He's in some sort of bet where he has to join a lot of games. I don't see anything wrong with this, as he has managed to not CD in a single one

59! Madness. Still, good on M. Colon.

If he ditches all his points just before a game ends, he'll pick up another 100 every time.... if someone were to pick up just one CD country per day, they could have 9,000 points within three months, without surviving a game.

Mr. Colon joined one of the games i am in and the difficulty is communicating with him. I tried to talk to him but no answer yet ... this is kinda hard, also for the other players, in a game where communication is so important.

Well ... i guess it is hard to answer to evryone in 59 games ...

Calling him Mr. Colon makes him sound like somebody's lower digestive tract. The gentleman's name is ::::::::::::::::::.

You don't get 100 points each time. You will not get to 9,000. That's not how it works.

Try it.

I agree with Macari. He joined our game, sometimes makes a move, sometimes we wait all 24 hours on him. He doesn't communicate at all.

Maybe we should cap the amount of games one person can play to something like 10?

The point system is supposed to limit the number of games a player can join. We've tried a hard cap at 10 and people complain. (And these are people that are actively playing all 10+ games, not just screwing around).

And no, this method would never get anyone even close to 1000 points, let alone 9K.

The 9K would come from getting points by simply holding on to the number of SC's he took over. Every time a game would end (quite often) he would get another 100 and then when he stops they will suddenly begin to pile up.

My understanding is that it would not break 100. He could have 9000 points invested in games, but if he never won then none of those points would convert back into real points. And if they did, he would have to reinvest them immediately or he would stop receiving the points to fill him up to 100.

Say you have 435 points. You pick up a futile country from CD for 35 points, and invest the rest, 400 points, in a new WTA game - which nobody will join (well, maybe dangermouse). The game is cancelled 24 hours later, and you get your 400 points back. You immediately invest them in another WTA game, which nobody will join.
After a couple of days, the game you picked up out of CD ends - it's irrelevant whether you're holding supply centers or not, you have 0 points just before it ends, and so you're guaranteed at least 100 points. When the WTA game that you started the previous day is cancelled, you get your 400 points back.... and you now have 500 points. Take over one CD country per day, and one of those games (on average) will end every day. That's 100 points, per day, even if you never survive a game. 100 points times per day * 3 months (say, 90 days) equals....

If I understand correctly, ::::::::::. (I think I spelt that correctly) cannot earn back any vast sum unless there is some sort of bug. As I understand it, finishing a game with less than 100 points in your score causes your score to *reset* to 100. Hence, figures like 9K seem strange. However, I can imagine the following strategy.

Say, for example, if a player joins the site and invests the 100 points in 20 CD games (each at 5 point cost), the first refunds the original 100 and each of the 19 other games, assuming the player neither wins nor loses any SCs, funds back the original 5 (give or take), making the final total:

100 +((20-1)*5) = 100 + (19*5) = 100 + 95 = 195

However, this near-doubling of score is no cheat, as you'd need to maintain status quo in 19 CD games (which are usually CD for a good reason)!

This brings me to an interesting question about the points system: is there inflation? In a system without the point-reset to 100, each new player brings 100 points to the system and the system never has more than '#players*100' points in it. However, when points reset to 100, are the points created or drawn from somewhere else in the system? In the former case, what is to stop inflation as points keep getting created when political puppets lose games?

Sorry - what you say, Feckless, makes sense. Just posted at same time.

BTW, if anyone wants to join my new WTA for 475 points:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3966

No? Ah, well then, I'll have 575 tomorrow....

Heavens! If the 100 points are created each time there might be some serious inflation here.

And yes, I know my maths is flawed, because I'm not counting the cost of joining CD games, which is.... minimal.

Yet the principle seems sound enough.

Good grief! Is this really true? It's appalling if it is. Though someone must really be dedicated to go to this length to inflate their points like this, and it would be patently obvious, would it not, to everyone that this is how they got these points?

Absolutely. Still, it makes a mockery of the points system, doesn't it?

More the resulting fall in the value of points that worries me.

If you make yourself a new game before games end, could you that way gain 100 points, and then have the game just not start?

Yes, Ghostmaker, that's exactly what I'm talking about. This is at least the fourth time the issue's been raised....

Well, I think there's a consensus that it should only reset when you are in no more games... but inflation is a problem. Of course: players who are worried about their 'stats' will not join CD games to be reset to 100 points... since it will lower their win percetage and increase their loss percentage.

Would this be an evidence for the possibility of using Time Machines?

Not worried - but interesting to know that inflation is possible (though not too worrying, as points aren't used to purchase anything and the 'price' of entry is set by a range of different players based on their score).

I think if a player runs out of points and loses all of their games then the account should just be deleted from the site and have them start over instead of reseting while you still have games going.

Points shouldn't reset while games are ongoing, but deleting accounts would serve no purpose whatsoever.

This is correct, and is a bug.
What should happen is that every time your game ends if you have less than 100 points net you get your bet back from that game.

Getting your original stake back if X<100 is sensible.

Yes, but only if X is your total points, not your free points, because as has been noted you can make a game, then get your points, then let the game go bust.

True - just saying that getting your stake back rather than being boosted to 100 is a step in the right direction.

You mean Bartolo Colon, right?

Thanks to Clay Buchholz going on the disabled list, this will open up the opportunity for Colon to make his first Major League start of the season. After signing the big righty to a Minor League contract in late February, Colon started his season at Triple-A Pawtucket. Thanks to a right oblique injury that sidelined him for a month, Colon has made just three starts for Pawtucket, going 2-0 with an 0.64 ERA. Colon won the 2005 Cy Young Award while pitching for the Angels. In his career, he is 146-95.
I wouldn't count on him doing too much in his first start.

Well, I hope Kestas reads Feckless' idea. It's a clear exploit that should probably be dealt with... I hope nobody else tries to play 59 games at the same time either.

WRT to the idea points inflation, if it weren't for that, people wouldn't be able to accumulate a great many points, and someone who lost all his points after a loss wouldn't be able to play anymore. The point of points is just to give a rough idea of who's a better/more serious player. It shouldn't be taken to correlate directly with skill, even over a long period.

On the contrary, Menace, inflation in pointstock may allow accumulation of a great many points, but inflation does not necessarily allow players to have the points to enter games: that is the role of returning points to players with less than 100 points, which doesn't necessarily cause inflation. If such players got their stake back from such games (e.g. they get 10 points back from a 10 point game), then no points beyond '#players*100' are created or destroyed.

The ideal balance strikes me as being between a situation (which you, I believe, are refering to, Menace) of high demand for points but low supply, and a situation of low demand for points but high supply. Both these extremes have problems, however, I suspect you are correct, Menace, when you suggest that the former case is the more critical (hypothetically).

I never mentioned point-to-skill correlation. For the record, I don't much care about pointage other than as a sort of curiosity.

Yes, this probably causes point inflation. There's really not too much I can say about that: every time someone new joins or someone with less than 100 points ends a game the total number of points on the site goes up. My games are just a small part of that, and I guess that it's just something we have to deal with on this site, unless someone implements a way to remove points at an equal rate.
I do not often get above 100 points. In fact, the most number of points I've had is 107. My point number cannot increase above 100 unless I am finished games with units left on the board and already have 100 points or am close enough to 100 points that my division of the pot puts me over. There is no need to worry about the thousands of points that I could be receiving from taking over CD countries.

Points inflation? Just the process of giving any points back to a player that doesn't survive adds points to the phpDip environment.

The discussion is about reducing points inflation not eliminating it.

To eliminate points inflation, so that, the total points in phpDip is #players * 100, simply collect a tax (in points) and use the tax revenue to supply welfare to incompetent players. Of course, we'd need a welfare bureaucracy to make sure no one takes advantage. And they'd need to show progress towards finding a real job.

I think the key point is this... that while ::::::::::::: enters a game determined to time his ejection from it so he can have a zero balance and cream in 100 fresh points to deploy elsewhere, he's fucking annoying to play against because he never or rarely moves and never communicates!!

Is it possible to organise it so that points go to 0 are not refreshed up to 100 if you are still playing in a game and have the opportunity to actually win some rather than wait on a hand out?

(I copy from the global chat of the game ww3:)

Autumn 1901: FEAR THE TURK! FEAR THE TURK! It looks like Russia and Austria-Hungary are both MIA and he's about to get way too many builds from the Balkans.
Tue 01 AM Autumn 1901: and you are the only one who can slow him down . . . you gotta get an army on the mainland there
Tue 01 PM Autumn 1901: he won't, plus, austria seems to be back
Tue 01 PM Autumn 1901: I see no evidence that Austria is actually paying any attention to this game. He has a green check mark by his name... so? It means nothing. He has no orders to submit during this phase.

Also, to Austria (should you ever read this): YOU ARE PLAYING WAY TOO MANY GAMES AT ONCE. It's about quality, not quantity... and I never thought I'd find myself saying that about Diplomacy given the number of games I'm in.
Tue 10 PM Spring 1902: When I say that, I really mean it. Austria-Hungary, there is no reason to make your list of "active games" on this site run on to the horrific number of fifty-one.
***************************************************************************
Wed 05 AM Spring 1902: Is there a reason why this should be a problem for you?
You seem to contradict yourself when you say that I am not paying attention to this game and that I have no orders to submit. How am I supposed to demonstrate that I am indeed playing when I cannot move?
In none of my games have I missed a single turn in which orders were required, and if you think that I am perhaps not spending enough time considering my moves for each game, I encourage you to look at my games - in very few of them am I in a situation that requires skillful play or even much communication between players. I pick up every game in which a CD player has fallen to just a couple of SC's - no chance of recovery, but I dislike the advantages that civil disorders give to nearby countries, and I can at least provide some resistance.
The alternative to me playing these games is that they are left in civil disorder - I have never joined a game without taking over an abandoned country. Most players would agree that a player who does not focus his entire effort on each game is still better than no player at all.
Wed 07 AM Spring 1902: This game was not one that had a country in Civil Disorder. You joined at the start and neglected to submit any moves for the entirety of 1901.
Wed 07 AM Spring 1902: And just to make it clear, I never said you were not paying attention to the game. I said there was no evidence that you were paying any attention to it; the two are distinctly separate statements.
Wed 07 AM Spring 1902: I did not join at the beginning of this game; I joined during the units building phase of autumn 1901. Simply because you were not present between the time that the previous player went into CD and the time I joined does not mean that it did not happen.

This is a completely pointless argument. I do not need to justify my actions to you, nor do you need to accuse me of things without sufficient evidence or justification.
***************************************************************************
Wed 08 AM Spring 1902: Wow, sorry... didn't realize you'd actually stepped in for another player.

/me feels dumb.

Please forward all complaints and rants to the appropriate person :)

The part highlighted is Mr. Colon's justification of his behavior.

wow.

Positron is funny : ).

No, I suspect points inflation doesn't really have too much of an impact on the site and is certainly (as Menace suggested) better than insufficient point-supply. If points inflate drastically (lose their value) then the worst that could happen is that certain players become 'points barons' and start some very high-stake games (which may actually be good, as some players like high-stakes games). Because of the refunds to 100 point for players with less, players with less than 100 points are always protected from 'point poverty ; )' and the fact that games can be started with any stake (5+) means that it doesn't really matter what a point is worth. Though you might find the mean average stake increases after a while, new players can always challenge new players and I'm sure no real 'point class-different' will develop (where new players are removed from points-barons and there is very little 'Diplomatic mobility' between the two ; ). It is a bit silly to worry about it and I just find it interesting that inflation takes place, even if it has no real effect (except, hypothetically, in the long run).

May I say, Colon (::::::::::, whichever you prefer), you argue your case very well - you scoop up the CDs, keeping those games balanced, while causing a little inflation that doesn't hurt anyone really.

What (if you have time, that is) I'd be interested to know is, what is your motive? Is your motive to buy-in to all the CD games, altruistically, or to win the big-points rollover? Is it both of these? Is it something else?

As to points tax - I considered mentioning it, but it would be a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. Because all points here are 'property', in that they have been allocated to players, it seems unfair to take any away, especially if the dangers of inflation don't really exist critically. The best tax would be to take a small sum (1 or 2 points) from the pot of each game started (this is, perhaps, negligable, and isn't a penalty to any particular player). However, a tax would be silly and may risk a fall in supply if it is too high. A better approach (in the long run, if there is a problem) might be to destroy very-inactive accounts and remove their points from the system. However, I don't know the gubbinz, so this may not be easy, right or proper.