I haven't resigned a game since 2012 when I first learned how to play. You can vouch for this ssorenn, I didn't resign or cd or even NMR in our most recent game. Not my style. DO is correct, I mean assist in preserving games "With" CD's, not cause more.

If that's not what you meant, then I'm sorry. Just what it sounded like

I gotcha. I understand your position too, people who resign ruin games.

Dear brainbombe, I don't believe we've ever played in a game, so you've supplied none of the points I've won. Plus the idea that when you get beaten that's you being charitable towards those players who have beaten you is a self centered egotistical fantasy.....maybe they beat you because they played a better game than you.
If you blow all your points you'll probably get a modest bail out, but I see no reason to treat you differently from any other player

How can you have finished over 330 games and be ranked a political puppet ? A 4% win rate is one win per 25 games.....any reasonable player would be able to win at least one game in ten imho

I think you'll find there's quite a few experienced players without many points, MM. High stakes games can bankrupt you.

I don't think that 'any reasonable player' wins at least 10% of their games. Many of the top players predominantly play with other top players, and if we imagine a person that is reasonably good, and plays only with other reasonably good players, then even if every game was won by someone, they still would only be expected to win ~14% of their games.

now think that most games are drawn, i think that anyone that only plays in high level games should expect a win record of notably less than 10%....

The 267th ranked player is talking shit on people's game.

Socrates, what are you talking about? You've won 24% of your games. Are you not a reasonable player?

I have more draws than defeats... isnt that the litmus test for dedication to the game? I dont win alot but ive won 4 in the last 2 months. That seems pretty good to me?

Im not Amwidkle.. look him up his win percentage is like 26%.

Also... MajorMichelle I would gladly spectate your games and even join one but it seems you do more talking than actually playing this game. "When" not "If" I have points back Ill gladly play you in a game. I think people would like to see that.

@ peterwiggin; I think I am a reasonable player, but I think my draws in high level games/my GR rating/run without a loss are better (thought not perfect) indicators of that.

I won a lot of games when I first joined the site, and have won some more casual games since. I do think that win records can obviously indicate prowess, and I do think that reasonable players will have win records above 10%, because they are inflated by games they have played which are made of players who are not as talented.

I think that as time goes on and you play better games your win percentage should and will decrease. The main thing though is that your win percentage is influenced a lot by who you have played, and, if your games are almost entirely high level games, then you will almost definitely have a win record which is less than 10%, which I think is fairly obvious if there are 7 high-level players, and we remember that most games are drawn.

*I do think that reasonable players will often have win records above 10%, but MAINLY because their win records are inflated by games that feature a large range in talent.

A_Tin_Can:

Sure, I'll elaborate by way of old posts I made, starting with the very first thread and posts I made on this website:


20 Jul 2009 "Taking over countries should be encouraged!": "When you take over a country, there is no indication, to an outside observer, that a country was taken over. That is to say, if you take over a country with 1 supply center at the end of a game, you are the only person recorded as having played that game."


Here's my reconstruction of the rest of the thread (I'm probably missing several comments, including Ukla's comment and the comment whomever I referred to as "Mr Penguin"):


"Not only is there no record of player changes in finished games, but your own statistics reflect the results of these games. Because you lost a game having started with only one unit, your statistics forever show a loss. This means that if you continuously take over such microstates, you are penalized with being recorded as a continuous loser. Why can't your statistics be divided and multiple players be recorded?" – JECE, 20 Jul 2009

"In the next version civil disorders are tracked after takeovers, but they aren't reported yet. So it's getting there" – kestasjk, 21 Jul 2009

"How long will that take?" – JECE, 21 Jul 2009

"
This assumes we're talking about the typical on the ropes player with 1/2 units, but there are also players with 3/4 Spring 1901 NMRs, or the players who just have to leave mid-game, and so splitting the system to be free sometimes might be confusing, and the criteria for what makes a country on the ropes isn't so easy to define

I think the number of points for a typical 1/2 unit takeover is small enough that they're not what might limit people. I can understand that people wouldn't want it to affect their lost games stats though, and that's coming.

@JECE: When? It'll be a few mini versions down the line, probably some time before 1.0, along with a bunch of other stuff I'd like to addnow but don't have time to, no idea when though
" – kestasjk, 21 Jul 2009

"Yes, I have little problem with the small bets. I only have a problem with the player who really lost the game disapearing from all lists and individual player stats." – JECE, 21 Jul 2009

"well I'm pretty sure that it shows up on the player who left's record as a 'left game'. so thats sort of a black mark cause it shows that you aren't a very reliable player." – jman777, 21 Jul 2009

"To Ukla: That is an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't make sense that old players cannot be identified. Frankly, the fixed stats, to me, would be nice, but it's definitely not right for the archives to give credit only to the last player. I think the point is to get more players to take over the microstates that crowd the joinable games. Funny point, though!" – JECE, 21 Jul 2009

"
To: jman777
I wouldn't know, but it doesn't show up on the actual archived game.
" – JECE, 21 Jul 2009

"
To: Mr Penguin
Yes, they often are inflated, but if during a Spring phase enemy armies are sitting on top of some of 'your 'supply centers, the price seems to be significantly less. Sometimes for 0 !
" – JECE, 21 Jul 2009


I elaborate further in the intervening years, also touching on GR. (threadID=458170 is "Taking over countries should be encouraged!")


10 Nov 2009: "But the jist is the same, and I have been arguing for a division of statistics for months. (Here is my very first post on the forum: threadID=458170) Apparently, it's too hard to do."

9 Nov 2010 (the original post had the title of "Is it time to discontinue points?"):
"
At the original post: NO WAY!

I like joining games in progress with microstates. Doing that with a GR system would put the most crappy and meaningless number next to my name. The system doesn't, as far as I know, keep track of replacements made in games. It acts as if someone who joined as a 1 SC Portugal had playing for the whole game.
"

25 Jan 2012: "Anyone who joins a lot of games in progress has a meaningless Ghost Rating, so your seeding may end up being distorted."

9 Feb 2012: "Ghost Ratings punish you severely (OK, I don't actually know quite how much) for joining several games in progress. If you like playing games as 1-SC 'Great Powers' like me, then you will obviously have a much higher survive and defeat percentage than is reflective of your abilities."

18 Mar 2012: "I don't think any rating system can beat the points system for anybody who likes to take over Great Powers after they've already been reduced to micro-states."

30 Jul 2013: "I take over lots of positions too, often as very minor (1 or 2 SC) 'great powers', so both my Ghost-Ratings and Game stats are very skewed. I can display the correct Game stats in the 'Comment' section of my profile page, but I don't care about the Ghost-Rating at all since it is so far off."

23 Sep 2013: "For anyone who likes to take over Great Powers in Civil Disorder, especially if the positions taken over tend to be 1-SC or 2-SC microstates, the Ghost Ratings system is utterly and completely useless. The points system, on the other hand, offers a challenge simply in giving you the opportunity to stay even."

22 Oct 2013: "The points system, by the way, is your only incentive to take over positions that are in 'CD' and the best way to measure your success when you do. The 'Game stats' on your profile page and the Ghost-Ratings system mentioned above both penalize you heavily for doing so. See this discussion: threadID=458170."

10 Feb 2014: "The points system is pretty useful for encouraging take-overs. If the GhostRating becomes official then that encouragement will evaporate, though."

10 Feb 2014: "Well, it's true that for WTA games there is virtually never a points incentive to taking over positions in games. But for PPSC games there are tons of positions – often minor – in tons of games for which it makes perfect sense to take over. If you're a good diplomat and choose the games you enter wisely (sometimes it is when you enter that is key) there will be a minor points incentive at the end of that game. See my profile for examples."

12 Feb 2014:
"
The official statistics are useless because of takeovers; that is true. GhostRatings also are useless for players who like to take challenging positions over. Only the points system makes the effort somewhat rewarding. At least with the 'Game stats', though, you can keep track of what your real record is:

Game stats [official]:
◦Defeated: 6 ( 18% )
◦Won: 2 ( 6% )
◦Drawn: 11 ( 32% )
◦Survived: 15 ( 44% )
◦Total (finished): 34
◦Playing: 1

Game stats [real]:
◦ Defeated: 1 ( 6.7% )
◦ Won: 2 ( 13.3% )
◦ Drawn: 7 ( 46.7% )
◦ Survived: 5 ( 33.3% )
◦ Total (finished): 15
◦ Playing: 1
◦ Total: 16
"

Sources:
JECE: http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=threads&userID=17421
JECE: http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=replies&userID=17421
kestasjk: http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=replies&userID=10
jman777: http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=replies&userID=10724

@ HR I'll defer to your experience regarding players who play a lot of high stakes games not having many points. I haven't played high stakes games, I'm still building a points "war chest"

@,Socrates Dissatisfied
I came up with the reasonable player should be expected to win 10% because in part, your comments about & I'm paraphrasing... all things being equal with reasonably good players vs all reasonably good players a player should win one game in seven or approx 14%, and then guestimated 14% less 4% & plucked out 10% for a reasonable player so I wasn't setting a 14% figure to compare with Bb's 4% win %

@MajorMitchell, that's legit, and i've never played bb so I have no idea of how good they are. I do think that ~4% win% would be reasonable if you only played in elite games (roughly translates that, even if you were the 'average' player in a group of 7, you would get ~4% win rate, if ~30% of games end in a win, 70% in a draw). Anyways, it doesn't really matter :-)

I literally cant even play in live game club opening weekend events because of this weak ass policy. Tell me how I can get 100 today. If I have to ask Zultar myself I literally will grovel to Zultar.

Unless one of you brand new Live Game club members is willing to step up and help yoyo this weekend....

@MM

Well, userID=5775 is the first user I can think of off of the top of my head. gameID=147314 also bankrupted userID=8938 who I believe is the one who organised it!

You can go from a lot to zero points in a very short time period.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=173061

back to 81 after this 3wd
the brainbomb webdip economic crisis averted

Thanks HR. Players still get to decide how they'll "risk" their points, and should be prepared to accept the consequences of decisions they make.
Brainfade continues to whine about not being able to play in a live game because, in his words, of this "weak ass policy", whereas I see his lack of points that was preventing him from entering a game, or games being not the result of any policy on points, but instead being the result of choices that he made.
If a player makes poor choices and that means they don't have available points to enter the number and type of stakes games they'd like to enter, then that's on them, in my opinion, it's not a policy problem.
It's the same rules for all of us