As I understand it, this is already the case. Frankly, given the number of guys who try and improve their RR by taking over mediocre to awful positions who suicide out I'd prefer it if there were a threshold below which the position is put into anarchy. The Suicide Squad turn a game of skill into pot luck

Is it really the case? I'm in a game where I replaced someone. It says everyone else's bet is 20. But for some reason my bet is 34.

The cost of taking over a position is adjusted to the sc count, but it is not adjusted to the tactical position. Since most (but not all) powers in cd are in decline, this means that you'd expect to loose points by taking over a cd. That is especially true if you take over a one or two-center power which is expected to be eliminated in a few rounds.

*fewer












;)

The cost of taking over a position is roughly 60% times the pot size times the percentage of supply centers you own. So for instance, if the bet is 5 and you take over a position in the first year, you only pay 3 points.

However, vPoints (the ones that appear next to your name) do not account for the strength of the position you took over; only ordinary dPoints do (the ones you use to bet on games).

Partially correct. In the vPoint-Rating the strength of the power at time of take-over is indeed considered with a special weight.

How is that done, tobi? In my experience, no matter the position, people who take over a CD lose fewer points if they lose, but also gain fewer points if they win.

That is also true. The weight takes the position into account by comparing the bets of the players, which in case of a take over are (relative strength at takeover)* potSize / 2.

The current formula for the applied weight to the rating change in direct comparison between two players is

1 - | player1.bet - player2.bet | / max({player1.bet, player2.bet})

with |.| being the absolute value.

This means, that if you take over a weak position and lose, you won't lose that much of your rating due to the low bet you had to pay. You will also not win that much, if you can win a game after taking over a strong position as your bet will be higher than that of your opponents.
However, you will also win less than original members of the game, if you can achieve a victory with an initially weak position or you will lose less, if you fail with a strong position. This is in accord with your observation, that players taking over win or lose less in any case.

The best gains currently can actually be made if you take over a position with equal bet as other members, so a position that is twice as strong as any other. In this case the weight will be approximately one. I believe, the rating weight was introduced when takeovers still costed full prize. I cannot say, if leading a weak position to victory or failing a strong position being less rated was originally intended.