HBergeron,

My point is that there is some number of points where doing nothing is better than what the average player at the unlimited tables will do. You will naturally increase your score if you are below that level and doing nothing (or naturally decrease if you are above). If following the reset and scoring system change, that number is somewhat higher than before, so what? To move up to higher point levels (above that magic number where doing nothing is an equilibrium point), you do have to have some skill. I'm not discounting that luck plays a big part in the game. That is the nature of any game involving random dice rolls, dice placement and starting territories. But, to move up and stay up, you need skill, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to move up and hold on to a high ranking. When you do your "sit and do nothing" test on the 1600 tables, and you increase your score, then you'll have good reason to complain. I won't hold my breath until you are successful.

Bottom line, have fun and don't take it too seriously. If you can't do that, find another game, or design your own "perfect" game. Apparently, Ryan is doing something right, because plenty of people like this game and keep coming back for more, even you.

many words, not much said. Let's try this simply:

A good game has been made less good and proveably more luck dependent due to some unfortunate changes.

Doesn't make it a bad game - but it is always sad when something good goes downhill.

bump

Harry Tuttle,

You say it is "provably more luck dependent". I don't see any proof, just complaints. Show us the proof.

From what I've seen, the luck factor hasn't changed appreciably (neither playing a larger nor a smaller role). All I've seen is that strategies have had to change. I imagine that certain strategies, particularly overly agressive ones, are somewhat more luck dependent, but that doesn't mean that the whole game is more luck dependent.

I like the changes and think that Ryan did an excellent job of testing before he instituted the changes.

as the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. You get facts, you don't like them, you call them "complaints". Gee, who does that sound like. Get your own data if you disagree - the new system makes scoring more luck dependent when the goal should have been to make it less so. This is a fact, pending you collecting some data and proving otherwise.

Harry, (HBergeron?)

I've already discussed this topic of luck in new vs old system in previous threads.

Essentially the argument goes like this. More aggression early has less luck than sitting and building and attacking later, a common strategy with the old system. Sure sitting and attacking later may give you a higher place but is there less luck involved in the attacks? No. 8v8 attacks are nearly 50/50 which is 100% luck. With early aggression you can make better probability attacks reducing the luck factor.

I think your issue comes from the fact that if you got unlucky at the start of the game in the old system you still had the option of sitting and getting a rating boost. You can call this less luck but I see it as a flaw in the old rating system allowing people to get rating boosts without any risk.

I believe this thread might be the first person banned monte.

Or rather contain the first reference to that person.

Ryan post one of these on gpokr have you looked at the forums on there lately?

I wouldn't even call it a forum

im guessing that someone was banned for offensive avatar or something before this. but i dunno. Ryan, do you remember the first ban? this is critical to the trivia post. we cant continue till we have an answer!!!11!