I can safely say that targetting new players is not something we're going to do.

An initial limit on games is a more realistic prospect.

My proposal does have downsides to be sure. I think the primary focus should be on preventing CDs rather than encouraging people to take them over. The new changes will certainly help, to what degree is yet to be seen.

Jeff, just played passworded games.

And thanks for making the changes, ATC. Having played some games similar to this in the tournaments I have to say that I expect it to be more fun than straight WTA.

And now you get to make so many more permutations of the GR categories ; )

I agree that RR could be set for a fixed period and then improved; rather than someone forever being on 98% or 99% simply for a few NMRs that happened because they have a life; or 1 CD blighting your profile when you haven't CDed subsequently for a prolonged period of say 6 or 12 months.

@Yonni: I prefer to create games with objective criteria and let in anyone meets them.

Many thanks to the webdip denizens for these much appreciated and rational updates. Good agile development.. try something and revise as necessary. Merry Christmas!

@goldfinger0303, the concept "that a country with an owner is preferable to one left in CD" is not that simple. Let's put this in FTF terms. Let's assume we are playing a game with competent players who are all quick. You then need to leave when you are on 2 SCs, so you get your aunt Lulu who's never played before to stand in for you. She takes an hour over each turn and messes up moves, like failing to give the convoy order to the fleet she needed to use. Leaving you in CD would have been much better for everyone.

@Kremmen: I'd venture that Aunt Lulu didn't volunteer to take over the CD. Players can always leave untenable situations for others or for dead.

@kremmen - I don't think a FTF analogy is apt because there are far fewer CDs in FTF. Online games are much more likely to see a CD. Not to mention, you can't assume the moves that a CDed player would have made on a given turn.

These are some awesome updates--thanks, ATC!

@Jeff Kuta: You are touching upon exactly the important point. Untenable situations are seldom taken up by competent players. They are taken up by new users who just want to mess about. (And a fair proportion leave the site and/or are banned.) One of Diplomacy's great appeals is that the game mechanism is not random. I've been in games in which a player in an untenable situation drops out. All other players then know that that player's pieces will just hold. Everyone plays accordingly. Some turns (something like a week in real time) later, some idiot comes and suddenly starts playing that position. That does not improve the game. It makes it random.
@2ndWhiteLine: Frequency of CDs is irrelevant to my comparison It's about the effects of them. It's about the game being enjoyable for the players, as opposed to not enjoyable.

Thank you for all your hard work ATC.

Unranked games don't sound like they count for GR, but I've seen nothing confirming this. Do they?

They don't. It does say that in the OP.

"Unranked games won’t count for GR, but you still need to bet on them."

btw, the site FAQ for "How are the points split in a draw?" is now incorrect and needs to be rewritten.

Two opinions
Should keep the buy in for CD's, everyone entering should contribute to the points pot, and it compensates players who have been in game from the start for the actions of interlopers who just join to play silly buggers

Please enable survivor scoring thingy
Otherwise you punish loyal alliances where one player allows the other to get a solo win, you are restricting them to two way draws
You're punishing loyalty and rewarding a backstab towards the end of a good alliance by only having wta with the two scoring systems currently enabled,in my opinion

That's the point Mitchell, having people who forge and alliance soley to let someone else win is not in the spirit of the game.

Kremmen: The FAQ is woefully out of date across the board. We're intending to clean that up this holiday too. Any offers of help are welcome.

Thank greatly ATC!! It's awesome to see all these improvements to the site going on, we really appreciate you.

\o/ I like it all.

Am I interpreting it correctly that there's actually an incentive for larger draws?

For instance, if you're at 17 centres and you have a choice between a 17/17 or 17/16/1 draw you'd score more with a 17/16/1 draw.

The numerator, 17^2, is the same in both cases. The denominator is smaller in the second case because 16^2 + 1 is less than 17^2.

Yes, that's correct. A seven-way draw where you have 10 centers and the other six players have four each would be a great (more than half the points) result for you.

>>Am I interpreting it correctly that there's actually an incentive for larger draws?<<

Well, I guess that's not necessarily always accurate. A 3WD where you have 14 and the other two have 10 will score better than a 4WD where you have 12 and the other three have 8, 7 and 7, for example.

Sum of Squares is what’s called a divide-and-conquer system, meaning that in order to maximize your score, you have to not only conquer lots of centers, but also divide the rest evenly among the other players.

@Seth24c
And you have the choice to set up and enter games that are suited to your opinions on that
I, and others who have a different opinion, used to have an option we could use and choose, now we don't

And how can it be possible to assess the interest in ppsc or updated form of ppsc, if it's not there to choose ?

And Seth24c you put your "argument" In a self serving way

I want to form alliances where I can win, but also be able to offer a loyal partner something for them, that is, by controlling the end game so my partner gets all the remaining sc's and a decent share of the points

You'll never see the other chaps viewpoint with your blinkers on, and the way you've put your argument shows that you're only seeing what suits you

I say there should be both alternatives available, the one that suits you wta in its new forms
And a form of ppsc

You argue that there should only be the choices of which you approve

And paradoxically you limit me to draws only if I want to reward a loyal partner, which produces the result you claim to dissaprove of, me not always wanting to win

The loyal partner can also want to win, but I had a tool I could use to persuade them with. Now neither of us have that tool to use in persuasion, we only have the backstab

Selfishness rules if you want wins

I'd like to have self interest with the ability to reward loyalty