Maybe he pulled a heist from your Central bank?

More seriously, there might have been a mix up between the HoF and Points distribution??

Looks like a bug. I will check this.

2nd Place also got more HoF points, but that may have something to do with the starting rating, not sure how all of that works.

I've had this happen to me too -- I think it was something to do with # of units vs #of SCs -- I got mor epoints for being fully developed even though I was in second place -- Don't know if this applies in this case. gameID=4584

D-points distribution oddities aside, I can hardly believe that none of the 42 players involved has nothing to say after months of play, so I'm going to put my two cents in.



The first half of the game, until about 2012-2014, has truly been a “grasp where the wind of Civil Disorder blows” game...

It's been rather frustrating to play under those circumstances, but sometimes CD favours you, sometimes CD penalizes you... so it goes with this issue.

Due to the massive presence of Mr. Civil Disorder I got fed up really early with this gunboat. This is the reason of my early draw vote.
On the other hand I get that it is very unlikely to have a WWIV game going with 35 committed players.

In general I tend to consider any PPSC gunboat with Victory Condition at 33% SCs as something very close to a casual game.
This was personally my first WWIV game so the game settings were fine with me for testing purposes.
I don't have other significant comments about the game right now.

My thoughts are basically about the V-points system.
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/hof.php?gameID=12198
There’re 3 main reasons which act in parallel that make this table skewed, at least in my opinion:

A)
The weight of large size games (games with a big number of opponents) is really overrated according to the current algorithm. As a consequence, the rating variations due to large game outcomes are damn too high.
We had a discussion about the game Value (gV) coefficient and how it should be.
Well, being it called game Value, I assumed it was a representation of the actual variant weight.
Unfortunately, due to the presence of the 1vs1 match results summation, the gV is taken into account multiple times.
For example, in WWIV we have a large gV coefficient, about 92. Notwithstanding being large, this coefficient is taken into account 34 times...
I'm talking on a general standpoint, I'm not particularly referring to the game on topic, since that one was PPSC with a low Victory Condition %, both factors that reduce the rating variations.

B)
The weight of gunboat should be inferior to the weight of full-press game, cause gunboat has an inherent greater luck component which leads to a greater Variance of results. I don’t think that this fact can be denied.
I mean, compared to an equivalent full press game, it is more likely to see a solo in the gunboat. At the same time it is more likely to see an "underdog" performing well and a "favorite" losing in the gunboat.
We should reduce the weight of anything affected by luck to a certain extent, gunboat included.

C)
Last, but not least...
The weight of games severely affected by Civil Disorder events should be reduced somehow. CD events are another element of luck that distorts the measure of skill… and the HoF is supposed to measure skill, isn’t it?
I wonder if some strong players in the game should've suffered such an early defeat, or if some others should've gone that far had the game not been *severely* influenced by CD.
As far as I know from the HoF tables instead, currently it works in the opposite way, since the presence of a CD adds a further separate victory on the winner (or drawers) score.
If and which way we have to reduce the weight of games affected by NMRs & CDs is up to discussion.


Now I don't want the audience to get bored with a discussion about how the V-points system works. I'll copy and paste those thoughts to the proper thread, so the EoG discussion can hopefully continue here without V-points interferences.

Congo EOG - I was certain I would be on my way out early. I was happy to play the Janissary for game-long ally Kenya when it was clear I would not make it to the top of the leaderboard.

Thanks first and foremost to him for sticking with me to the end. I was concerned with a couple of NMRs he had, and came very close to stabbing him after one of them. If I had, it's very possible I would not have survived being squashed between he and Amazon.

Good game, everyone - Congrats to Central Asia, and to Colombia, your stab of Amazon was impressive, and really made it a horserace to the end.

I was California and got off to a good start, but the first Illinois was not reading any alliance signals and kept attacking me despite repeated attempts of mine to support hold him, back off, support him into centers, etc. I saw Colombia coming and knew we would both be doomed if he kept attacking me. Even when Quebec turned on Illinois he kept attacking me. It made no sense whatsoever and showed he wasn't looking anywhere on the board except right at his centers. But then he CD'ed out and a new Illinois came in so I figured maybe the new Illinois would get it. The new Illinois kept up the pattern of the old one so the game was lost as Colombia swept us both up. Very frustrating game and Decima was right -- the CDs and NMRs really had a big effect. Not to take anything away from Central, but he jumped to a huge lead when many of his neighbors stopped moving. And he never looked back.

Kenya EoG: a very boring game here, with alot of NMRs around-me-but-closer-to-someone-else-so-I-could-only-watch-as-others-took-profit-of it, with every of my NMRing neighbous randomly disbanding units in a way that blocked me yet opened easy paths to SCs for others :P

Kal: as Congo, you showed insane signs of good faith and trust early on, so I felt bound to make sure you surviving the game. It was good to play this game at your side.

Sorry for the few NMRs I had (1 or 2 I think, both at very crucial moments and they almost screwed me over). They were do to a bit of badluck but mostly bad schedule-planning from my part (I remember arriving 10 minutes late once).

the Amazon stab had been planned for so long (With Columbia delaying builds years after year) I was surprised that Amazon kept on fighting Congo and I with all his strength when his downfall was easily predictable. I think if not for that last NMR from Columbia, where he asked for a pause but only got it after he NMRed, Columbia might have been able to won.

Overall I think putting the SC limit so high dragged the game for too much time, but I'll stop whining: I still had loads of fun.

Amazon EoG

First of all yes, I got somewhat bored by NMRs as well. Of those around me, some advantaged me and some advantaged someone else, but I don’t complain too much because this was exactly the game I expected when I joined it, since it had *NO* RR Requirements. In a game so large you can expect that even some reliable player might NMR at some point, so you can expect much more NMRs if no RRR was set.
Why did I join it then? Well, there weren’t so many choices when I did. Not many starting games usually have a RRR set and perhaps I didn’t like something else in them, when I chose the one to join. So I can’t complain: I knew what I was joining.
I care more about quality of games than about ratings, so Decima if I can add something from another angle to your statements, I’d say that if your “C” was implemented, then these games wouldn’t be so over-rated and perhaps this would encourage setting some RRR while creating a game. We’d play better games, because we’d find better games to join.
Also, when some RR Requirements are set, you can afford adding, without turning the game into an endless game, a light NMR Policy that reduces the impact of possible NMRs in the first (crucial) turns.



About the game… well it was strange. They way it went made me have 3 different expansion areas and as result I didn’t have enough units for all my fronts. I uncovered my back to have more units in the expansion areas, though I knew this was an invite for Colombia’s stab. Had I done the opposite, I would have basically given up expanding. There aren’t many SCs into the Ocean. Atlantic is like a big desert. Being big, you need a lot of units to defend it and to expand from it. But being a desert, it doesn’t feed your units.
So I went on like that. Mainly because trying to expand is much more funny than just trying to defend.
And, who knows, perhaps Colombia was willing to stop CA’a solo and preferred a draw in his stats to a survive. Not that I hoped it so much however, since the points-difference between a strong second and the best possible draw (7-way) was so huge.
So when I noticed Colombia was sparing builds, I started thinking how to convoy back to the mainland for the case. When finally the stab started in 2121, the strength ratio in South America was 13 units to 4 in his advantage (in the end, 6 years later, it was 21 to 8... “This-is-Sparta!” :D). I changed my goal into the classical “screw the guy who screwed you: he must not win!”. This implied also having CA winning. So I made my disbands on his side of my empire (so, sorry Kenia, not on yours).
To maximize my # of SCs at the end, it implied also having CA winning fast! But unfortunately, here I made a big mistake. Hadn’t I overestimated CA gains in Asia for 2125, I would have disbanded again in Africa rather than in STH and FLK and the game would have stopped one year earlier, letting me keep some SCs more.
CA ended 2125 with 2 SCs less than VC, so I had to play another disasterful year.

Funny game, in the whole. Good game & thanks all! Congrats to all survivors in this crazy game.
Special congrats to Congo & Kenia for their nice alliance. It has been a nice fight till it lasted, with many nice shots by both sides (One of mine. Look at ANG in Fall 2113 map: you probably thought you could destroy that unit after cutting support from the Fleet and closing retreat’s spaces. I would have paid to see your face after my convoy to KIN next spring! :P)
And surely special congrats to the winner! Very well played Aranith, though I think you owe a little thank to Colombia. :)

Back to the original question of this thread : do we please know why the winning player got less points than the second placed ?

@ Oli : Any news?

D points right? It happened to me in a viking game and the answer i got was that I had less units on the board......http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=4584#gamePanel

@ cypeg : thank you for your answer !

@ oli : is it please possible to fix this mistake ? If not, "PPSC" should be renamed "PPU" : Points Per Unit.

Points per unit doesn't apply here, because the winner of this game had 4 more units then 2nd place.

If you do the math, neither the Viking game nor they WW4 game in question had the pot divided based on units.

Its simply a rather unusual bug in the code.

The most unusual bug in the code is that it awards any points to players that allow solos.

bump.

Oli, any help we can give about this open issue about the Dpoints split?

It's a rather strange bug within the webdip code that sometimes does not update some intern values sometimes.
I could not find a solution so far, but I was quite busy the last 2 month...