Very interesting.

I Like it!

1) i find that unfair. what if someone accidently CD's cause their internet crashed or they had a vacation and could not find a sitter/that darned turkey would not pause!
plus what would stop this said person from creating a new account every time they CD?

I think that the punishment is possibly too steep. 1% resigns shouldn't be 49% points something more like 75% would be a more reasonable start

Not to make the same critique as everyone else, but the scale doesn't really deter CDs. If you screw up twice the punishment is steep, almost to draconian levels; but once someone screws up twice there is no serious incentive to stop.

@mongoose998
1) The number of incidents who leave games because of an internet crash or had to go for a vacation is significanly lower than the number of times a player left because the game didn't go to plan. Furthermore, the proposed system will act as a motivation to look for a sitter, hence not ruin the game for the other players.
2) Nothing, I presume. Currently, nothing stops a new player from creating a new account if they have unfavourable game stats.

@damian and President Eden

Fine adjustments could be made to the formula.
e.g.
20+80*(EXP(-% of resigns/5))

0 100
1 85
2 74
3 64
4 56
5 49
.
.
10 31
.
.
29 20
30 20

That looks fair to me. I might make it a bit steeper (what does, say, resigns/3 look like?), but I think this formula is fine once the right constants are plugged in.

Keep in mind that if you make the punishment too steep, people will just make a new account.

Also, you really can't do it by percentage. If I CD in my first game, I now have 100% CD. How does that work?

but what percentage of players on the site even ever come close to worrying about the default points? i dont have a lot of points or a lot of success but ive never dipped below 100 since within a week or so of when i joined.

i do like the idea of somehow using points to punish cds.

a lot of people operate around the default points. especially those prone to CD.

That's why I'd rather have some sort of reliability rating based on percentage of CDs per game, or NMRs per turn; and then be able to restrict games based on that.

With points, you've got to earn points to get into high pot games where you are less likely to have CD/NMR problems. With a rating system, new to the webdip site, but experienced, players could get into good games quickly.

lets analyze the mind of a purposeful CD'er, shall we?
1) has 100 to join whatever he wants. prob only about 20 r used at a time, in small bet games that he willingly surrenders
2) physically capable of pushing buttons: said CD'er will gladly make a new account and try from the top

what about the small percent of people CD with 17 supply centers because of a freak accident, yet do not care about points enough to attempt to gather as many as possible and work off of the initial 100 join 20 bet games for the heck of it? should they be punished?

I'm going to backtrack my previous statement. I've also previously suggested an experience point system. 1 point for each game completed. -5 for each CD. And maybe -1 for each NMR. No going below zero. After a small handful of games you'll be in a category with few CDers and after a good number of games you'll be in the experienced club of players.

New players just have to earn their stripes.

People will just make a new account...

Are you talking to me? A new account would still be at 0 experience so wouldn't be any better than an account that had CD'd or NMR'd a lot. Note the "no going below zero" part.