Well, looks like we got the "A+" group :)

whats the required percent?

Everyone I've seen who has it has at least 98%. Presumably it's over 95%.

What would it take to have an "Offer to Leave" button in place.

You want to leave the game, and someone can come in and take over, but you want to keep the player running until someone does.

that might be an interesting idea

@Jeff.
Thinking about this for a while now too.
Not sure if I could do this. But If I have enough time I might give it a try...

Thanks! It might be handy too if you need to be away for a bit, instead of giving your account to someone else, you could just let them sit in your place for you.

I have some ideas how to solve this too, but as this is a really big code change it will take a while and I need to solve some other issues first. But it's definitely on my to-Do list.

Excellent!

If you wanted to do it in one swoop, allow the person giving up his place to put a password on, just like for a new game. Then he could give that password to his game-sitter.

My thoughts at the moment...
You select a game you are in, a userID to send an invite to, and the time he gets the game. The other get a mail if he want to take over for the given time. If he accepts, the players change, if no, he might invite someone else...

Very interesting, it could be really useful.
We should find a way to handle the case you invite a person who's already in the game (hard to preserve anonymity, in this case).

Also, I believe these kind of TakeOvers should not be kept in count for RR recovering, otherwise 2 people could trade games just to recover their bad RR. (a reason slightly similar to why you can't bet 100 in a 1v1 game)

I will think about this. Don't expect anything anytime soon...

Little new feature proposal.
Could it be possible to have an automatic message from Gamemaster to Global as someone votes for something. Like:
"(To: Global, from Gamemaster) - Spring, 1777: GameMaster: England voted for Pause"
"(To: Global, from Gamemaster) - Spring, 1777: GameMaster: France withdrawn his vote for Extend"

The main reason is that NOBODY could not notice that someone has voted for Extend and we would save so many missed phases!

Also, keeping track of all the votes, it's useful esp in gunboats. IE after a few day you forget who started a pause poll, someone is voting it, someone is not and you don't have a clue if the starter still need a pause and the other just forget to withdraw the vote.

Or maybe someone else is asking for himself now. Say happens this:

- Spring, 1777, England votes for Extend
- Spring, 1777, France votes for Extend
- Fall, 1777, Italy (you) votes for Extend
- Fall, 1777, England withdraws his vote for Extend
- Fall, 1777, France withdraws his vote for Extend
- Fall, 1777, (5 minutes later) France votes for Extend

Now you log in. With the current system, if you recall that England started the poll, you see he has withdrawn his vote, then you think he doesn't need it anymore and so you (Italy) withdraw your vote as well. Maybe France didn't notice it yet, you think.

Keeping track of all the votes instead, would let you realize that, yes England doesn't need it anymore, but France started a new poll for himself because now France is the one who needs an Extend.

13 days has passed (see my post here on Wed 28 Mar) and the Open Games are still 44.
Perhaps there's something not working?

The time is very short. We need to wait about half a year. Things do not change that fast.

Different people have different priorities. Many do not care about a CD every now and than in their games (10 of 23 have set a minimum rating). And it's important that not only the hardcore players can create and play some games here, but the more casual crowd too.

But with the new rating you have the tools to create the games you want to play with the people you want to play. Just set a rating of A (or A+) and minimum phases played hight enough so only the hardcore players can join and do not worry about the many casual players that do not share the same addiction. Just make sure you do not play that many games together.

And if you really do not like a player set him on your mute-list, so he can't join your games.

Yes, Oli, I appreciate the new RR system and also the new tools on gamecreation.
And I agree that everyone must find a game to play: if only games with restrictions were created, I'd be worried too.

What I'm concerned about is that there are still so many games screwed by an ongoing CD.
Perhaps we could do something more to encourage TakeOvers.

Also, people don't vote Extend in gunboats! I believe that some CD could be saved with the feature I proposed in my pre-last post.

Yes, if the votes are tracked from Gamemaster in the global chat is a good thing.

Anyway, I'm coming back to something that was mentioned before in this thread;
we're paying too much attention to the "visible" side of the topic: RR formula.

We're quite ignoring the "dark side" of the topic: rights.
I mean how many (and what kind of) games I can join or create.

These two aspects are bond together, we can't propose variations to the RR if we aren't aware of rights and vece-versa.

Currently this should be the dark side of the topic.
You have the right to create or join:

0 < RR < 10 1game
10 < RR < 20 2games
20 < RR < 30 3games
......
70 < RR < 80 8games
90 < RR < 100 no limits

(negative RR --- what happens?)

MOREOVER

I've read that a brand new user can join 2 games, 3 games after 3 phases, 4 games after 6 phases and so on, independently of their RR.

mmmmmm, if this is true, this last statement makes me feel like we're still giving heavy weapons in the hands of users that can't handle them.

I don't think we should limit the rights of users too much.

You don't want to take a risk of a CD, you have all the tools to avoid playing a more casual player.

New-player formula changed a bit. At the moment a new player can join 2 games and it's 4 at 10 phases played and rating-based at 20 and above. 20 is also the minimum-phases played now all rated games have.

I don't think any more action is needed at the moment. There is a large group of casual players here too. It's not good to limit new people that much, so they have no chance to get into the game at all.

I understand, Oli, and I'm happy for my own situation, cause basically now I have more tools than I wish I had when I opened
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?threadID=18519
Thanks, I really appreciate that.

Anyway, the rights of a new user shouldn't be more appealing than those of a low-rated user. Else, "quit and create new account" can be a nice solution for low-rated users.
It's a weak point, unless you have automatic tools which detect this kind of behaviour.