You have to have over 100 to start the game.

You don't need 100 to play one someone else has started, though. Go hunt one down. =)

There isn't a WTA game I can join. I amend my question: why can't I start one?

Hmm... well I think the original reason was to prevent massive point inflation, since you're reimbursed if you lose...

In that way, people would keep on betting 100 points in a WTA until they end up in one where they start off with a significant edge and win, while abandoning the games where they weren't doing so hot. Obviously this is a terribly bad thing, and while it stops responsible WTA players from starting up right off the bat, it prevents the more maligned and exploitative new players from spoiling the system.

Perhaps a more elegant solution is in order. I can't think of another one myself however...

Here's a possible solution, that may have loads of bad points, but I'm going to go for it anyway. What if you just allowed players to lose their points. The only catch being that once you were reduced to nothing, you could only play 50 pt (or less) PPSC games. If you lose a game that you put nothing into, you lose nothing. (And the other players gain points equal to what there would've been if you'd had the points.) If you win, you get what you win.

Maybe this "punishment" would only apply to WTA games. For instance: if Dan has 100 points, and he decides he wants to play a WTA game for 75 points, and winds up losing, he is reduced to 25 points. Now, he can play a PPSC game for 25 points, and if he loses that, have his 25 points reimbursed. Naturally, if he wins any of the above games (or draws, for that matter) then he gets what he would normally get.

Does this make sense? Does it even sound like a good idea?

The exploitative strategy that Chrisminis mentions could be used in PPSC as well. It would not be as effective though, because in PPSC you can only win a little over half the pot. Here's my proposed solution: If you have 100 points or less you can only start a WTA with a bet of half your points (or 40% or whatever, I don't care).

I'm staying neutral as to whether players with less than 100 points should be able to start WTA games (I'd be interested in the arguments against), but if Caviare would like to specify a pot (and perhaps suggest a name) I'd be happy to start such a game. HTH.

Oh, one condition though - 24 hour phases.

When I get back from holiday I shall start one.

Chris: Easy solution: A different point system, without reimbursing...

I like the idea of allowing a maximum bet of, say, 1/7th the amount of points you have or something. The minimum points requirement was to stop people from joining 100 points WTA games over and over, which would be the fastest way to generate points

Thanks for the offer Feckless Clod, however I don't have time to start a new game right away.
I think there is a problem with not reimbursing: if someone has a score below that of a site newbie, they would likely just create a new login rather than suffer the low score.
In terms

Oops accidental click there, may be I'm the feckless clod. I was about to say, if you are trying to put WTA on a par with PPSC games for generating points, one PPSC game can net you 7*18/34-1 approx 2.7 times your original bet. The WTA game can net you 6 times your original bet, so my logic suggests maximum points on a WTA game would be 2.7/6 = 45%. What is your logic for 1/7 Kestasjk?

>why is winner takes all only for experts?

It's not for experts, it is for those who know the true spirit of this game, for those lucky dogs..

You need over 100 points to start one though.

I don't think we should restrict those with less then 100 points from playing in WTA. As they've said, it is the best representation of the board game.

A bet ceiling at a certain percentage would be more equitable and you could apply it to all players. Though I'd also say that if any player can accumilate large amounts of points without cheating, then they deserve to be able to.

A simple suggestion for changing points reimbursement:
If you lose a game and are below 100 you get whichever is less from a) the amount that you invested in the game, or b) 100. Haven't really tested the logic - but it should work against cheaters?

It makes no sense for any players to be prohibited from starting WTA games - that's the original game afterall :)

Bet ceiling is a tricky idea - I would really hate it if I misss out a good game for let's say 200 points if I have 400.

I like Caviare's reasoning, and it can be applied across the board. A maximum of 45% as a starting bet. I think Kestas' logic has to do with the number of players in the game, though I'm not sure it makes as much sense as your suggestion.

I'm wondering whether Kestas is thinking about the overall points inflation that could be caused, rather than what the winner could earn. So if there are 7 newbies playing WTA and there is a solo winner, we get total inflation of 6 times the bet, because 6 players have to be reimbursed. In a similar situation in PPSC, worst possible inflation is 5 times the bet, for an 18,16,0,0,0,0,0 outcome. The worst possible isn't going to happen very often, and solo wins in WTA are also some proportion of the number of games. Using this logic you could analyse the results of the two different forms of the game to determine the allowed bet.

Yup no real logic, something to do with the number of players but I'm not sure.

45% sounds fine, I think the reasoning for 45% is sound. These files would need to be modified:
gamecreate.php (to enforce 45% when starting new games), processGame::join() (to enforce 45% when joining/taking over a CD), and processGame::summary() (to let people know whether they have enough to join before trying to)

(I'm not a big WTA player at the moment, and haven't noticed any abuse, so I'm not likely to get around to this myself. But I'd accept a patch if anyone is feeling up to it :-)

I'll have attempt the patch, if no one else will.
If there is no abuse occurring with experienced players, then is a betting limit just for new players adequate? If just new players than is a flat limit rather than a percentage adequate? So the proposal for change is that players with 100 points or less may start a new WTA game, but the bet must be 45 points or less.

I don't think experienced players bet over 45% of their points on a single WTA game, definitely can't see how that'd be open to abuse, so I'd say the 45% limit should be kept universal to keep things simple (but whatever you think is best)

Sorry to repeat myself - but does this make sense:
If you lose a game and are below 100 point you get whichever is less from a) the amount that you invested in the game, or b) 100.
Will this work? Can it be implemented?

Yup that's the way it works at the moment (my favorite kind of feature request :-)

I'd definitly say keeping it simple is best.
Why not a 50 % univeral bet limit for wta?

Also kestas, would it be too difficult to create a game type in which the individual chat tab/function isn't available? Thus only the global chat remains.
This would be ideal for both Global and No Press games :)

Kestes, not sure whether you responded to me - but if it works like this then what is the problem with players starting WTA games with less than 100 points?

Ivo, see my post above, it outlines the problem. Universal 45% is the best idea.

MajorTom, I think both variants work well enough as it is... adding another option would only add confusion to the game creation process.

Having 101 pts is HARDLY an expert player, lol...

Look people, WTA games should be for those with Some experience, not novices, especially since if it were the case, i imagine if a new player joined and started losing, it would be a doormat victory, and also, that the CD rate would skyrocket- as there is no option to recoup your points... so this deal works in your favour.
Get some more pts and start winning and stop whining

New to this site doesn't mean new to diplomacy. Offering WTA to such people will increase the site's appeal.

canute, it's been discussed. Caviare's offered a very sensible solution so that at 100 points, or indeed any points, winning a max bet PPSC and a 45% bet WTA offer the same maximum growth. I agree that WTA should be available to new players because I'm a WTA nut. And I'm a WTA nut because I believe it's closer to the spirit of the game. =D