Also "volume players" irk me when I know the same people will be allied off the bat. (Not that I don't have better things to do) I found 17 games in which both "Photon" and "Dark Amusement" are players. Now some of the games are too young to be certain, and in others these 2 players are geographically far apart, but in not one instance are these 2 players attacking each other. If I joined a game with these 2 players I bet I'd be France with a Photon England and a Dark Amusment Italy and from Spring 1901 know that I was going to be attacked from both sides.

I assume that these are in fact 2 different players who enjoy playing as a team. Fun for them, but it limits opportunities for better games.

Game Name/Current Turn/Photon's country/Dark Amusment's country/Attacking each other
no password 16/ A01 Germany/Russia / No
no password 15/ A01 Germany /England / No
no password 14/ A01 France / England / No
no password 13/ A01 England/ France / No
no password 12/ A01 France / Germany / ?
no password 11/ A01 Austria/ Turkey / ?
no password 10/ A01 Austria/ Russia / ?
no password 9 / A01 Italy / England / ?
no password 8 / A01 Russia / France / ?
Mindlin1Yeah / S02 Russia / Germany / No
JOIN HERE! / A02 Germany/ Austria / No
I Hate Lepantos/ S02 Turkey / Germany / (No)
Turkey Sucks Too/ S02 Italy / Russia / (No)
Austria Sucks / A01 France / Austria / (No)
All Go Down Together/ A01 Austria / Turkey / ?
WOW Pritty Colors!!!/ A02 England / Turkey / (No)
qwertygames / A04 Germany / England / No

It's not really illegal, anyone is free to make an alliance with anyone else, but it is a little against the spirit of the game and it means some players who recognise the tag team are at an advantage over other players who don't.

I think as a courtesy to fellow players, any patterns like this should be reported to the forum, to enable everyone to take such teamplay into account and if necessary to choose not to play in games with those players.

Do Photon and Dark Amusement actually find doing this fun? Doesn't it take away the fun?

And as for not playing with them, why not just point this out to all the players in the game and turn everyone else in their games against them? :D

That would be a good idea Crispminis. There should be a way to ban at least one of them from Diplomacy.

That "playing with idiots" game - mki operative seems to have a good thing going there. The other 6 players were all created within a day of each other, 5 of them only have one previous game - with exactly the same players, won by mki operative within 3 game years. Now they are all in civil disorder.

A good way to boost his Games Won stat!

A week ago I think most people didn't know they had ratings, now people are acting like it's a matter of life or death.

It doesn't count towards anything, it was only put there to give the profile page a bit of padding! The next stats system will determine which games you can join, and there will be a hall of fame page, but the way rankings are worked out won't be open to abuse.

Also for the time being if you want a game which only has players you know you can trade passwords via e-mail, as others have done.

My righteous indignation has faded now I have achieved Mastermind status. I find the best way to do this is to win games by playing well (and in my case, being lucky!)

maybe you should just remove the rating until the new system is in place. that will certainly put this arguement to rest.

this isn't an argument. everyone is agreeing.

Updated: maybe you should just remove the rating until the new system is in place. that will certainly put this AGREEING to rest.

Maybe we should all just concentrate on our own games and ignore all the stuff about ratings and statpadders. I've been here a couple of months now and I think I could name most of the genuinely strongest players. The cream always rises to the surface, and the greatest glory is to be recognised by your peers.

I have also followed this discussion from a distance for awhile now & wanted to post some lines, but holding myself back. In one hand I'm really surprised that this kind of discussion could last this long (actually time-to-time I couldn't even follow the real topic here - there are at least 10 different issues up here at the same time). But then again, it's forum - word coming from latin & meaning in general 'public place/space for expression' - so if people want to discuss issues related to rankings, let it be....

For the new system, I think we should use ratings (starting at 1000, or some other number). You gain rating points by winning games, you lose rating points by losing games. The amount you gain and lose is dependent on the ratings of the players in your game. I've seen this work fairly efficiently before, so it should work here pretty well too.

It also give those people who don't play a lot, but win often when they play a chance to reach mastermind, and cuts down on people who just madly rush to join games to advance in rank.

But for now, I'm just gonna concentrate on enjoying the games I play, not my overall rank.

kestas - is giving the game creator the power to reject players a simple and viable alternative to a complicated rating system that will determine which games you are allowed to sign up for? i think the ability to "boot" would solve a number of issues.

Yeah, but I think instead of the ratings depending on the other player's ratings, which might take some mathematical tweaking before it's balanced, just set it so that when someone creates the game, they decide how many points you have to pay to play, and then the points in the pot are divided amongst winners.

That way, you can have unrated games, and as well divide games based on skill.

Of course, it should not be zero sum, and every game, including unrated, should generate extra points on top of what each player paid. Otherwise the only way for other players to gain points, would be for others to lose. This would encourage multiple accounts, and frequent resets, which is bad.

The amount of points generated should be dependant on the price paid, and should represent a significant amount.

I've got an idea, how about you just win some games, jesus.. some of you people.

I have just been reading the thread and would like to address a few points aimed at people who, like myself, are involved in multiple games.

I don't know about the others but I didn't join the games so I could get to mastermind rating quicker. For a while I didn't even know there was a rating and that was when I was involved in many games as well. As far as I'm concerned it seems people take the rankings too seriously. I joined this site just to play the game. NOT too become better than anyone else by joining loads of games.

Onto people saying there should be a limit to how many games you can play. I do not think that there should be a limit. I think that if people dont want certain people playing then they should state in the forum, like isbian (see below), that they would like a game against different people. Or just get your own game with a password and just tell some people who you want to invite that they can join and give them the password. However, having said this I think that it would be highly unfair of people to exclude others from all games because of how many games they have or are currently playing.

I have to say also that the statement made by isbian of kicking people out is unjust and unfair on people who play this game and enjoy it. Just because I play more games than most people, OK a lot more games than most people, doesn't mean I am not dedicated or that I dont enjoy it. I think this is a great game. And just because I play a lot of games does not mean that I should be kicked out. In my opinion it is an absolutely ludacris statement to make.

That concludes my rant on what has been said in this thread. I hope this clears anything up about me that people have thought and that people may now see me as just a player.

i am in phpdeplomacy and the game, but i have many years in online communities.
I think its not fair to don't let people join as many games they want. I don't know how much time they can spend on game, only they do know.
I think we need a better rating system (as told before). It is very useful for everybody. I am a newbie and i want to play with beginners and intermediate players, but i want to watch experts games.
The system with passwords is not very good, i think its better an invitation system.

I agree that an invitation system would be good and that the ranking system needs to be revised. BUT why shouldn't I be able to enter into as many games as I want especially if not many others want to enter into that many. Most of the people in this thread have said that they want a new ranking system and that it's unfair that people, like me, enter into lots and lots of games. But if I don't care about rankings and it doesn't go towards anything like a prize and people don't even want to enter many games then why shouldn't I fill the available slots?

As long as you give your full time and attention to each and every game, and don't just give up on all the ones where you have no chance of winning... that's fair enough!

I also think that it shouldnt be the "statpadders" you worry about but the people who hold up the games by taking ages over their turns or dont come on regularly and slow the game down for other people.

And I do give my full attention to every game I play and make sure that I dont make a stupid move and i always try even if I am surrounded by allies and they have 10 units each and I only have 5.

Most people here don't think that more games is unfair, I think the main concern is that people are tired of seeing people who drop games that they aren't doing so well in, or even games where they drew a country they didn't like, in favor of a game where they are more fortunate.

I don't see why anyone should NEED to play so many games, you can get the same experience and fun from just a few games, just try it, and I think you'll find your gameplay improves dramatically.

As to those who "hold up" games. There is a reason for 24 hours a turn. I would not criticize those who use up all 24 hours. Just because one is impatient and excited to begin the next round does not mean that everyone else is. Some people can only get on once a day, and others prefer to keep windows open, so that others can respond to their messages, and they can get a better idea of what's happening. I'm quite disappointed when I see that people who take their time are complained about.

Keep in mind, the postal version, the Diplomacy that was popularized, had turns that took weeks. People thought absolutely everything out, and they had to write every hypothetical retreat out.

No offence to you will, but for someone who has 80+ games going on at the same time, I don't see why you are worried about people taking their time. If you truly dedicate your attention to each game, you would need all 24 hours. Honestly, on a Diplomacy phase, I spend AT LEAST 15 minutes working things out. I will log in every now and then to check back with replies. I really encourage you to try playing just a few games, and maybe you'll have more success.

I really don't care about statpadding, because stats don't matter, but it disappoints me to see a Diplomat with only 2 games won, and a less than 5% win percentage. I really think you expose your potential as a Diplomacy player if you micromanaged a few games, and play it as a Diplomatic game, and not as a 20 second tactical game.

If that still does not work, try an RTS.

will6691 wrote "...I do give my full attention to every game I play..."

will6691 is listed in 41 completed games.
- He won 2 of them, which is under 5%. One would expect an average player to win 1 in 7 games, or about 14% of the time.
- In the 39 games he didn't win, he never finished with more than 10 units, and was eliminated or finsihed with under 6 units 36 times (or 92% of the time.)
- He is currently participating in 81 games! At 5 minutes a game, (yes, some games where he's already down to 1 unit might need less time, but on average 5 minutes at least is a must for a thoughtful game - no?) that's almost 7 hours a day!

The fact that he can claim that he gives his "full attention to every game" is a joke.

Now why should I care?

I'm looking for competative and interesting games. And just as it is with people who go Civil Disorder by 1902, players such as this skew an inordinately large number of games, drying up the pool of "thoughtful" players (who limit themselves to 1-5 games) for the remaining games.

From a player so pre-occupied as this, maybe you might get a response of "nobody goes into the English Channel", but I can't imagine being able to coordinate with him a combined attack on one or more other countries where we need to support each other and coordinate our attacks.

very well said caldernet.

This is why there are so many passworded games, because there are two different types of players, those who want serious, competitive games with a proper balance between all 7 countries, and those who just see the game as a bit of fun but aren't really going to put any thought or commitment into it (the ones who will fight all their neighbours, ignore all diplomatic overtures, and let some lucky beneficiary on the other side of the board build up unstoppable momentum).

I think all my wins so far have been assisted by other countries going into civil disorder, or giving up. As a result I still have no idea whether I'm a good player or just a lucky one. I want to play a proper game through to the end where every player fights for every territory all the way (or maybe I have, and those are all the games where I was eliminated within 3 years..!)

Just join Masterminds game Noodlebug, then You will find out soon enough if You are up to it or just lucky ;) ... also others who search for quality games, please look for Masterminds game!

I'd like to point out that this indeed is a community of people. We should get to know each other, and one way to do that is to set up an external forum (or internal one, if you know how to...I'm not a tech guy :P) that's organized into different areas for easier communication. Invisionfree is an excellent host, and could provide a way for players to warm up to each other and find other people with similar skill levels to play with, or even arrange special games like axis vs. allies, etc.

As we grow, we may have to look to a bigger forum, but currently, we only have two people that I know of working on this, and you can't expect them to prioritize this ahead of their own lives as well.

I'm not going to stop people from joining millions of games, I'm just going to discourage it, and say, as long as they have the right to join a million games, I have the right to not join those games, and instead choose games with players that are active and willing.

The problem is that every now and then I would like some new talent to play with, and it's hard to find such talent if you only play passworded games in a tight group.

Hmm, I just realized that this is probably the most prolific forum topic ever. Certain posts border on flaming. We're growing! ^_^

I would really like the input of someone very new, because since it seems the "masterminds" have carved out a little gaming niche, and I'm wondering how this will effect user friendliness, especially to new players.