A good idea in principle, but are these people also banned from joining WTAs that other people create? Otherwise it's a bit inconsistent and pointless...

Also, getting just one survival is going to take someone to around 102 points, which would be enough. I agree you shouldn't be allowed to bet everything on one game, but maybe the way to do that is a blanket rule at 50% (gross). Thus you could join two games at the most expensive you can afford, or many smaller or a mix

Well then there’s no reason to hang on to the 100 points in any game type. This rule only prevents those with a small amount points from blowing a small amount of points on one game, but someone could bet 500 on one game.

A limit would be better, 1/7 means that in one game you have the chance to double you're original points and then you must lose 7 other games in order to cancel out the winnings from one game you won.

Never mind that last part about loosing 7 games.

Actually, I'm starting to think this is a bad idea in principle. It is discouraging new players from playing to win, and forcing them to play for Dip points. The system is self-perpetuating, creating a generation of new players for whom gaining and saving Dip points, however few, is more important than trying to win a game. And as I have frequently pointed out, the side-effect of that is most games are rendered uncompetitive, or at least not evenly competitive between all the players who are trying to win. It can become literally impossible for a player, however good he is, however cleverly he plays, to win a non-WTA game.

Dip points are a creation of this site to help encourage games between people of similar abilities, in my view they should not be an objective of the game. The objective of the game (of any competitive activity!) must be to win, and only if all players are *trying* to win do all players have a *fair chance* to win.

Yes I'm getting side-tracked onto my usual soapbox, this thread is about whether new players should be allowed to blow all their points on a WTA, in the hope of a quick jump to 700. I say yes, why not? If they are good enough to do that (beat 6 people actually trying to win the game) those are points they earn and deserve. The issue for me is how players who lose everything should get their points back. If you give them the 100 back in one lump, they just blow it all again, and keep doing this till they hit a winner.

So here's my proposal... anyone on less than 100 earns 1 Dip point per day. That includes people in games. If people are unlucky enough to lose all their Dip points and just want to play a game, even a 5 point game, they can do so in less than a week (although if they earn while they play they should never be in that position, as most games don't finish in less than 5 days.) If people want to keep blowing 100 points, that's fine too, but they can only do it once every 3 months unless they start winning some Dip points.

1 a day, 5 a day, the rate can be tinkered with but it's the principle I'm interested in. We have to give people points back otherwise we're just asking for multi-accounters. But giving them 100 points in a lump for losing, regardless of whether it's WTA or PPS isn't really fair on the people who are careful with their stakes. And most people when they get 100 in a lump will spend 100 in a lump. Give them 1 or 5 a day and they have to think about how long they are willing to wait before investing in a new game. I think this will encourage more low-stakes games and reduce Dip-point anxiety, which will mean people will be thinking about winning more than worrying about losing, which means more games will be played in the spirit in which the game was designed, and will engender a more positive mentality amongst all new players.

Yes, this system does not allow new players, bad players, or the unlucky to play WTA. It also does not allow a person with 150 from playing two 50 pointers.

I was looking forward to the competitive WTA games because I want competition and could care less about points. As Noodle pointed out, this idea promotes people being stingy about points, even encourages smurfing in order to get some points to play WTA.

Furthermore, a person who bets all their points may be able to gain a lot of points fast, but they can then also lose those points equally as fast. The points were created so people of similar skill could play together, however now we have a much more accurate gauge of skill right on people's profiles. If someone wants to join a game they could simply look at the rank to see if they feel comfortable playing in that game. In fact we could replace the points by someone's name with the percent of games won.

No-one else has any comments?

Hyperactive Jam, you have 0 points. Can it be related? :P

I agree that Kestas' current implementation discourages new players from playing WTA, and this is definitely not a good thing. However, as long as 100 points is given back immediately to players once they finish their games, I think it is necessary.

Noodlebug's idea is interesting, but the rate of point regeneration should be much higher. I'm still skeptical that this idea would work anyways. And I don't believe that Kestas' current implementation really encourages the "vicious" cycle of PPS that Noodlebug suggests.

I would say that the easiest thing to do is just put a blanket 50% points rule, so that nobody can create a WTA game with more than 50% of their points, so a new player can create a WTA game with 50 points. This could also apply to nobody joining a WTA game with more than 50%, if multiaccounts are seen as an epidemic. Of course, 50% is not a set number, arguments for more or less can be made.

I think that somewhere around 40% would be better, but I'm not sure. My fear would be new player would see the 50% limit and so join two games at 50%, then having lost but the games not finished they would create a new account instead of waiting? However, it should be of total points, so that you can join larger games even if you've already invested a lot. Also, if anything is imposed on WTA, it should also go on Points per SC