If I'm understanding you right, this is a bad idea. Equalizing to the smaller one is not fair. What if one of those people is in first place and that drags them down? I'm not sure I think there should be any equalizing at all, but certainly not that involves only certain players. Someone with no pawns left vs someone who is still playing is not related to the placement of players.diamant wrote:2) The scores of the remaining players are equalized to the smaller one (among scores of the remaining players) when the game ends in application of this rule. So, the players who have no pawns in play are not affected.
In the one game I described, I was in 1st, but only by a tie breaker, and was still in play. Anything that hurt me in any way would have put the person out of play into 1st. Which is how it should be, but only if that happened through game play, not from messing with the scores. The scores were not related at all to who was or was not still in play.
I don't usually have good solutions to things like this, but I much prefer the players decide, and I also think if someone can still change their standing they have a right to do so. So I think the current solution is the best one for right now. If this only happens when the current standings can't change, it should work for anything but a 2 player where someone is being stubborn for no good reason.
(And thanks, A-dam, once again for digging into this game and making changes.)