Completely disagree. in fact you should pay people ACTUAL money to takeover CD's. I am the Janitor of webdip literally. I clean up games everywhere.

Isn't the obvious answer here to have an option when creating a game whether of not to allow free takeovers? Or even whether or not to allow takeovers at all?

Or passwords. Passwords could also help. The mods should see about allowing players to put passwords on games.

lol

I am 100% in favor of passwording games ™.

I think what we need to do is stop the root cause of this problem, which is people CD'ing. Email notifications, an app for peoples phones, in site notifications etc. are some ways this could be minimized.

By email notifications I mean like, the site will send you an email an hour before the game phases or something along those lines.

email notifications are on the todo list, but unfortunately it's quite a bit of work.

While I understand that one of the main ideas behind free takeovers is to fill empty seats, Jeff has the very valid point of this unintended consequence. I also think biophil is onto something there with an effective solution to help prevent this from happening in higher tier games while maintaining the original intent.

"Email notifications, an app for peoples phones, in site notifications etc. are some ways this could be minimized."
I can assure you there are already in site notifications.

@trprado I mean actual notifications, like with Facebook on Chrome

Email notifications should be for after you've missed a deadline, not every fricking hour before a deadline...

If the email notification comes after you miss a deadline what's the point? They should be there to stop people from missing deadlines.

If the consensus is that this experiment has failed, then a major argument for PPSC resurfaces.

Once the RR is figured out (as right now as I understand it it isn't in it's final form) why don't we tie takeovers to RR. So you can not takeover a game unless you have the RR the game was originally made with or an RR of 70% (whichever is higher). This would mean players can only takeover if they have 70% RR, and I know we do not like to hear it but compensation should be given to incentivize not only the taking over but the play through of CD nations. Even if that incentive is 1/2 the bet needed to play the game, the player should receive that much after the game ends if they do not NMR or CD. Example: England CDs in a 50 point buy-in , no RR gate game. a player possessing 70% RR takes over England for free; no matter what the outcome that player will receive 25 . The points will be allocated from the nether and not come from the pot the other players are playing for. If the player plays through til the end and is included in a draw he will receive either his portion of the pot or his takeover compensation (whichever is higher). In the example with england, he gets included in a 3 way draw, he would receive the 116 he earned and forfeit his 25 point takeover reward

i dont see that email reminders will solve this problem. If you have your smartphone, you should be setting a reminder - how is an email better than that?
If you don't have a smartphone, how is an email going to help?!
Am I missing something?

The numbers don't show this experiment as a failure. However, the point about high lot public games is a good one. Perhaps takeovers should be free, but you should *have* the points necessary to join the game?

I agree with brainbomb. Players need to be paid to take over CDs.

Byron, new players have 100% RR. I would not want them in my games. I'd prefer a 10 games completed bar or something similar.

Or maybe when the ratings get integrated there can be a threshold minimum rating possible to get in the game as a feature? Of course, there's still a decent amount of work to get done for the first part, and that kind of threshold might take a little longer.

Formal proposal: After a CD is adjudicated, the community will be able to takeover the position at no cost so long as their RR is at least 70% or equal to the RR gate set-up by the initial player (whichever is higher). The player taking over a position will be compensated upon elimination or survival (so long as they do not NMR or CD) one half of the initial bet the others players committed, this compensation will not be levied from the pot and instead will be contributed from the site itself. If a player taking over a position is involved in a draw or victory he will be rewarded the portion of the pot as dictated by the game-type, or his takeover compensation (whichever is higher). Examples A-B will describe the situation based on a classic game with a 60% RR gate and 20 point buy-in using SoS rules.

Example A: England CDs and is taken over by Player A, who possess a 70% RR. Player A faithfully plays his position through until his eventual elimination. Because Player A faithfully fulfilled his obligation as a takeover, he is rewarded one half of the initial bet for the game (20) and receives 10 .

Example B: England CDs and is taken over by Player A who possess an 80% RR. Player A plays faithfully and is included in the draw. after the game calculates his earnings player A would receive 12 from the pot. Since his reward for taking over the position would only be 10 player A is receives his 12 point share of the pot and forfeits his 10 point take over compensation.

All taken over positions will not count toward your GR and only solo victories and draws will be included in your stats.

@leon - I am recollection of a thread in which RR was discussed and many proposed and supported a X number of games before RR was calculated method. I assume that such a popular request would be included with the next update of RR and thus am assuming that with a more concrete RR system my above proposal would be sound.

We don't have a shortage of ideas about RR- we have a shortage of hours to implement them.

New player who have never played any games don't have 100% RR. Only when they have played some turns do they start getting a RR. It actually starts at 1%, to prevent players with no information joining RR-gated games.

It depends on what numbers you are looking at and what you define as a failure. Clearly, with no cost, more people will be available to takeover games. I can also see where adding to the pot is not necessarily enticing to someone. Now that all solos end in WTA, there is little point in growing the total.

I like ATC's proposal. You can only takeover a game if you have the points it would have taken to do so, but the cost is free. That puts a reasonable barrier to entry so that newbies don't get in over their heads.

I think ATC's proposal is fantastic. Keeps the riff raff out of high quality games, but doesn't hurt anything for us little folk further down the ladder.