was* hehe

Rait, when this game is over, can you give us (in a topic apart) a review of the game? what was your tactic, what was the strategy behind your negotiations and analysis of the players (in your perspective).

it can be very educational and is what diplomacy needs ( games review).

thanks.

I think that it's important to note that Rait begins with Italy in CD... I think that if Italy were active, neither Rait has survived..

And analising the history, I think that Russia stopped playing.. well if this is true, it was a really easy task. Even me (noobie) could done something good. It's not putting down Rait, but after pitirre's comment, I think that most of the people think that Rait is a God :X

Which he is, of course.

i dont know that about a god but certainly his points is impressive.

First of all, the game is far of being over, so could You wait with Your comments about the end result :) Perhaps I have to write You an essay on the topic 'How did I manage to lose badly in the situation where Italy was in CD'.

I kind of agree with ZeroZero comment about the game context. It has been a bit easier due to the fact that Italy was in CD (although CD countries balance out pretty quick, as they will be usually shared among other countries & raising the strength of the countries more/less equally or if some countries rush for CD countries, they miss their builds elsewhere).

Russian CD on the other hand was very unpleasant, losing our common enemy & bringing tensions into the alliance with Turkey, finally resulting in conflict (I would have loved to find out if the alliance between Turkey/Austria would have worked out until the end of the game with such high level players). Being allied with Turkey as Austria is kind of masochistic - mostly as a country of armies, You will go far inlands with Your units, at the same time You have to watch Your back for Turkeys for possible stab.

Yes it is impressive, but I think that it makes people to be affraid of him, and join in his side to try getting some points... This is true not only for Rait but to every one in top10. People with less points are affraid and want to be their allies.. This is my opinion.
I think that when the point ranking system was implemented, it was been much more fair if everyone started with 100.

So, for when a reset? Delete accounts that aren't active, and reset all scores. Maybe it's better when a new upgrade/version comes.

yes, but it also can work in the other way; where adjacent neighbors want to ally agaisnt him...by intimidation.

I'm back to nauseate you all with my same old complaint.

This high stakes game is a perfect illustration of some current issues. How can this game be presented as a match-up of the best dip talents when one of the players abandoned?

The #1 argument for the current system was that it would allow players of similar caliber to play together and not deal abandonments, but this game undermines some of the assumptions behind the current system:
-That players who abandon won't be able to get enough points to play in high stakes games
-That newbies and other players with few points are chronic abandoners
-That players with lots of points do not abandon
-That players will be concerned about protecting their investment, by not abandoning, when buying in to high stakes games
-That newbies and other players with few points are not of the same skill level as those with thousands of points

I tend to agree with ZeroZero_Peras's implication triumph in this game is relatively meaningless. Consequently, the thousands of points the winner will garner (and that will further burnish his reputation as a Dip god) are points that have no value.

If its that bad, why play Mahatma? I know you are a very good player, but to be honest I'm starting to get annoyed with seeing a post from you in every thread telling us that the points system is terrible and doesn't work.
At the end of the day, no system is perfect, and this one goes a long way towards it. The general trend is that players with more points have more talent. Granted there are exceptions, but if we play for long enough these will be cleared up.
Your point about how this game shows the points dont work: the player who went CD has lost 500 points, and so will be noticeable further down the leader-board because of joining the game, reducing the likelihood he (or she) will be in more high stakes games.

You have to play the hand you're dealt, and if one player is given an unexpected advantage, he still has to beat four or five other players to win the game. And if they are four or five good players, that shouldn't be so easy.
If Rait wins this, as well he might, he will deserve it as much as any of his other wins, and the rest of us should look at ourselves to see what it is we could and should have done to change the outcome.

The Devil can still buy in to 500 point game figlesquidge.

And your point about why play is a fair one. I did take a breather, and then came back for the No Press Game. I am leaning toward your advice, however.

I am not trying to be disrespectful to anyone, figlesquidge. I just think the facts clearly indicate the points system is not an upgrade on the old one. And yet people keep ignoring the facts. And because of my stubbornness, I keep bringing it up everytime I see further evidence.

But I will stop pointing it out. And I will take your advice and quit if the points system negatively affects me again in a game.

Thanks.

Perhaps it would be possible to organize a tournament? Seven 'tables', leading in to one final game. The implication being that even if somebody drops out, they're not likely to be the ones who go through to the final. That final game would have merit beyond points, and could make interesting viewing. What do people think?

The Mahatma, please don't quit.

The point system is a good thing, because while there are still exceptions, the general trend will lead to better playing. Besides, people are addicted to points, and we've had a renewed fervour in Diplomacy, now that the incentive to play is so much more tangible. The point system is not a downgrade, and even if it makes no noticeable difference in certain issues, at least it appeals to many players who prefer having a tangible incentive, and the motivation and expanded community is priceless.

In the end, it's the little hiccoughs that make the games worthwhile. It adds a dynamic aspect to the game, and really, playing out the cards your dealt is half the fun. That's the reason some people like getting the more "difficult" countries.

TOgilvie, I have been entertaining this idea for a long time now, but the main problem is that it's VERY difficult to find 49 different, active players. When I organized the Masterminds V tournament, I probably got about 15 applications, and at that point, I figured that a tournament of 49 is still a ways off.

Hi Chris, thanks for the encouragement (I guess you didn't get my email). Let's drop it. I apologize to all those who are sick of this argument about the points system. It is what it is, and the fact that it is a meaningful incentive to many is the main thing.

I would love to participate in a tournament.

even though i would have no chance whatsoever in such a tournament and likely be eliminated by 1903, i'd enjoy participating in one, nonetheless.