I usually like something a bit more complicated than PWNAGE's system. However, I agree with his theory on rewarding winners and not people who just limp a bit further.
So, I am highly against the whole "last place gets 1, second to last gets 2, all the way up to first who gets points equal to the number of players" structure. In a 20-person tournament, a first and last (20 + 1 = 21) should be worst more than two 9th places (11 + 11 = 22).
If you want to get more complicated, you should give points based on the number of players. For example, if only 15 people show up, I don't like giving out the same points for first as if 20 people show up.
How about this:
- 1st place gets points equal to the number of players
- 2nd place gets points equal to 2/3 the number of players, rounded up
- 3rd place gets points equal to 1/3 the number of players, rounded up
# Players | First | Second | Third |
---|
24 | 24 | 16 | 8 |
21 | 21 | 14 | 7 |
18 | 18 | 12 | 6 |
You could adjust the percentages to something like 1, 3/4, and 1/2 to make the difference between 1st and 3rd less dramatic, too.