jarrah I think your system should be implemented immediately. Where's Kestas when you need him?

Let's take a vote:
a. Keep the old system
b. Adopt Jarrah's system.

I vote b

Well, if I can vote for my own system, it'd be 0-2 now! :-)

Ultimately, this isn't a democracy, but if there's widespread support, the ball would be in Kestas' court to consider and possibly implement.

I'll give 'B' a vote. That's 3 for the change.

I vote b
That's four votes for the change (Are we allowed to vote more than once?)

Status quo! Status quo!

I joined three games recently. In each of them there has been one new player who has not entered any moves right from the start. I joined games with a high joining fee relative to my limited budget. For example one of the game cost 60 to join. However a new player joined too, and has made no moves. He went CD and another new player joined, same deal, no moves. I am guessing these players were lost newbies who don't even know how to play. Under Jarrah's system they would not have joined my games.

Vote B

I like B too...it gives the points more leverage, and less risk.

I like your idea, but I think it should be implemented differently (Which I think would be easier on Kestas)

Why not just have an option "Prohibit players with less than x points from joining" where you can fill in X? That way if you want to risk it all you can, and it's not automatically set to 1/4th. If you want to play a 20 point game, with people with more than 100 , you can do that too.

I like the original idea better, as it is self-policing, and also puts more meaning and use to points. It also slows the change in point amounts, while giving them more meaning.

vote B, would also like a system where you could make games where entrants have to have a certain number of finished games to join

I think its great that you guys all want to exclude new players, but I would kind of like to have moderate play throughout a broader range of the lower levels to keep new good players at the site long enough to reach your requirements.

Centurian, players stay because they think this is the best interface to play the game. i don't think a stupid point system makes or breaks it at the end of the day. We all just want to play and be able to do it the most convenient way possible, and that is using kestas' interface to maximize communication (as opposed to other sites).

Interface is king. Everything else is just a pissing contest.

it wouldn't exclude new players. Most of the games I am playing are less than 25, which would be the minimum to allow anyone to play. I am playing 1 at 100. Only someone with 400 could join that...total points.

So...there are lots of us that would still play games with games that are at 25 or less points. But now, this would add the ability to play a game where there will be players with more points, without risking 100's to limit it to that.

I must insist on the fact that you should be allowed to bet based on your total points, not your current points.

Also, jarrah, I think you should make this petition in the developer's forum.

It has enough support from posters as to make it a valid concern, and this isn't a democracy so even if you had 100% support you'd need Kestas approval (and possibly coding unless you do it yourself and pass the code to him).

Absolutely Xapi. I think even jarrah agrees with that.

I currently don't like the idea of an option to say a player must have X amount of points to join a game. Then all the non-newbies will create lots of 5-25 point games while excluding the newbies.

I like tying the restriction to the size of the pot. That's basically how it is now, except that newbies can go all in or almost all in to join what is supposed to be a higher level game. So with the restriction to 25% or 33% or whatever, then vets can play games that exclude newbies, but only by setting the pot size high enough and risking those points. (And pre-arranged password protected games of course.)

To be clear, I mean I don't like the proposed option of when creating a game, having an option to say a player must have X amount of total points regardless of the pot size. I like the idea of having it tied to the pot size.

Why don't you like that? I absolutely refuse to play games (OK, not absolutely, but mostly) less than 101 now. If the 1/4th went into effect, I would just lower that to 26. I'm not going to play with people less than 100 , because, no offense, they tend to CD and ruin the game. I just finished a game where 4 countries CDed, and the remaining three of us just drew it. It was no fun at all...

Why should I not have the ability to play low point games with high point people? That's what I want...

What Alderian said he didn't like was the possibility to, in a game with any pot, set a minimum amount of points a player has to have to join it.

Stop it, stop it stop it. This points evorision policy has got to stop. I worked hard for my diplomacy points, sleepless nights and skipping work, losing friends and boring family members with my tails of a failed lepento. I will not see my points erroded. If I have 101 and want to join a 101 bet game and only play 1 game I should be allowed to. Why should I be forced to play 4no 25 point games?

Leave my points alone, leave my points alone.

You could actually waste 101 in a single game, you have 418 total points.

Wait, his stats make no sense:

Available points: 123
Points in play: 35
Total points: 418

WTF?

Maniac is in anonymous games and those don't show in the points in play to anyone except Maniac. I bet if you look at mine the numbers don't add up either.

I hide them under my sofa until I need them.

Good point draugnar, that means that we could work out who is in what anonymous game by looking at their 'missing' points.

@Draugnar - are you in 'Not for the faint hearted' by any chance?

Maniac: Ask him by PM.

Draugnar: You know you shouldn't answer.

@Maniac, that's why I suggested lifting the restriction more and more the more games you have under your belt. So you, with 88 games finished, should be able to spend your points all you want.

From a programming perspective, I'm not sure why it would be hard to do. Right now points available is calculated from your total points minus the points you have invested in games. Just calculate a second number:

available = min (available, total points * max (100, min (0, (games finished - (games left * 5) + 5) * 5)))

But if that is too complicated, then just say until you finish 5 games, you are limited to 25% of your points. And once you have finished 5 games then you've graduated and are unlimited.