So, 3 completed gives 3 concurrent. 6 gives 4, 9 gives 5. etc.

Didn't somebody post this same idea just a few weeks ago? Are you looking to limit point-farming by multis, maybe? Or just newbies overloading themselves?

The "how did you start playing Dip" thread suggests a lot of new players already know the game, so personally I'd have just been annoyed by that limitation. Many of the new players I brought here became much better much faster by just immersing themselves into a whole bunch of games up front (at my suggestion).

Plus... this might make multis MORE difficult to identify. I'm guessing a greedy multi will be apparent from all the games they create to pump their point values up...

The quality of play by nembies in 9 games sucks. It doesn't matter how experienced they are from other means of playing. Unless they have played online in 24 hour turn arounds like here and played multipes at a time, the overload applies to experienced veterans. I had played over 30 years when I foiund this site, but still overloaded with too many games early on. It's a very different experience from F2F or even Judge/eMail play.

grrrrrr newbies

I started this game "overloading" myself and I'm glad. I picked up more various strategies in a short period of time than otherwise would've been possible. Some strategies and moves are learned via experience not just by reading. Who are you to determine what is better in terms of growth via this game? You don't speak for every type of learner imaginable.

i think i have 8 active, but that is beacuse 3 are wrapping up. (and i got points for the first time ever)

I think preventing newbies from taking CD's is a good idea, limiting them to, say, 5 games until at least half are done then unlimited is better than a progressive system. I know Ivo plays a ton of games, and probably has from the start. I'd hate to see a player like him frustrated from the start and not continuing on because of limitations...

Remember, you were a newbie once, yourself...

I took CDs when I started, and it helped me jump right into the game and learn the ropes.

I wouldn't forbid it.

I think probably a disclaimer should be written to those who register, explaining what the game is about, and how rude it is to leave a game hanging.

@ draugnar: i agree with nprz. you can't make a blanket rule for new players here because not all of them are new to the game. and some newbies are just as bad with one game as with nine, so i don't think the amount is the problem.

i think in the problem is some new players have no idea what they are getting themselves into. i know when i played my first few games growing up, although i was truely awful, i was at least able to learn the diplomatic side of the game. on this site, if new players join fast games, or even long phase games in some cases, its tough to learn that because there simply isn't enough time. adding that to trying to figure out moves and strategy is a recipe for disaster.

So, newbie gets to learn but destroys the experience for the experienced by not communicating and not fully understanding the rules such that one player gets an advantage or another a disadvantage.

Something needs to be beyond the points thing. Some kind of system of checks and balances...

If CDs and NMRs are your worries, there are better ways to handle it, like, by default, send emails to players an hour or 2* before the end of turn.

* Maybe a formula, so you get an email when there is only 1/8th the amount of time left in the round??

But my biggest pet peeve is a newbie coming into a game on a country that is pretty much at a major disadvantage with 1 or 2 SCs left, only to get killed off and leave the game. I think the 'joinable' games should be ordered so the new games come first, and the CDs come afterwards and newbies can't jump into a game with less than 3 SCs until they have a few games under their belt.

I personally joined this site, had played diplomacy once before, learned the rules, and joined about 5 games. Didn't have enough games, so I joined 4 more on a new account (Yes, it's been banned, I didn't know it was against the rules, but no one caught me. I wasn't playing in the same game with myself though - that's obviously cheating.) I won two of these nine, which isn't really a bad record... At my highest, I've been involved in 12 games at once, and I find that perfectly manageable. I don't see any reason to restrict the number of games people play.

The theory is that players who play too many games won't win, players who play the right amount for themselves (whether 12 or 1) will win, and the good will separate from the bad that way

I think some are having the unrealistic expectation (for a public site) that all games will have good players, and that's not the case. If you're sitting on 2k points there should be no need to complain about the quality of play of the newcomers

so Draugnar (the original poster, who has completed 27 games without a single victory) which part of newbie play do you think is poor?

@Maniac: I think the worst part of newbie play is telling people you will stab them.