??????
You are not logged in.
In your example, there would be some additional ordering to the amulets based on their number (maybe the money prizes would be different for each gold one, too... so #1 gold would actually be worth more than #2 gold because of the cash attached).
So, this would work like this:
A wins 1
B wins 2
D wins 3
4 goes unclaimed (in your example, only B had points on 4, but B already got one).
C gets nothing.
Offline
When a player holds an amulet
For each amulet match where they are the last player standing, they gain 200 points for that amulet.
If their opponent in an amulet match is the last player standing, they lose the amulet and their opponent gains the amulet, plus 200 points for that amulet
For each full minute that a player holds an amulet, they lose 1 point for that amulet.
Non-amulet matches can still be played, though they don't affect the amulet.
After a full two hours of no amulet match play, they drop the amulet into the player pool.
I think a few other people have mentioned it, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, I just haven't had time to catch up on new posts/threads. But players should be immune to timeouts and point degradation during matchmaking. Ideally, it wouldn't be an issue because the situation wouldn't arise with a larger player pool. But currently, it is kind of a bummer.
Try Linux, get free. #!++ (CrunchbangPlusPlus) is a stable distribution based on Debian 8. Keep it fast, keep it pretty.
Offline
Yea these games are taking forever.
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
Well, Jere, I also wanted to keep it as simple as possible to explain, and I also wanted to settle on something and move on after so many weeks of round-and-round on this subject.
Offline