Left games should be free, the money has already been paid

^^ then if somebody who joined a left game were to win it, they would have made free money at 0 risk. new players, even if others have left several times, should still have to bet some money. thus, the pot could be 3x larger than it would have been, if enough players leave and join.

a player who picks up a "left" nation pays what that nation is currently worth in a given turn, not the original buy-in. Thus, a player who picks up a nation that is in a weak position pays less than someone taking over a more successful nation in the same game. That's a way to account for the relative strength of position. I've joined games that were originally 50 buy-in and only paid 35 because the nation I took over was relatively weak (England had 3 SCs compared to everybody else's 5 or 6.)

Ye, one of our admins, has an ongoing thread you'll be interested in reading. I can't find it at the moment, though.

Oh, here it is. See if this helps:

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=955899#955899

I don't think that's quite what he's going for Abge, though it gets the job done I guess... the discussion's been had a number of times. I like the idea, but it's never gained much traction.

Agreed should be free. Sure there is nothing at risk points wise, but more importantly your record is and gr are still at risk.

The problem is any solution would have to weigh position against supply centers. Position depends on so many factors: how many centers does everyone else have, are there enemy units in any of those centers, are there any other players with missed turns, and so on, that making an algorithm that works better then the one currently used would be very difficult to create.

Letting people take over games for free has the issues ColonelKetchup mentioned. Hopefully there will be a better solution to this in the future. We do discuss solutions offered though.

I'm glad you're enjoying the site chluke, feel free to ask any other questions you have.

-WebDip Admin

If you can't win don't join. then your record, points, and gr aren't at risk. I forget who it was, but back in the day when it was still php diplomacy, there was one guy who just played CD ganes and dominated

Jmo, it's currently based on nothing but supply centers, so why not keep it that way? The OP suggested 25-50% discounts as well; I've gone for 50 but I'd be fine with just about anything. I have also suggested filling in the other half of that discount with points from the CDer. That teaches people not to CD and provides incentive to both finish games and take over games.

I agree, analysis and algorithm's would be lots of unecessary extra work.

A simple 50% discount gives big incentive for players to fill in, yet they still have risk in joining the game. Exisiting players continue a better quality game AND have a bigger total pot to play for.

Some deals at 50% would be better deals for new players than others (based on position -- just like now!), so those who take the effort to search games will find the best deals. However, almost all deals at 50% would be worth joining, as long as the position is not completely lost.

Pretty simple supply and demand. No fancy programming needed. Many fewer games disrupted by abandonment.

@bosox: " I have also suggested filling in the other half of that discount with points from the CDer." I think that's a great idea. There should be a penalty for going cd other than losing your original investment.

There should be, but that tags on the lines of "fancy programming" that's evidently not suitable in this kind of environment. Just because I can't do it means I can't talk about it though so I'll shut up.

Interesting insights.

I think that this is one of those problems that isn't precisely as egregious as people think it is. If one is really bothered by CDs, then one can make private games. Skill-level and sportsmanship is higher in private games.

Private games are really much less exclusive than people tend to assume, I would say. I remember getting invited to private games my first month here. As long as you're amicable and don't CD (for example) you shouldn't have trouble getting invitations.

If you play public games, then one should be prepared to deal with trolling, flaming, CDs, NMR and other such silliness.

in vdiplomacy.com it's easier to deal with those troubles.
(yes, me again, sorry)

Vdip already has this implemented (a 50% reduction). I have no idea whether it's helped to increase takeovers, but it does make taking over certain positions look more attractive. The main problem is with people taking over a large power near the end of the game for very few points and winning quite a lot more, but since there are very few high-bet games there it doesn't have a huge impact on points.

I really like bo_sox48's suggestion, let the CDer pay the reduction. Good call.

I vote for bo-sox, 50% reduction, the absent landlord pays the balance. oops sorry I forgot this is not a democracy, we don't get a say !!

How about 2 pricing levels:

Full price if you're within 50% of the leader: e.g. Russia has 10 and you take over germany with 6 - still an ok position.

Half price if you're 50% or below the leader: e.g. Russia has 10 and you take over France for 3. You're probably out of the running for a solo - but for half the investment, even if you just keep those 3, you've made the game more interesting for those playing, and you still get a little payoff for it.

Good idea, and it probably would provide incentives to join "left" games. However, I still see that the system is open to unfair circumstances.

If a player sees a discount and joins a game where he has just less than half but a strategic position, he can exploit that scenario while his friend may join a game where the power has more than half but a subpar position to work with. The point investment is a piece, but so is the position.

I would suggest, therefore, the following strategy:

-Good position, more than 50 % of the leader's SC count = Full price
-Good position, less than 50 % of the leader's SC count = 75 % price
-Bad position, more than 50 % of the leader's SC count = 50 % price
-Bad position, less than 50 % of the leader's SC count = 25 % price (what a discount)

This system is less open to unfair circumstances regarding pieces and makes the risk involved with joining late where it should be.

but then you would have to automate a way to evealuate "good" versus "bad" positions.

I agree that if it could be done effectively it would be an improvement, but you need to start with baby steps.

There are lots of potential complex solutions, but in my view the simple bottom line is that many games are abandoned are then rarely filled (especially at lower buy-in public games, I imagine; 100 starter points are always free and most want to play a game from the beginning anyway).

One simple step: Lower the price to 50% and many more left games will get picked up. I bet all my measly newbie 110@ points on it! hahah :)

Everybody wins! Buyer is rewarded for helping pick up a left game just by surviving (earning extra points for holding on to just half of the SC's) , and pre-existing players are rewarded by increased pot size ... and, oh yeah, a higher quality, more balanced game!

I don't see any downside whatsoever to the 50% solution. The current 100% price solution is clearly over-priced, as very few players are interested in paying it, in proportion to the number of available games. (Economics 101.)

(The abandon penalty is also an interesting idea, but it could have the deleterious effect of encouraging would-be abandoners to kamikaze their last units to go out quickly, thereby disrupting the games' balance, in order to leave the game without penalty.)

I really like bo_sox48's suggestion, let the CDer pay the reduction. Good call.

^^ this and welcome chluke - hope to play you soon. Are you aware of the CD challange that tries to get players to pick up the CDs just for the sake of a good community? Theres a thread around somewhere

If someone could figure that one out, I don't see a negative to it. The pot is paid in full and the takeover pays a discount without simply adding points that don't exist.