I like emfries's proposal. I have also found that creating games with a higher buy in discourages flakiness.

I played a game where two players had 40%+ resign rates. Shockingly, we drew in 1903 after they both CD'd. Yes, please do this.

This is a good idea. But perhaps use an equation that reduces the increased bet the longer you go without a CD. I bet one of our math happy members could do something like this pretty easily.

I am okay with anything that reduces CDs, or at least makes it harder for high CD % players to get into games.

Youknow, I dont like playing in games with low bets, but its hard to find higher bet games, but IF, you made the penalty for a CDing harsh, withmuchhigher betting required for such players, it would take them out of most games, and really just put them into games with other dolts like themselves, and also keep down the number of games they can be in at any one time.

Example, player CDingonyou, has a resign % of 20%. His penalty for CDIng is, for example 300% higher bet. SO, he finds some 20 coin game, and joions, but his bet has to be 60 This keeps CDingonyou from joining a 2nd game, and can only ruin one at a time.

There is an implementation of this (a 'reliability rating') on vdip, so it could be copy&pasted over here with ease.

Feel free to post to the dev forum, i don't know if there is a thread on this already: forum.webdiplomacy.net

I love it. I do have 3 resigns out of 58 games, but I still love the idea. I never begin the game with the intention of walking away. All three games with 5 minute live games, and I thought I had time to play but ran out due to other responsibilities. In two of the three my units actually survived but I was not awarded points (rightly so) because I was not playing. I add the last point to add evidence to my point that I had to leave, and did not willingly walk away.
Yes, let's make walking away costly. How about a system where resigning itself costs? This way, previous "sinners" can amend their ways, and previous non-resigners are also held to account? There is an additional feature when setting up, prominently displayed on the pregame screen, of the resigning charge. Let' say that the resigning charge cannot be greater than the charge to play, and all players joining must have enough points to pay both the play cost and resignation fee.
So, there is a 20 point game. Everyone pays 20 to join. The resignation charge is also 20, so 40 is set aside from each player, with 20 refundable for everyone at the end of the game. If a player resigns, he loses all 40 , and the points are added to the pot.

I kind of like that idea. But if they come back then that resigning fee should be returned

@Karatur that is what I was trying to say about a penalty for resigning. Thank you for saying it more clearly.

oh wait, read that wrong... brain fart.

I like that idea, very interesting

Thanks emfries. It treats everyone equally, and really cracks the whip on resignations. Plus, it adds points for the rest of the players to make up for those long waits while a resigned player cycles out of the game.
I second idea here, and please think about it before dismissing it. How about an option to resign instantly? The situation is, a player suddenly realizes that there is no way that he/she will be able to complete the game. Maybe family emergency, whatever. Could ask for a pause, but we've all been there. The layer has to go, doesn't expect a pause, and doesn't want to be viewed as a jerk for slowing things down. Willing to lose the points and contribute them into the pot, the players clicks the "Resign" button, and clicks the "Confirm Resignation: You will lose all points set aside for resignation into the game's pot. Are you sure you wish to proceed?" button. The player is out, the pot is larger, and everyone else at least has the satisfaction of getting those points and knowing that the player isn't trying to be a jerk.

i kind of like that idea as well. But i think there also has to be a chance for him to come back, then those extra points are out of the pot

Why not? Sure. If the player un-resigns, the points are returned. That sounds like maximum flexibility. It also would solve one of the most often cited complaints. Now, if CDs occur, or mass resignations, hey, the players hanging in make serious bank. If making "free" points doesn't work, nothing will. The other complaint, being betrayed, will never be solved. this IS Diplomacy, after all.

I like the idea of increases joining costs for people who have resigns on their record. I like the idea of reducing the increase as the number of games they've played since their last resign increases. Perhaps limit only taking account of the last 100 games would be fair. I'm not sure the "resigning charge" idea is workable because people with less than 100 get them all back regardless.

The number of resigns in the last 25/50/100 games would have to be quiet small to make it a real deterrent.

A non-linear GameCost multiplier might work - GameCost*2 for every resign in the last 100..51 games, GC*3 for every resign in the last 50..26 games and GC*4 for every resign in the last 25 games. If someone had resigned in their last 4 games they wouldn't be able to join a 5 point games without having 85 available - the extra points couldn't be added to the pot, otherwise a 5 point games could have a huge, unbalanced pot.

Of course this example highlights a problem with all of the proposed solutions. If the penalty for having resigns is too great, there's nothing stopping a player from simply dropping their current PlayerId and creating a new one.

I want to comment no this subject. But, before anyone looks at my 8% resign rate, please understand that it was 10%, and I've made a very concerted effort to stop/reduce the number of resigns lately. The vast majority of my resigns came in the past when there are CD's from the beginning of the game, players refused to draw/cancel, and the beneficiary of the CD was romping the map. I was not going to stick around for such an unbalanced game. Further, there were games in which there was a time a few months back when there seemed to be a rash of CHEATING going on in GB games -- which make up the majority of my games. Again, I wasn't going to stick around so that a couple of cheats could waste my time.

Recently, however, I've stopping resigning under those conditions. I will say though, that there is nothing more frustrating than having to sit for hours making moves in a game that you know is futile just to protect a "resign percentage."

I think the site really needs a fail-safe 1901 CD cancel feature. That is a bit off point, but if my experience is at all common, those games cause a lot of resigns -- as I detailed above.

MM< I think that is why I am in favor of having 'last 25 games' as some chance for people with high % resigns, giving them a chance to redeem themselves.

Mich man, forsomeone like you who on the surface has 8%, which is terrible to me, but mayb ein the last 50 games 0, then I think your penalty should be greatly reduced, but their should STILL be a penalty.

I like MM's suggestion of an automatic 1901 CD cancel. I don't know if this is an actual rule or not (too lazy to check), but live Diplomacy games do not start until all players turn in orders for S1901. A similar feature would be great for webdip, particularly one that still keeps CD stats for the player(s) who didn't show up first turn and also reveals who all players were so that everyone knows who the culprit was.

Automatic CD cancel is only good if the CD stays on record. Otherwise people would just CD the moment they draw Italy

Good players wouldn't

http://imgur.com/I45zh

I don't think games with a CD should automatically be cancelled. Not only can that in some cases turn an irrelevant player, sometimes with 1 or 2 SCs, into the powerful player, but it would also return points to the CD, doesn't it? Like TC said, good players wouldn't do it, but not everyone is a good player, you know?

Rather than trying to compensate other players for a CD, I think we have to penalize the CD instead. You could use a strike system or something. First two CDs are warnings; from then on, you get docked points or some other penalty. That's the only logical method to me.

oh gods, bo_sox, don't abbreviate The Czech as TC. TC carries very bad, bad connotations 'round these parts. He's czech, if anything abbreviated.

……

Tettleton's Chew (sp?) hasn't been around for awhile.

bo_sox48 TC was Tettleton's abbreviation. Czech is good. I don't mind TC, but it could get confusing to players who have been on the site since Tettleton was posting everywhere.

I love all of these ideas, idc which one gets worked in to the site, as long as one does.

It's just a phase. It'll pass.

With a first turn CD, the game wouldn't necessarily have to cancel. The call could go out for a replacement right away with a certain time limit to find one that was dependent on phase length.

Bad weeds can crop back up at any time, Czech.

Vigilance, Mr. Worf. That is the price we must continually pay.