Well, technically you'd never lose tokens unless you go CD. You only lose the color rank.

But yeah, it's imperfect. But I would agree with you. Maybe wins get you an extra token of the next color up and losing does nothing. You are right, wins are rare.

Of course there's always going to be a douche that will play outside the intent of the game. Not much you can do. My hope is that this suggestion can be used as a jumping board to implementing a more polished alternative to the point system to establish a "winning is everything" attitude while playing rather than, "I'm content with second to gain points"

At the very least...I think emphasizing rankings and keeping the points private will go a long way to changing the way the game was meant to be played.

If you have 8500 pts and no one sees them, you won't care. They are only used to barter with anyway.

It's the RANK that everyone sees that people will want.

If anyone is a fan of the Halo series for Xbox Live, you'll know what I mean.

Dude, pay attention. According to his system, one win upgrades ALL your tokens -- that's 10. Losing makes 1 token go down. Don't bomment until you understand the post.

Rankings based entirely on wins? Really? You want the person who just played 12347893760147123 games, winning 1% of them to be ranked higher than you? Win percentage, obv.

With, of course, some restrictions that stop people who have played fewer than, say 5 games from being on top of the leaderboard.

In the upcoming version there will be an option to allow players to choose whether a game is winner-take-all-points or points-per-unit.

I think what kestasjk said is the optimal choice. This way the "FTW" players will enjoy their games, while the strategy - no backstabbing dudes have their own.

In FTF diplomacy the big prize is the win. To reflect this the rank must have the option "winner-take-all-points". According to the spirit of the game there must be ONE winner only, it doesnt matter if you finish second with 14 units or you where eliminated in 1903. Only one player wins. The "placers", the people who take Diplomacy as a race car (its better to finish 2nd than last) are clearly agains the spirit of the game. The current point system is against the spirit of the game.

In FTF, the second prize is the draw. If 3 players are holding the stalemate line against a 17 SC player, the 3 players are equally important (regardless they have 1 or 15 units). To reflect this in the rank the game must have a DRAW option, and the Pot will be devide EQUALLY between the drawers.

kestas i suggest you make these options when creating a game...
1. % of the pot for the winner (50% - 100%)
2. how to split the rest among survivors (equally or by units)
this way we could create all the games we like. some people suggested before just a bonus for the winner, like 10 or 20%, and they would be happy too

I dont agree with you Alamothe. Games with different options will have different impacts on the ranking system. The point system must be the same among alll the games, otherwise the ranking is useless...

3 solutions to the point problem:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/fred_townsend.htm

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/midcon95_scoring.htm

http://www.diplom.org/manorcon/dipscore.htm

I like the first...

you can play games you like and invest your points where you want. the first solution you sent, which you like the most, is a scoring system for tournaments. we have point system here, where you invest points to play games, and get your share of the pot when it's finnished

Im going to throw my bone to this dogpile and see what you guys make of it. I agree that the points system could use some improvement, and I realize that something to rank players and allow different level gameplay is extremely useful, not to mention adds to the fun. So if we ask ourselves what the purpose of the point system is, I come up with three basic answers (could be much more).

First: To allow players of equal skill level to play together without the bother of having new or untested players mess up your plans.
Second: To provide some kind of ranking that shows both to other players your skill level, and allows you some bragging rights.
Third: To provide some sort of level of risk in entering or leaving a game (penalty for going CD or loosing etc...).

Now our current point system does this, and what kestas will have in the next version will do it even better, by addressing some of the problems that arise with points (eg playing for second).
The best way that I can see to counter this, is to do the ranking by wins, but with a slight variation of what the OP proposed. What could happen is you would play games by levels, or tiers. First Tier play is open to all, anyone can join, altough there should probably be a game limit to prevent people playing an hundred games at once. To rise in rank, you need to win (possibly a draw as well). To play in a second tier game, you need to have at least one win. To play in a third tier game, at least 3 wins etc...
Rank itself could be either a percentage of wins (probably best choice) or straight win number. Keep in mind (addressing freatflags post) that if someone played 12347893760147123 games and only won once, if you really are better then them, then shouldn't you have won many more times then once during that time, leaving you with the better rank? I think either way for work fine, but wins would be key.

Im basing some of this of the 1v1 rankings of supreme commander, so this is not completly my own idea.

I would certainly appreciate any system that enabled me to climb out of the slime without having to try to maximise points returns.

I like Majaii's bone...

I don't have any problems with the point system, but I would like some way to better judge the strength of other players. The current ranking system seems to based on the number of points. If one use all your points to enroll in new games, then then that person's ranking is lowered. I think percentage of games won to games played is a better indicator of strength. An even better indicator would also consider if one beat stronger players.

you are mixing things up... points are meant to be an indicator of player's strength / rank. you can judge other players by other factors if you wish, like win percentage (sadly it's not currently displayed in the profile), but on average people will play to maximize their points

Honestly, I'm in favour of Kestas' idea, of creating two options. This allows for the two major styles of play that dominate the Diplomacy community, namely, play-to-win vs. compromise/best finish. They both have their merits, and neither is inherently superior to the other. Despite that the ultimate goal IS victory, the vast majority of FTF tournament and postal play games end with some sort of draw. These two options would reflect both.

It does not matter that the system is homogenous in point distribution because probability and the mathematical expected outcome should still dictate that over time, the superior players will rise in points and ranking, and divide the community into the appropriate tiers of skill.

The current points system is a fairly good indicator of skill at the moment, with the only flaw being that points invested in new games are not displayed in the total, which creates some skewed rankings. A ranking system based on raw wins, such as it was back in the day, is vastly inferior, even to one based on win percentage, because certain players do not play as many games at once as others. While some prefer to take on a dozen games at a time, so as to be constantly occupied, others prefer to take only a couple, in order to realize the full diplomatic and interactive experience. The current point system reflects both styles of play, as players who wish to take on more games, can do so, but at lower stakes in each game, while a player specializing in a single game, may gamble with higher stakes. The mathematical outcome should still be directly proportional to skill level. A raw win ranking does not reflect this, as player's who play more games at one time are much more likely to accrue more raw wins, and simple win percentage is also inferior to our current point system because it does not reflect the value placed into each individual game, high stakes vs. low stakes. The current point system also contains a built-in consideration of relative opponent skill, as gambling a large number of your points in a single game will typically host more skilled players, with which to test your mettle, and should you win, the corresponding jump in points is substantial. Likewise, a high ranked player cannot simply freebie their way to the top by constantly participating in largely newbie games, as the points earned in such low stake games would not substantiate the effort required to earn the top ranks.

Ranking in the form of titles does little the way of personal glory, nor does it solve the slight issue of prejudice, as points are just as representative of skill, if not more discriminatory in difference. A player does not need a title to represent skill, when the quantitative measurement of skill is present in the number of points earned, and quantitative should always be preferred to qualitative. Otherwise ranking is purely superficial and aesthetic, and adds no further meaning to the points system.

The token system proposed in the OP is not a bad one, but ultimately, a point system in which a winner takes all option is available would fulfill all of the same functions are more, and the flexibility of numbers as opposed to coloured tokens and rankings allows for the option of proportional division of the pot as well.

So finally, the essence of my extended diatribe is that since there are two major opinions regarding the nature of the way the game should be played, any practical ranking system should be representative of this dual nature. As such, the token system proposed in the OP, and the raw win rankings further proposed would not be suitable as they ignore the desires of certain players to play for less (or indeed more, as the case may be) than the win. The current points system with the addition of a winner takes all option, as well as an updated point indicator that considers the points currently invested in games, is quite near optimal for the purposes of personal recognition and skill level differences, as well as a suitable deterrent to civil disorder.

If you've made it this far, I thank you and congratulate you in your endurance. =)

-Chris

Perhaps every so often, players will be "issued" a number of tokens so they can join more games. Everybody goes into CD once in a while, and if tokens are non-replaceable, then some old-time players will have to quit the game.

Why should tokens be kept private? If only rank is shown, then long term players, even if they have no skill, they will appear pro. It's not like someone will be able to trace their way to your house through your token color :)

but why?? what's the point of that? if the points were totally private why would we bother collecting them? and why showing some "rank" which would represent how many games you played

There's no need for a token system... I thought I wrote enough about that...