Wow. I took a look at Marx's stats. He soloed his first nine games on the site.

It was a little before my time, but wasn't that in the era when draws were extremely rare as you had to get a mod to do it for you?
Still damned impressive though.

@Oct, I don't think so. At that time I believe the draw method was to post /Draw in the global press.

MKECharlie:
Points may not be a reliable indicator of skill, but they are the most reliable indicator of skill. (I say this even though I still strongly disagree with the move to remove PPSC as the default scoring option. The points system as designed by Kestas had it right.)

The % of games Won that Doug7878 brought up and the % of games Won or Drawn that Dejan0707 brought up become useless statistics for players who join games as minor powers with a handful of SC's or a single SC. Players' Ghost Rating are also ruined for those that like to join games in progress. With webDiplomacy points you don't have that problem.

That said, webDiplomacy points are probably not that useful if you want to compare players. But for a list like the Hall of Fame it works as designed.

@ jmo

It must be close, though. Looking at games from that time (april/may 2008) draws were few and far between. Maybe the /draw had come in but people hadn't embraced the concept of drawing yet, being very much against the spirit of diplomacy and the site.

It's amazing how much things change when you're not paying attention.

I just can't put much value on WebDip points. While it could be an indicator of a good player it's also possible to compile points simply by playing a gazillion games where you draw a lot. Doesn't even have to be a small draw if you're super active and know how to stalemate.

I have nearly as many points as VI and Octavious combined and I probably couldn't beat either of them even if I played with two accounts. Points =/= skill.

Octavious:
Sweetie, you weren't around then.

@JECE: PPSC was an abomination. However, I agree that my awareness of GR makes me less likely to join games that someone has CDd in.

VillageIdiot: At least drawing stupidly or managing to play at a mediocre level in many games are skills of sorts.

Why does taking over CD's have a strange effect on GR?

Your awareness of WTA should make you less likely to join games that someone has CD'd in too.

JECE, I'd say that "drawing stupidly or managing to play at a mediocre level" would make a player experienced, but not necessarily skilled.

That was to MKECharlie.

Peregrine Falcon: It doesn't have a 'strange' effect. Games are just counted by the end results. Let's say you take control of Italy with control of just Mun. You manage to survive the game after years of skillful diplomacy, but England wins the game. This game then goes on your record as a loss, and this 'loss' is factored into your GR. But of course, the expectation when you join as a 1 SC power should not be to win! (WTA pot scoring has a similar unfortunate effect on webDiplomacy points, unfortunately.)

Only if you assume that surviving is a good result, which it isn't.

Peregrine Falcon: True. But it's unlikely that one would compile enough points to reach the Hall of Fame through mediocre multi-tasking. This is especially true since the very points one is trying to accumulate have to be bet in each game.

The Hall of Fame is generally a list of the best gunboaters. The number of games those kids play is incredible.

ghug: Surviving is a decent result in certain contexts, like the scenario I provided. Keeping the small pocket change that you bet to enter the game as a microstate is reasonable if you can pull off a survival at a similar size as when you joined. A 'good result' would require more work and skill, and should be rewarded commensurately.

Surviving is a defeat under any circumstances.

I would never take over a CD with the hopes of simply surviving. When I do, it's because I see the potential for getting into the draw, or soloing if the power I took over is somehow in a ridiculously good position even after CDing.

It's good to see Zultar posting again

It's nice to see riot is posing again

bo_sox48: Which means what, exactly?

Peregrine Falcon: Exactly. People don't take over CD's with the current system.

It means that if you see someone has a 28% defeat rate and a 33% survival rate, they have a 61% defeat rate.

Thank you captain obvious. I agree with you there. See above:
"You manage to survive the game . . . This game then goes on your record as a loss . . ."
Survivals are losses in my book. What are you trying to say by bringing this up?

You were the one justifying survivals. Glad to see you changed your tune so easily.

This evolved into healthy discussion. Finally forum look alive again.

Dejan approves of the thread that describes him as one of the best ; )

bo_sox48: 'Survivals' are part of the game, so again, I'm not sure what you mean by that. My point is that survivals merit part of the pot, especially for players that join games in progress. (And further, that this policy benefits the usability and fairness of website.) PPSC is a good formula because players gain or loose points in proportion to their gains or losses since their original bet (the state of their Great Power when they joined the game) – unless of course the players draw.