yup. that's how it goes.

Congrats! The only way is up now, isn't it?

ag7433: I'm starting to lean that way, too. For the same reasons. Fighting hard for second place is crap.

This is why I don't play for points at all. I play for percentages in my profile, and that's what impresses me about others too. I look at some of the highest point people on the site and they have less than 1/7th wins. I laugh.

I agree. I do prefer the profile raw data more than any type of ranking. It is easy to compare.

wta is definitely the way to go =)

yeh but its risky.
hey ag7433. can u post the link to the game? im curious to see it, with your permission that is.

I'm active in less than 10. Try process of elimination. It should be fun.

The points thing is a regular topic of discussion. I do not often put many points down - a lot of my games are now in the 5-10 range (League, GFDT, special challenges etc). I definitely prefer WTA and am careful about who I play with after some really poor experiences in the first year.

I will play PPSC but not by choice and the last few have only been as CD take-overs.

big point games generally have better players who don't CD or fail to communicate for an entire game...

which is why i like playing with/against players who have more points...

I am with your ag7433. The problem so far I have is that nobody wants to play 100+ WTA games so I am stuck with bunch of noobs or multi account guys playing smaller point games. Have been raising this issue for some time and was told that winning is not important.

Oh and the game he is talking about is this:
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=10839

I also proposed a change in the point system by having a winner get double the points. So if a game is worth 1000 and you win solo currently you get 18/34 for a total of 529 but with new system you woul get 1058. That should make winning more important. Just for the record I am still bigger fan of WTA games.

BoG, I will join an 100+ WTA games.

@ BoG75 and orathaic - i find even more helpful than big point games is simply finding players that you know are enjoyable to play with, and trying to get games going with them and others who are committed to playing for the outcome, not the points. by setting up games through the forum and putting a password on them, i've not had a problem with this for quite some time, since similar things as ag7433 experienced happened to me. now most of my games are with good players, even if unexperienced, with lots of press, little angling for points, and great times. once the league is done and/or i have fewer games, i'd love to play in a game with any of you.

ag7433:

Time for a plug of the leagues (I know you are in them) and the upcoming masters tournaments:

http://phpdiplomacy.tournaments.googlepages.com/home2

@Ghostmaker: I've seen a lot of discussion of the league games your run, and took a look at your site. How does one get involved? Is there a point minimum or something like that? Thanks for any info you can provide.

Point minimum is enough to enter the games at 5 points a pop.

Email me :)

This is why I proposed a hybrid system that got plenty of general support but doesn't appear to have been taken on by the developers. Not something I blame them for btw, because I don't know how to code anything.

Basically my thought was that in PPSC stuff like what ag is describing happens. Thats annoying. But to give ppsc some credit, you potentially put alot of effort into a game, do everything right, and get screwed out of a win (maybe because of some CD?) for whatver reason and you get nothing to show for it. Thats frustrating. WTA makes for better games, but PPSC has the potential for frustration as well and people like risk averse things.

The Hybrid has half of the pot go to PPSC and half to WTA. So using BOG's example, in a 1000 point pot game the winner gets half the pot (500 points) straight off the bat. The remainder is divided evenly by supply centres, giving the 18 centre winner an additional 265 points (and in total slightly more than 75% of the pot). But people who survive do get a bit of a payoff to pay for their effort.

The hybrid also incentivises going for the win rather than the 17-17 culture that we see on this site. Currently the difference between the 2 way and the win is neglible. (1000 point example it gets you 29 extra points.) But under hybrid going for 18 makes a huge difference, (a 265 point difference).

I think this system has all the incentives to keep playing or to win, with much reduced drawback that you see from the current system. Hybrid should atleast be an option, if not the accepted norm.

Also, just post big games on the forum BOG. I know I'd be tempted.

Why not have 40% of the pot go to PPSC and 60% of the pot go to WTA?

Not a real question.

I also agree with all of you here...
WTA makes for better games, and high pots (101 and above) for less CD's and more "serious" players... In some PPSC games I have also been screwed by the same argument (at leas I get some/more points), it has never happened in 101+ WTA...

@Centurian - Very simular proposal to what I suggested and I would fully support it. Anything that rewards a win significantly more than a draw and draw significantly more than survive is alright in my books.

Or just get rid of the points and implement the Ghost ratings and the criteria to be a min-max on the ratings list. Points are mainly used to adjust the quality of competition (theoretically)