You are not logged on | Login | Register  
Limit one nick per ip!


This will eliminate the suiciding/2nd placing problem, as people do those things right now because everyone's anonymous. It would be much easier to blacklist names than ip addresses as ip's repeat and anyhow who wants to check 5 ip addresses against a list before every game?

No one should need more than 1 nick, and this way reputation will be important... players will have a name to protect and suiciders and 2nd placers will have a hard time finding games at all.


This comment only makes sense if you subscribe to the notion that rating doesn't matter. But rating does matter. It is a way to create a system of value, so players have something to win and lose. The best defense against suiciders is to play in a high rated game, which keeps out players who don't care much about winning.

If everyone had only one nick, they would either need to completely stop caring about their rating, or they would have to restrict whom they play against down to a very short list. If I have a nick of 1950, I don't really want to risk it against players with a 1530 rating, because the odds are high they will suicide, second place, or simply give the game away without realizing it.

But with multiple nicks, I have the freedom to play with a trashy nick against someone like that, while saving a good nick for a game with better players. While I agree that having multiple nicks tends to allow people to have a dedicated suicide account, higher rated players will completely avoid their exposure to that by playing only in high rated games.

In summary, if you care about playing in good games, put in the time and effort to build your accounts to a decent level. As long as you play in unrated noob games, you can expect to contend with undisciplined noob moves.


I've nothing to add Pole. Well done.


You're right however I disagree with you about the ratings.

Rating is meaningless. I've been 2nd placed and suicided by 1800s. In fact, if we only had one nick, you'd have no choice to duck low raters, there'd be no motivation for picking and choosing your games, everyone would win and lose to every different rating and the rating system would once again have meaning.


If it were the case and rating had no meaning, then I can assure you, you wouldnt have just a 2nd placing problem, but your creativity would end. By caring about the rating you are assuming a commitment to yourself in the game you're playing, and supposedly so will all players. This is the reason why strategies are made and players respect others in order to achieve 1st place.

Rating HAS to be very important. Unfortunately people can't fully respect this and are satisfied by a 2nd place and compromise the game. Retrieving all the beauty the game could have contained.


The opposite is true. Players play for 2nd precisely because care about rating. And even the high ratings only got there by playing the same 2 opponents in 10 caps games in a row, and having a nick ready for every possible rating range. I find good opponents range from 1500 - 1800 at random with very poor players outnumbering them in that range as well. People don't 'respect' rating because it's so damn easy to get.


Bad players play badly because they enjoy it. Rating is usually not the primary driver. You find second placers and suiciders at every level. People second place because it's easier than winning. People suicide because its fun to crash armies into another player and laugh when they get angry about it. Bottom line - playing badly has its own rewards for some types of folks.

You have a choice every day whether you want to play with integrity - not just in DominateGame but in life too. Playing the game the right way has its own rewards, but you need to find a way to measure these intrinsically. External rewards will never fill that kind of hole in a person, whether it is rating, income, status, celebrity, or wealth.

Bottom line - if you do not put something at stake, you will lose the good players. There will always be bad players, but a good player needs to have something to show for their accomplishments. Rating isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Having multiple nicks may dilute rating to some extent, but it is better than making it impossible for high rated players to play with lower rated players. Rating has to mean something in order for people to have something to show for playing well.


A-men. Finally we agree on something :) Sad because I'm sure it could be implement despite it would take a bit of effort.


I just read above and I disagree with your initial claims pole. Multiple accounts means exactly like you said, you don't have to care. So, the more accounts you make, means the more games you don't have to try/care about the results of the game. Limiting accounts down to your inital 3 would atleast mean force more people to care about rating.

The issue about 2nd placing is to be resolved in how 1st-6th points are recorded, not limitiation of accounts.


i disagree. i play alot around friends houses and they also play which means we will have to all share an account


Having to actually look up many IP's, it was actually a rare occurance to see more then one IP per name.

Another solution could be to actually have 1 REAL EMAILaccount per player. In the email would have a voucher code. It's not a legitimate solution either, but it would atleast make it more work to try to spam accounts.

  Reply to this discussion

Copernica is a software for e-mail marketing, profile enrichment, websites and short text messages campaigns.