp + (extra exp depending on how many players entered the tournament... if only 5 entered, he/she might get 78exp, if 500 entered he might get 110)

Whatever exp the 1st place, he/she would get the same in geek points.

As for everyone else, they get between 40 and 0 exp scaling down. the guy in 2nd usually will get around 40... and it goes down from there.

The only other thing to know is this. If first gets a score of 10,000... and the guy in 2nd gets a score of 500, that person will not get 40 exp. They will get less because they didn't even come close to the 1st place score.

As for geek points you get half of whatever exp you received. So if you got 40 exp, you'll get 20 gp.

Let me know if you need clarification or if you think you have a better way to do it... I'm always open to better ways of doing things :)

I think it should be more like this.

You have x number of people in the tournament. Your place in the tournament is y. You get (x*((x-y)+1))/10 EXP and half that in GP. That way, person 1 in a 50 person tournament is going to get 250xp. Person 2 in the same tournament is going to get 245xp. That way, you're still going to get a bunch of XP for participating, even if you're not going to get first place. The current way makes things seem like they should be very cutthroat.

I think the current method is ok, it's just that i find the difference a bit big :)
1st place gets 81 EXP, and 2nd place "only" gets 38.
(As in my example, the point-difference is not THAT big, only 90 points on a 37k+ score. that's like 1 or 2 kills in the end-waves.)
And come on, beating Alpha or MrCake without them ever putting up a replay... Never gonna keep up then! :D
Not with work and all, don't have the time to enter dozens of times in the same tournament ;)

If you wanted to change the distribution to a System based on the Score you could use some formula like this:

(SQRT(Max Score)/SQRT(Score))* XP 1st * (1-((1-Place)*0,05))

(1-((1-Place)*0,05)) should be caped at at something like 0,5. It is in the formula so that it matters in which Places someone finishes (1st gets 100%, 2nd 95%, 3rd 90%,..., 11th and all after that 50%)

Whith that formula the chart would look like this:
(place,name,score,GP,EXP)
-------------------------
1 Alpha 37233 81 81
2 PhaE 37143 38 77

Myabe it's just me, but I think 1st place should get quite a bit more than everyone. If you got 2nd place, why bother trying again if getting first only gives you 5% more exp/gp? If it gave you quite a bit more for 1st, then you'd try again.

The question is what is more important the Place or the Score? If i understand it correctly it is not important in the current system if someone gehts the 1st place whith 1 or 10000 Score Difference.

And the 5% decline could of course changed to 10% or 25% or what ever number feels right. It is only a number to show how to combine Score and Place in the calculation.

In my opinion, the score means nothing. You might have a tournament that people can get to level 100. The scores would be massive. Or you could have a very hard tournament where the top score is only 6000. Your score only decides who you beat and who beat you.

As for the decline in experience points... I don't want a tournament with 200 people for the bottom 100 to get almost nothing.... They just won't get as much. I do take into account peoples score when calculating exp to some extent. I can post the actual formula tomorrow if you want to see it.

In most cases getting a score that is just 100 points higher is exponentially more difficult than the first 10,000 points, so having a 1% higher score is FAR more than 1% more difficult, therefore more then 1% extra credit should be given.