Nigee

I think you grossly overestimate how much it costs to run this site. Donations are a perfectly acceptable means of funding.

Silly Nigee, the points were meant to be a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves.

We could turn webDip into a Discovery Zone-type system where points are like tickets and if you earn enough points you get to exchange them for upgrades on the site. Earn 10,000 and you can trade them in for a "-1" button. Earn 20,000 and exchange them for a trip to the Congo. Earn 100,000 and we'll rename the site "NigeeDip.net".

@2WL - Best coment I have read here for a long time.

I'd rather buy my way to the top of the ghost rankings. Why should I actually have to beat anybody to get there?

Nigee, you have 1200 . Why not wait until some of your games close and start a thousand point game. The thrill of large pot games is knowing that you or other players in the game are risking a high percentile of their, quite often, hard earned points. Whether the game is 1,000 , or 3,000 buy-ins as they are becoming is irrelevant (at least to me). The element of risk and knowing that some players have the potential to win big or go bust adds the excitement.

@Barn3tt,it's not about 1 player being able to afford 1000 , it's about 7 players, and then if one us solos the other 6 now have no points left and it takes a whole load of games to get back that 1000 . So if the 7 who had just played wanted a re-match 6 of them would be unable to play because they had no points left ...... this could easily be rectified by the opportunity to procure points to then go win back your points in the next game. The elite players already have a measure of how brilliant they are via game stats and GR, using points as a measure of how wonderful you are is a crude measure because of the very point you make, 7 good players play high stakes, the losers cannot play another game for possibly a long time, why should a player of any ability not be able to play a high stakes game with his mates every week?

"the points were meant to be a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves." - well then if that is the case what is that 'means to an end' ??
At the moment all the elite players have thousands ...... a large % of the players have very few, you put up a 50 point game and lots of people cannot afford to play. So is that the end you seek, 80% of the players struggling to enter games due to lack of points and the top 2 or 3% can play high stakes matches whenever.
I don't know what end you are trying to get to but mine would be more players playing more often, if the 80% of players with very few points could enter more games I think that would be a good thing, if the elitists on this site can't stand the thought of the hoi polloi being able to afford a 1000 point game they can just use passwords to protect their games, as anyone can.
More games played = More active site = Good News
Usually it is the new players learning the game that want to play more games so this is a way of letting them enter more games with a wider set of players so they can learn quicker and get more experience.

just make a game where you bet all you got nigee. double or nothing if you want the thrill.. if you win, do it again until you can join the elite like 2wl.

@Beau - you miss the point, this isn't just about me, it's the 80% of players who have very few points, some of whom would play more if they could get more points..... maybe also if it were easier to get points it may stop some of the cheating and meta-gaming

"Sure there are people who may have been playing for a decade in face to face games that just show up and don't have the points yet but over time if they are good they will earn their way into those bigger games. It gives you something to shoot for "

Very well credited, I agree with you. In it nothing should change.The journey is the destination.

@Strauss - "the journey is the destination".
I am contacting EA Sports immediately to pass on this slogan, maybe they can adopt the same philosophy for FIFA 14, rather than allow people to buy points to create an ultimate football team that will help them play the game better and compete at a higher level they could insist that people play years of face-to-face football matches so they understand the tactical nuances of the game better, and then let them have 5 years or so perfecting their gaming, possibly by their mid-20s EA would deem them good enough to have an account but they can only have a shitty bronze team that will get battered by all of the current teams, as a result they won't get loads of points and it will take years for them to play any stronger/more competitive matches because it will take that long to strengthen the team.
I could just see the makers of the Xbox at Microsoft chewing over this philosophy right now ..... The new slogan could be 'Forget winning, that is for losers ..... the journey is the destination'.
You could replace the purchase of microsoft points with hard labour on an Israeli kibbutz or down a salt mine until people proved they were worthy enough. Then when they had proved they were willing to suffer for their art they could go in front of a panel of gaming experts who could quiz them about their formations and tactical know-how, only then could we allow them to play the game.
Ever wondered why untold millions of people play Xbox and we sometimes struggle to get a live game going needing only 7 people ??
Maybe it is because this site is all about the elite and to make it tough to get points guarantees it will stay that way, the more points you have, the more elite you are, the plebs who make up 80% of the players on this site can fight over the scraps until they are worthy and battle-hardened to take on the likes of people like yourself .... you have lots of points, you must be very proud !!

There is no shortage of 5 or 10 point buy-in games here, and no shortage of good players willing to play in them. Anyone that wants a game can find one. That's how I learned, joining a bunch of cheap games. Did I begrudge the "elite" for being able to afford games I was unable to join? No. I understood that they probably wouldn't want some idiot that didn't know what he was doing mucking up their game.

If you want more live games, I'd say the issue is not so much points as it is one of scheduling, time, or CDs/dropouts.

@Hazel - so what you are saying you prefer the site being more elitist and less inclusive, that players with more skill or experience have more rights to play more games without the fear or threat of inexperienced players having the same rights and possibly hijacking their game, that all new players should have to play low point games because they are 'idiots', is that how you view new players as idiots.
These same principles were adopted by corrupt right-wing regimes the world over because they also assumed the young and the poor were idiots.

Why would you want to take something that's free and make it cost money, especially when there is no return on the money?

If a new player is not an idiot, he should quickly gain enough points to play with the "elites." Allowing someone to play in a game he is not qualified for simply because he has more pocket money to waste on such a venture, as in your system, is a form of elitism itself. It favors the rich over the poor.

I'm saying the points system should be ditched entirely. Going by ghost rating makes more sense to me.

"Why would you want to take something that's free and make it cost money" - what like water, or sex, or fruit or vegetables or education or working out or jogging or ..... am I communicating with an idiot. Why don't people have all the same clothes and cars, why do people want to be different, it's a big question you ask but it also assumes that people will always value free things over things you can buy which of course is a nonsense ....... you get 100 free, no more. Why don't we take all the points off of everyone and make the games free ??

@Hazel - are you saying you would play a game the same way whether you were playing for 5 or 1000 ? in that case I am guessing that ever game you set up is for 5 only as there is no point or value in it being more ??

I play the same way in every game no matter how many points are involved. GR and commitment are what I look at when looking for other players -- the number of points they have is irrelevant. GR tells me whether they're competent players. Commitment (if only we had an easy, single-score, commitment rating akin to GR . . . ) tells me how likely they are to drop out. I like to play against other players who are decent and won't quit, so it seems like a pretty good system to me. This is probably why I have a pretty low point total for my GR.

Also, look Nigee, I have a little circle by my name now.

I try to win. Failing that, I try to draw. Failing that, I try to survive. Once the game starts, the size of the pot has no bearing on how I play.

If you play harder or more seriously or whatever when it's a bigger pot - well, whatever floats your boat.

@ Nigee
I think you could use a "buy 1 get 1 free" self-esteem coupon

I was just saying that the game is free and it works just fine, except for multis. Why would you want people to feel that they need to buy points to compete? There seems to be only a handful of players that are playing for more than a couple hundred points buy-ins. That leaves a lot of other quality players that are willing to play for less. I think you can get high quality games for 50-200 point buy-in. Win a couple of those, and then you can challenge the big guns. People can't just "buy" their way into a title-fight, it should be the same for this site.

p.s. sorry for the comment, it was rude... but you did respond quite condescendingly to me.

@Peter - (Also, look Nigee, I have a little circle by my name now) - please don't mention that circle thing again, you'll only rouse the freeloaders and the haterz, let's just keep it our little secret :-)

COTW- People can't just "buy" their way into a title-fight, it should be the same for this site.
The point being you can buy your way in to a title fight and it may have taken a year to build up 1000 , if there is a solo in the game 6 good players now have no points and so may have to wait another 6 months to have a chance to win those points back because, that does not mean those 6 players are bad ..... it just means they lost, I can understand why they may want a chance to win those points back without having to wait 6 months, if they only play weekly it could take years to build the points back up to 1000.

COTW - where do you get those coupons from, not for me of course but for 'a friend'.

The thing is that you have to win consistently at lower levels before you can afford to play consistently for all those points. This is what all those players who have thousands of points have done. If you bet around 20% of your points and win consistently, then you'll keep gaining points and your 20% bet becomes a much higher bet. This takes hard work and skillful play, which is why you shouldn't just be able to buy your way in. If you take a gamble on a buy-in that is out of your range and you lose... too bad, it was a risky bet.

COTW - let's pretend we want to attract more players to play more games more often we just do things to make the gaming experience more exciting, then they will keep coming back, this is simple marketing shit. If we punish them for taking a chance guess what they won't do next time ...... they won't bother. I think this is page one in the coaching philosophy handbook, encourage people to make mistakes as often as they can because they learn quicker, whether people buy-in or not should be irrelevant if we really want more active participation, are you one of these guys that once you are in the clique you want to pull up the ladder.

They get another 100 if they lose it in one game. What it boils down to is that people who play high stakes games want to know that they are playing with people who have put the time in like they have.