HEY, I did not plan this. I am merely a class mate of these people. It is not my fault that my naive friend, Lord of Destruction, wants to creat these games and no, I am not aiming for mastermind. I was also wanting to bring this up when i saw this.

The current stats system doesn't really count towards anything, and the new system, which will count towards something, will be created with lots of user input so people can point out ways for abuse.

oh, and yes I am 13 years old.

lol, i don't care how old are you, I just get annoyed when people join up and die at once, don't reply to negotiate or create alliances and generaly ruin everything that's good about diplomacy. As far as I am concerned, you can be 9 or 99, just play the game like it's meant to be played ;)

Who cares? If they're not good, then they won't win any games, but their ranking will still go up, but an experienced player will just look at the date they were created and know that their ranking is not worth anything. If they do win, it means they're good, and they deserve their ranking. If you think that's not fair, go out and join a million games yourself. Oh yes I am also a classmate of azapcap, grotto, Arthas, LoD. But actually we only go to the same school.

let me guess... Edina? :D

oh, and about joining million games - no can do. When I play, I want to be dedicated to the games I play. I play 3-4 at the same time max.

I playing like 10 games now and I'm really dedicated to all of them. Plus I have to go to school.

The school is in China, so I doubt you would know it.

wait 10 more years and you'll see why I play only 4 :P

What's your point, drzli? Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to play the games I want to play?

Note: Not my fault I got to Mastermind already...

Drzli are you in college or something? There really should be a limit to how many games you can join. Every game that's open has will6691, grotto, and LoD in them. This is like hogging slots so other people don't get a chance. Games have 7 slots, one for each country, but now its like games have only 3 or 4 slots because *some people* join everything. Either you should be able to ban certain individuals from joining your game or you can somehow kick people like in Counter-Strike before the game starts.

My point is that there should be a limit for number of games played simultaneously. And that the ranking system should be revised. Your level and number of games you play are of no importance to me, you are just a glaring example of current flaws in beforementioned issues . As far as I am concerned, play a million of them if you like ;)

I'm 30 man, I'm ooooooold. I agree. So many people take up positions for others and the thing I really like about this game is that I can play with DIFFERENT players in my games...apart from will6691 which is in every game imaginable, rofl
Creator of the game should have option to kick or ban certain players from his game. I know it's unpopular demand but we should at least consider it...

How does the current ranking system work anyway, if Azapcap can win 2 out of his 18 finished games and be a Mastermind, while I've won 5 out of 17 and I am a mere Pro?

I don't know why everyone's placing so much emphasis on your ratings all of a sudden

$rating = round( ( ( count($finishedgames) + count($activegames) ) * 2) + ($gameswon * 10) );
if(4>$rating) {
print 'Political puppet';
} elseif(15>$rating) {
print 'Casual player';
} elseif(25>$rating) {
print 'Member';
} elseif(55>$rating) {
print 'Experienced';
} elseif(100>$rating) {
print 'Pro';
} elseif(200>$rating) {
print 'MasterMind';
} else {
print '<strong>Diplomat</strong>';
}

(finished + active) x 2 plus gameswon x 10

So if you register and start 100 games you're a Diplomat straightaway..!

Eh, right now I just wouldn't worry about the stats. They are gonna change as kestas mentioned. If people can join and keep track of 20+ games at once, good for them. I find that any more than about 4 or 5 games at once and it takes too much time to make quality decisions.

The best way I've found of determining the competency of a player is by looking at games won compared to games finished. That's not entirely accurate though, because it's negatively skewed by joining games in civil disorder (ie those losses shouldn't count/should count a lot less in my determination of skill.)

Until the stats change though... get to stat padding! go go go! :-P

Is stat padding like back stabbing?

nah, it's a term from battlefield 2 computer game where certain players go to a secluded part of the map and then kill and revive some friend of theirs gaining ludicrous ammounts of points per round. Biggest statpadding score I've seen so far it 5742 in a single round on a single map. That is done only bf2 has a ranking system which gives players new weapons as they progress through ranks. I believe there are similar scams in mmorpgs, but since I don't play them I can't say for sure ;)

Since kestas gives a rather large monetary reward to anyone who reaches diplomat status I think this is a very important issue. Thank you for bringing it up drzli!

Very ironic! However, if the present ranking system has no credibility at all, I think those of us of a competitive nature who take pride in our achievements have a right to be a little put out. The "Games Won" stat gives a better indicator of player quality, so I reckon the rating system as it stands now is completely redundant!

:)

stat padding has been around for awhile... battlefield 2 and battlefield 2142 are more serious because the stats actually mean something (allows to you unlock items and more easily take command.) However it's been around for as long as stats have been collected on competitive games. Whether virtual or real. But other games like Counter-Strike (using external stats programs), Starcraft (battle.net tracked games won/games lost), and many more have stat padders. It's pretty common, but it's bad because it screws with the analysis of the stats by making them unreliable (ie creating a new account on here, making 100 games, becoming a diplomat means you've fulfilled the diplomat requirements, but in terms of skill, you haven't proven anything.)

Hm. I have always been an advocate for less games, and for a more definitive scoring system. As was said earlier, kestas has some very nice ideas already as to how to implement a more accurate measure of skill, as well as games divided by skill.

My only beef with people who play a lot of games at one time is that, I very much dislike playing with them, because their quality of play is much lower than if they micro managed a few. I would prefer a player to co-ordinate with me personally and intensively rather than just spitfire rapid peace/war messages, quitting games they lose immediately in (citing bad luck), and hanging on to games where a player goes inactive next to them, and they expand quickly.

I would still however, not put a ban on the games that can be played at one time, unless we have server overload problems. The easiest way to solve this problem, is to implement a scoring system that is quite ratio based, and penalizes players who have a low win percentage, rather than their bulk wins.

Lastly, I would like to point out, that this is not a huge project, be patient and appreciative. People should really chill out about ratings and skill and all that, and realize that while a scoring system would be nice, most of us would prefer a final fleet adjudicator. =D

"most of us would prefer a final fleet adjudicator." I'll second that.

We seriously need to be able to at least kick out people we don't want.

Anyone else spotted the (private) game where there are SIX named players in Civil Disorder?

The name of this game seems prescient... "Playing with Idiots"