Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

Use this forum to discuss Diplomacy strategy.
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Message
Author
jmo1121109
Lifetime Site Contributor
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 pm
Karma: 2944
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#21 Post by jmo1121109 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:06 am

Sword's and Meme are both available for hire at a modest rate to write your high school, undergrad, or thesis papers for you. Just be aware that webdip does get a 10% cut of the profits.
11

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#22 Post by Durga » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:10 am

These both need a table of contents.

Meme's essay also needs subtitles.

rdrivera2005
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 7380
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:17 pm
Location: Porto Alegre, Brasil
Karma: 2793
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#23 Post by rdrivera2005 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:09 pm

captainmeme wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:09 pm
rdrivera2005 wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:25 pm
Durga wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:27 pm
I agree that this is not advice.

I also want to add that spending 10 in-game years to eliminate a player in DSS is a total snooze-fest and not the kind of diplomacy people should want to play.

100% agree with everything from meme
If you don't want to spend 10 in-game years eliminating a player just draw with him. People are thinking the game in a tournament logic, where you have a better result eliminating people or getting more points. And this is not the logic of the game, it shouldn't matter the size of the draw or how many centers you have, you either win (solo) or draw or get eliminated (or completely lose by allowing other player to solo). Points and rating and Sos are just suited for tournament play.
This feels like an argument in favour of SoS? Or at least an argument against DSS. If it shouldn't matter how many centers you have or what the size of the draw is, then the only thing the draw scoring is there for is to incentivise going for the solo. SoS is the only system which does this.
In fact both scoring systems has flaws as any scoring system for a game that wasn't designed to have a scoring system.
So, I am not defending that DSS make players to play better or improve the likeness of a solo. But I do think SoS improve the incentive for small power just giving up which could just screw the game to everyone (even the player that get an undeserved solo).
Like I said, I usually choose with who I play, so the scoring system is mostly irrelevant.

Peregrine Falcon
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:44 pm
Karma: 310
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#24 Post by Peregrine Falcon » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:27 pm

First, thank you to both Sword and Meme for sparking this discussion. Both of you have made excellent points.

Capt, you are right to point out that a lot of Swordsman's argument rests on assuming DSS is the default. Removing that assumption allows for a more unbiased examination of the merits of each system. Yet, DSS is the default, both on webDip and in the rulebook.
The Rules of Diplomacy wrote: Players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally [emphasis mine] in a draw.
As a result, for better or worse, we will always be stuck with some sort of DSS mentality. You might argue that is a bad thing, but your arguments will not change that fact. As such, any scoring system needs to recognise and accommodate DSS in some manner. Otherwise you end up with these conflicting opinions on how to play.

Anyways, the primary concern I have with SoS is the quadratic nature of its centre proportionality. In my opinion, this creates excessive inequality between each reward and the effort that was actually required to get that result. Why should a 17 centre power be able to get 85% of the pot? They failed to solo; rewarding that failure with an almost equivalent proportion of the pot as a true solo would receive seems wrong. (Of course, 85% is the most extreme example, but I think the thought holds for more typical situations.)

Furthermore, this quadratic nature is also what creates the adverse incentives for smaller powers. A one centre power, perhaps included in the draw as vital to stopping a solo attempt, receives essentially nothing. (In the most extreme case, they could get as little as 1/546th of the pot. Even so, the max is only as high as 1/184th, which is still miniscule.) This disincentive is perverse. Swordsman is exactly right to point it out, and I think actually focuses on it too little.

These disincentives and the rampant inequality of results is the reason I do not play SoS. That said, I do recognise the conflicting solo/draw incentives inherent in DSS, and a new system could improve upon that. Yet, in my opinion, SoS is not that system.

captainmeme wrote: An alternative that would work online would be curving out the points between the surviving players, taking some away from the leading players and giving them to the small survivors, but that leaves the downside that it encourages larger players to eliminate smaller ones (something DSS also does but which usually runs contrary to playing for a solo).
Capt, do you have an alternative formula that mediates SoS's inequalities? If so, I think we would all benefit from seeing it.
1

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#25 Post by Durga » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:16 pm

Maybe you'd like carnage scoring PF

Peregrine Falcon
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:44 pm
Karma: 310
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#26 Post by Peregrine Falcon » Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:24 pm

Carnage is much too complex to use for anything except tournament scoring. That said, I guess its ranked-draws system, being linear, is a decent middle ground between SoS's extremes and DSS's flatness.
I could get behind a ranked-draw scoring system, although I haven't thought a lot about its incentives.

User avatar
ghug
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 17580
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Seattle
Karma: 11399
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#27 Post by ghug » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:40 am

Carnage also encourages allowing a draw to happen without oneself over throwing a solo. I'm of the mind that they should be equal, which is the essence of my issue with PPSC.
1

captainmeme
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:06 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Karma: 767
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#28 Post by captainmeme » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm

Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:27 pm
Capt, you are right to point out that a lot of Swordsman's argument rests on assuming DSS is the default. Removing that assumption allows for a more unbiased examination of the merits of each system. Yet, DSS is the default, both on webDip and in the rulebook.
The Rules of Diplomacy wrote: Players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally [emphasis mine] in a draw.
I don't even agree that DSS as we have it is the intended interpretation of the statement in the rulebook. 'Sharing equally in the draw' only encourages player elimination from a zero-sum perspective, and there's no reason why it would be zero-sum unless you're keeping a cross-game elo-type ranking, which was hardly going to be a consideration in the design of a board game. I think it's far more likely it meant that in the event of a draw, everyone left would get a 'Draw' result which is always valued exactly the same regardless of the number of players in it - something like a system that always gives 100 points for a solo, 10 points for a draw, and no points for anything else.

This would fit completely with Calhamer's philosophy on the game, because it means there are only a few actual objectives in the game - solo if you can, survive and prevent anyone else from soloing if you cannot. Playing for a draw from the start is dumb in this system because it's the same as just declaring the game over immediately, but playing for a draw can become important during the game if the alternative is something worse.

DSS is a bastardisation of this - a necessary bastardisation, because you cannot have a system that isn't zero sum with long term rankings unless you want to give a massive advantage to players who play more, but a bastardisation nonetheless. The incentive of eliminating players that it adds completely changes the mid and endgame. If players want to play with player elimination encouraged, that's fine - all scoring systems incentivise some things and disincentivise others, and the strategy of the game will change accordingly - but arguing that encouraging player elimination is the default set by the rulebook is outright wrong imo.
Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:27 pm
As a result, for better or worse, we will always be stuck with some sort of DSS mentality. You might argue that is a bad thing, but your arguments will not change that fact. As such, any scoring system needs to recognise and accommodate DSS in some manner. Otherwise you end up with these conflicting opinions on how to play.
Maybe my mindset here comes from me playing a lot of variants, but I don't think using multiple conflicting scoring systems gives you conflicting opinions on how to play - in the same way that, say, people who play gunboat and full press don't have conflicting opinions on how to play. They have an opinion on how to play each individual game mode and will adjust their play to suit the mode they're in - likewise, good players will adapt their play depending on which scoring system they're using.

If you mean from an idealistic standpoint (as in, which one is real diplomacy and which is a variant), naturally you'll have more arguments the more scoring systems are there, but a) this should never affect the actual gameplay and b) as I explained above, the intended way to play Dip is likely none of the systems we have here. My view on the scoring systems is that DSS aims to stick to the wording of the rulebook as much as possible, and SoS aims to stick to the meaning of the rulebook as much as possible - but both systems are forced to compromise heavily due to being zero sum and as such, neither is really the way the game is meant to be played. The way the game is meant to be played is exactly as rd and Dejan have mentioned - ignoring points entirely and playing to the goals stated in the rulebook.
Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:27 pm
Anyways, the primary concern I have with SoS is the quadratic nature of its centre proportionality. In my opinion, this creates excessive inequality between each reward and the effort that was actually required to get that result. Why should a 17 centre power be able to get 85% of the pot? They failed to solo; rewarding that failure with an almost equivalent proportion of the pot as a true solo would receive seems wrong. (Of course, 85% is the most extreme example, but I think the thought holds for more typical situations.)

Furthermore, this quadratic nature is also what creates the adverse incentives for smaller powers. A one centre power, perhaps included in the draw as vital to stopping a solo attempt, receives essentially nothing. (In the most extreme case, they could get as little as 1/546th of the pot. Even so, the max is only as high as 1/184th, which is still miniscule.) This disincentive is perverse. Swordsman is exactly right to point it out, and I think actually focuses on it too little.

These disincentives and the rampant inequality of results is the reason I do not play SoS. That said, I do recognise the conflicting solo/draw incentives inherent in DSS, and a new system could improve upon that. Yet, in my opinion, SoS is not that system.
The reason for the quadratic nature of the scoring is to shift the focus from being purely on your own SCs to being on the state of the board as a whole - SoS aims to capture the goals of a player aiming for a solo in its drawing system, and a big part of that is keeping the board divided. A directly proportional system would miss out on that part of the objective completely.

That said, I do agree that the amount SoS can award a player can be too high. The issue is that introducing any factor to lower that in a zero sum system will always incentivise player elimination to some extent, and SoS tries to avoid this at all costs.
Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:27 pm
captainmeme wrote: An alternative that would work online would be curving out the points between the surviving players, taking some away from the leading players and giving them to the small survivors, but that leaves the downside that it encourages larger players to eliminate smaller ones (something DSS also does but which usually runs contrary to playing for a solo).
Capt, do you have an alternative formula that mediates SoS's inequalities? If so, I think we would all benefit from seeing it.
I need to think more about this. It's possible you could have something like 'sum of nearly squares' where the factor is still high enough to encourage leading players to keep the board divided, but low enough that the result inequality is lessened. I think it's likely that regardless of how good the system was, though, players who consider DSS the default will always consider it bad in this respect, because in terms of draw equality you can't beat DSS.
1

User avatar
David E. Cohen
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:27 am
Location: Treading the Path to Diplo-Shambhala
Karma: 169
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#29 Post by David E. Cohen » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:44 pm

I have said it before, but I will flap my figurative lips again. The only rating system I want to see is one for reliability.

Other than that, I wouldn't mind a ranking system based upon wins. Win a game, advance a rank. Win a game where the full roster has already each won a game, advance another rank. The winner of a game where the full roster has already each won two games advances another rank. Simple, straightforward and the recognition goes to the player who deserves it.

Peregrine Falcon
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:44 pm
Karma: 310
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#30 Post by Peregrine Falcon » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:18 am

If I answer meme's points completely, I would need to write an essay of my own. Since I have more important essays to write at the moment, discussion on only a few points will have to suffice.

captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
I don't even agree that DSS as we have it is the intended interpretation of the statement in the rulebook.
Fair point. Perhaps I too easily conflated the two. Yet, as you yourself recognise, DSS does come closer as it is written, even if people may disagree about what best captures the spirit.

captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
Playing for a draw from the start is dumb in this system because it's the same as just declaring the game over immediately, but playing for a draw can become important during the game if the alternative is something worse.
I agree with you on drawing. I think playing for the draw from the start is boring. Yet, as a quote on my profile has said for a long time,
"It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded."
— Rod Walker. A Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy. March, 1979.

captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
The reason for the quadratic nature of the scoring is to shift the focus from being purely on your own SCs to being on the state of the board as a whole - SoS aims to capture the goals of a player aiming for a solo in its drawing system, and a big part of that is keeping the board divided. A directly proportional system would miss out on that part of the objective completely.
I understand why SoS works the way it does. Note that I didn't actually suggest a proportional system, and I know that it could not fully replace the incentives that SOS provides. I don't necessarily have a problem with any of what SoS is trying to incentivise (even if I disagree they need to be incentivised in the first place). What I have problems with are the extreme secondary effects created as a result of how SoS is set up, as I laid out in part in my first post.

captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
That said, I do agree that the amount SoS can award a player can be too high. The issue is that introducing any factor to lower that in a zero sum system will always incentivise player elimination to some extent, and SoS tries to avoid this at all costs.
I think you're the one conflating things now. There's a difference between incentivising elimination (which we both agree DSS does) and neither incentivising nor de-incentivising elimination. SoS actively de-incentivises eliminating other powers. A neutral system does not inherently incentivise elimination.

You and I will probably have to agree to disagree on this, but I don't think a scoring system needs to actively encourage keeping players in the game or keeping the board divided. I do agree that it is important to do this when aiming for a solo. Yet to me, that should be enough incentive in and of itself. To phrase this another way, keeping a divided board is a means to an ends; it's a tool to make a solo easier. I don't think it needs to be made into an ends in and of itself, as SoS does. As long as a scoring system is not actively encouraging elimination or other anti-solo behaviour, I don't think there's a problem.

captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
I need to think more about this. It's possible you could have something like 'sum of nearly squares' where the factor is still high enough to encourage leading players to keep the board divided, but low enough that the result inequality is lessened.
I think that could be interesting, although finding a balance would be difficult.
Even so, I don't think a straight linear draw system would actually be bad. Like I touched on briefly above, a system does not inherently need to incentivise a divided board. Although I haven't thought about it a ton, a linear draw would not incentivise or de-incentivise elimination, but it would reward players for 'doing better' in the game (even if SCs aren't the perfect measure of that). At the same time, it wouldn't have any of the extremes that SoS has.

captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
I think it's likely that regardless of how good the system was, though, players who consider DSS the default will always consider it bad in this respect, because in terms of draw equality you can't beat DSS.
Fair, but it's important to consider that SoS has relatively extreme problems that some people simply cannot accept. I'm sure a middle ground would attract far more of the DSS crowd. I know it would attract me, at least.
1

User avatar
Fluminator
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:50 pm
Karma: 3305
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#31 Post by Fluminator » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:50 am

I've read both essays and find them both very interesting with valid points.

One of the main reasons I lost interest in Diplomacy, was because I felt people rarely played to win. They planned for draws very early on. And I never felt satisfied ending in a 4 or 3 way draw in a game that starts with 7 players. If 50% of the players are equal at the top, it's not that satisfying.
It's one of the reasons I preferred the bigger variants because in those, at least a 3 way draw would feel like a much bigger accomplishment.

If SoS encourages people to go for solos without drastically changing the game, I think it's a plus in my point. I really do think people subconsciously worry about dip points way too much on this site even if they don't admit it, which is partly why people like just racking up the easy 4 people draws.

jmo1121109
Lifetime Site Contributor
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 pm
Karma: 2944
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#32 Post by jmo1121109 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:52 am

Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:18 am


captainmeme wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:45 pm
Playing for a draw from the start is dumb in this system because it's the same as just declaring the game over immediately, but playing for a draw can become important during the game if the alternative is something worse.
I agree with you on drawing. I think playing for the draw from the start is boring. Yet, as a quote on my profile has said for a long time,
"It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded."
— Rod Walker. A Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy. March, 1979.
I do have to respond to this with a better quote.
"Drawing is for Art majors not Diplomacy players!" -The Czech
2

captainmeme
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:06 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Karma: 767
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#33 Post by captainmeme » Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:15 pm

Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:18 am
I agree with you on drawing. I think playing for the draw from the start is boring. Yet, as a quote on my profile has said for a long time,
"It is silly to insist that there is any single "best" goal in Diplomacy. Everyone has his own priorities and trying to fit them all into one's own mold is small-minded."
— Rod Walker. A Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy. March, 1979.
I was writing up a response to your entire post, but this bit intrigued me enough for me to go read the first section of the book in question, and as such it probably deserves to be in its own post - this one isn't really arguing with you so much as it is arguing with the author of the book.

I think the section sentence of the quote is on-point - Diplomacy is all about figuring out the objectives and priorities the other players have and playing on them, and simply assuming everyone is playing as you would is a good way to completely misread every situation. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many high-level players who agree with the first sentence. The 'best' goals of Diplomacy adapt depending on which scoring system you're in, but the traditional 'best' goal of Diplomacy is the solo win, and the second best is the draw in some manner. The rulebook outright states that the goal is to win.

I actually went and looked up this book to see if there was any context that the quote was missing, because it feels like it could maybe be justified if the first sentence was meant from a strategy perspective (as in, acting like there's one 'best goal' that everyone will necessarily be going for is a mistake because players may not all be going for it regardless of whether it's the goal of the game). I couldn't find the quote in context, because the site I found the PDF on was covered in banners asking to sign up blocking out parts of pages, but I did find the 'Objectives' section which sheds a lot of light on how Rod Walker was thinking about the game.

I'll just write out the relevant parts of this section here:
Rod Walker wrote:Everyone plays games to have fun. There are some people who need to win to be amused, and DIPLOMACY is not a game for such persons. With seven players, any one of them has a chance of winning of about 14%. Not good odds for a victorioholic.
There are other objectives... and related playing styles. These more realistically reflect the potentials of the game.

1. Win or Draw. A player can seek to either win or, at least, deny victory to another player.
[...]
This is a powerful playing style when used by a very good and ruthless player. One who has the reputation of playing this way will, however, find allies hard to get; he frequently becomes the target of his neighbours.
The cut out section is talking about how the strategy of this approach works, talking about alliances being temporary, and is generally correct. That last bit shows that it's somewhat outdated though since the concept of playing anonymously didn't really exist at the time, and I would argue that even in non-anonymous games, having a reputation for playing for a win or a draw would not make it difficult to find allies, because that's the default playstyle at a mid-to-high level of play.

In my mind, this one encapsulates every playstyle incentivised on the site (since it covers both playing to win and playing to draw) so seeing what others he has in mind will be interesting.
Rod Walker wrote:2. Strong Second. A player can seek either to win, or finish no worse than second place. His philosophical commitment is slightly different than that of #1. He is willing to see someone else win and is not usually in favor of a drawn game. He is usually steadfast in alliance - at least one of them.
[...]
This is an effective style. Players who favor it usually seek each other as allies. Unfortunately, this style also makes for dull games when two or three such alliances appear at the same time.
Again, the cut-out section is giving advice on how best to play to this objective.

I think the author would have been very much a fan of PPSC had he been playing on webDiplomacy. It's generally accepted here that playing for second place and trying to make another player win ruins the game, just because it's like two countries are under the control of one country from the start and there's not much you can do about that other than unite everyone against them - in standard Diplomacy, at least the allied players will be playing for their own result and so will have some incentive to stab one another at some point. webDip goes out of its way to disincentivise this playstyle for this reason.

I'll also leave this here, from Calhamer on Diplomacy:
https://i.imgur.com/xR3ca6V.jpg
(Apologies for the blurriness)
The game's creator is very condemning of players who play for second place, as you can read for yourself, and considers this playstyle to ruin the game. I should note that the bit that's cut off at the bottom states that the 'true draw' is one where players have united against the leader to prevent a win from occurring.

People definitely do still play for second, so you need to keep in mind that it could be a factor when formulating your strategy, but it is definitely not a valid goal of the base game - and is especially not one under the scoring systems we have here.
Rod Walker wrote:3. Balance of Power. A player can seek to prevent from winning (victory for himself would only be the secondary goal). The philosophy of this kind of player is neither the "grow fast" of #1 nor the "strong alliance" of #2. He is concerned that no power, no alliance, will become strong enough to eliminate any of the others... particularly himself, of course.
His style of play is to preserve the game's balance... The balance of power. He will ally with the weaker side in every struggle.
[...]
This is the ideal playing style of DIPLOMACY. Concentrating on the game as a whole, rather than merely on winning it, will produce this result. The game will be full of endless variety, of twists and turns, and no victory. On the other hand, it may also go on forever.
This playstyle fits into #1 - keeping the board as divided as possible while growing as much as possible yourself - in my mind, since this is a good way to lead up to a win. The reason Walker puts it in its own category is that from his point of view it's being done simply for the sake of doing it rather than as part of any larger strategy or goal - I think in actuality you'd be hard-pressed to find someone playing this way who isn't doing it as part of a strategy to reach the solo (or make it into a draw, if the position doesn't permit going for the solo).

The use of ideal here is weird, since it heavily conflicts with the initial quote, but my assumption is that he's assuming the readers will know that this is his own opinion and not necessarily the playstyle they need to stick with.
Rod Walker wrote:What the Heck? This is the ultimate approach to DIPLOMACY as a game. Simply fail to take it seriously. It's only a game, so why not try strange new strategies, weird new alliances, kinky tactics? This adds a wonderful element of pure unpredictability, and hence pure fun, to the game. The objective is to be absolutely unpredictable. The players of the other three types will hate you for it.
(In one fascinating game, three players of this type drew England, France, and Germany. They formed a triple alliance... The FEG alliance is the jargon term for it.)[...]The resulting tangle was hysterical... and a seven-way draw!
To some extent I actually agree with this. I play weird strategies all the time, because I like varying up the gameplay of particular nations and experimenting with what works - but the objective is still to win or draw. If you say that the objective of playing a weird opening or an unusual alliance is just having played that weird opening or unusual alliance, you can call it quits the moment you play one or two moves - the objective is always to make it work, and you judge that by how well it does within the context of the actual objective of the game.

I think the fact he uses the Western Triple as his example of this, which is now considered something of a meta alliance, shows that this playstyle is about making unusual strategies work in the context of the larger goal - that unusual strategy turned out to work well enough that it's no longer unusual.



So... on the whole, it seems like most of the alternatives he suggests aren't really goals in and of themselves and are usually done in the context of goal #1. The only one that goes against it is #2, which as a goal is terrible and it's absolutely fine to treat the win as the best goal in this respect. This author has a good strategic grasp of the game (as is evident from his section on stalemates later) but I'd take his opinions on the game's objectives with a grain of salt.
2

User avatar
David E. Cohen
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:27 am
Location: Treading the Path to Diplo-Shambhala
Karma: 169
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#34 Post by David E. Cohen » Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:34 pm

jmo1121109, I will see your Czech* and raise you Teddy Roosevelt:


"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."


If that is too long to be sigged, I will have to paraphrase.


*Poker pun intentional.
1

bunp
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:28 pm
Karma: 18
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#35 Post by bunp » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:31 pm

This may sound overly simplistic but I have given it some thought.

How would people feel about a hybrid scoring system where half the pot was distributed with DSS and the other half is distributed with SoS?

I feel as though this would strike a nice balance of rewarding close solo attempts and eliminations while also encouraging smaller powers to "play for real" in the endgame.

nopunin10did
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:17 pm
Karma: 36
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#36 Post by nopunin10did » Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:31 pm

Peregrine Falcon wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:18 am

I think you're the one conflating things now. There's a difference between incentivising elimination (which we both agree DSS does) and neither incentivising nor de-incentivising elimination. SoS actively de-incentivises eliminating other powers. A neutral system does not inherently incentivise elimination.
SOS disincentivizes helping other opponents to eliminate players. If you're the one doing the elimination, then you're scooping up their centers, and your score goes up.

The idea here is to align the goals produced by the scoring system with the primary goal of the game: the solo. There will always be some incentives added and removed with any given system, but the behaviors that SOS encourages are much closer to those associated with getting the solo than those encouraged by DSS.
1

Peregrine Falcon
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:44 pm
Karma: 310
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#37 Post by Peregrine Falcon » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:40 am

In response to meme, I don't necessarily agree with all of Walker's views. Yet, I agree with them in part; there are different ways to play the game and that diversity needs to be recognised.
Of course, I think we all agree that scoring systems should only incentivise what's written in the rulebook: solos and draws. Yet, given the rarity of solos, I don't think we should have any problem with people pursuing other objectives against the objective incentives of the game.

Enriador
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:15 am
Karma: 76
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#38 Post by Enriador » Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:16 pm

bunp wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:31 pm
This may sound overly simplistic but I have given it some thought.

How would people feel about a hybrid scoring system where half the pot was distributed with DSS and the other half is distributed with SoS?

I feel as though this would strike a nice balance of rewarding close solo attempts and eliminations while also encouraging smaller powers to "play for real" in the endgame.
Thaddeus Black made up a really interesting scoring system that is somewhat similar to what you said. It's called Draw-Disvaluated Scoring, and is a mix between Draw-Size Scoring (points shared equally in draws) and Draw-Zero Scoring (nobody gets a single point in draws).

In Draw-Disvaluated Scoring, a victory nets you all 100 points. In a draw, 50 points are scored like DZS (and as such are simply thrown into oblivion), while the other 50 points are scored like DSS.

A 2-way draw in DDS can, thus, only net each player a maximum of 25 points (rather than the 50 points DSS hands out). I find it a very effective compromise as it makes the drawmongering tendencies of DSS weaker; however as noted elsewhere, SoS is a different beast with different goals in mind. I don't think it would work well in such a 50/50 split system, personally.

User avatar
David E. Cohen
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:27 am
Location: Treading the Path to Diplo-Shambhala
Karma: 169
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#39 Post by David E. Cohen » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:21 am

Nice to see a mention of my friend Thaddeus. He hates draws just like me :-D I gave him a shout-out in the Soloist Manifesto.

nopunin10did
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:17 pm
Karma: 36
Contact:

Re: Why Players Prefer Draw-Size Scoring

#40 Post by nopunin10did » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:20 pm

ghug wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:40 am
Carnage also encourages allowing a draw to happen without oneself over throwing a solo.
In Carnage, draws must include all survivors. That's the case for SOS too, though I'm less familiar with specifically how your site implements it. Do you allow people to vote themselves out of a draw in an SOS game?

This is one small point where Carnage & SOS tend to adhere to the printed rules better than typical DSS systems, since the concept of approving a draw that you're not a party to isn't supported in the rules.

(Not that I particularly think that the rulebook should be treated as gospel when it comes to draws, but that's a bigger issue.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests