it's all risk management, game to game, each is different. I think the natural first step is creating a good line to stop the solo, but playing from there is the most fun in games!

Let's say you have a solo building on one side and a stalemate line coming together (with 3 or 4 players contributing) on the other, but both sides have some work to do before it's clearly time to draw. If you're on the non-solo side, do you focus all your energy on ensuring that the stalemate line is made solid ASAP and forcing an earlier draw (even though it will include 4 or 5 teams), or do you try to take out the one or two small/tiny players on the anti-solo side first and then make sure the stalemate line is secure afterward? For sake of keeping this interesting, let's assume that taking out the small players carries a non-negligible risk of making the stalemate line untenable.

Also, do you think there ever a time when it is "clearly time to draw" or do you just keep pushing on through and wait until fatigue gets your opponents?

I've never cared a jot about draw thinning, so stopping another player's solo takes priority every time.

I only care about draw thinning when it benefits me (increases my chance at a solo). If I'm not the one with a shot, I couldn't care less about the size of a draw, and I'm going to do my best to ensure that that draw happens ASAP.

Here's some perspective to answer that question:

If the choices are:
(a) stop the solo with a large draw
(b) thin the herd and possibly allow a solo

then the choices really are:
(a) be part of a draw
(b) possibly lose the game

Depends on the specific circumstances of the game. Like Yanik said, it's all about risk management.

Depends on the points system as well as the specific situation in play.

Whichever is likely to get me more points.

I would only thin the draw if doing so gave me a solo shot. I think you'll find most people share that sentiment

You have to consider that not everyone will go for the draw, so forcing it sooner helps while you get the idiot that won't help a draw out of the way. I've lost games to a solo because someone that would benefit from the draw doesn't join in and vote for the draw.

All in all, it comes down to the specific game. I think it kinda shows a more conservative or aggressive edge by some of the responses here, but i don't think one is empirically better than the other.

I think it is the single worst thing about this site that the meta is to not care about draw size. That's crazy in my opinion. The whole fun of the end game is walking the line between solo/draw and draw/elimination. Why play any games past 1906 if you don't care about draw size.

@uclabb - its because so long as I'm alive I have ambitions to solo

@goldfinger- If the meta was to eliminate players unnecessary to the draw you would solo a lot more. The complaint that many players have that everyone just plays for the draw instead of playing for the solo and the meta to not care about draw size are just two sides of the same coin.

@uclabb eh? Draw size reduction is throughly encouraged by the point system on this site, isn't it? Pot shared equally between draw participants, fewer draw participants = large pot share?

If people want to ignore the point system in favour of other reasons, there's nothing anyone can do about that.

I'm also not convinced that eliminating players leads to more solo chances - don't you get more likely to solo by keeping minor powers around and having more chaos/coordination difficulties to benefit from? Cut down to 3 players and it gets a *lot* harder to solo.

And we can *definitely* have an argument about better point systems, but that's a whole other giant can of worms.

Problem is that points don't really matter.

I believe the point was that non-solo-threats trying to cut out the weaker members allowes more solos for the solo-threats.

Another thing to remember is that sometimes if you go to thin out the draw, the thinnee will just throw the game to the solo, like the jackass who was Italy in this game.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=97655

Vashta: Well, yeah, but if we're getting *that* meta, then neither does winning, drawing, or losing any game. :-)

Valis: Ah yes. That's certainly true, not arguing with that.

That's a false dichotomy. Of course, if the options are between losing and a large draw, you take the large draw. But its also obvious to prefer a smaller draw than a large draw.

And, yes, I'd take a solo over a draw.

Don't play PPSC!!

Lols, I was wondering how long before someone said that. :-) But yes, PPSC has the points logic that most often it's better to try to hold your SCs or gain more and throw the solo to someone else than to try to draw.

Unsurprisingly given my "whatever is likely to get more points" on this, I'm much more likely to take a replacement position in PPSC than I am in WTA, whereas I won't join new games unless they're WTA. :-)

There's nothing scarier to somebody who feels they've well earned a solo then the threat of a fat draw stalemate, a smart player might choose to use that as bargaining leverage to get a solo threat to back off ... give up centers ... whatever.

Going from an almost solo to a three-way draw is rough but palatable however going from a near solo to a five-way/six-way draw situation just plain suckkkkss. They'll almost always find a way to bend a bit to keep the game going.

But if the players are all being bullheaded and the risk assessment is that the solo is pretty probable if you were to try to thin the herd then yes, of course push for the smart stalemate.

"Going from an almost solo to a three-way draw is rough but palatable however going from a near solo to a five-way/six-way draw situation just plain suckkkkss."

Everyone's different, I guess. I've never seen much distinction between a near solo that becomes a 3-way and a near solo that becomes a 6-way. There is joy in achieving a solo and a lot of fun to be had trying to get there. Whether you succeed or fail is a significant factor, but the number of actors on the stage in the final act really isn't.

I agree with the major sentiment. There's no point to thin the draw for the game's sake because all draws are the same--they're not solos. If I can't solo, I'm not thinning the draw because the guy who can solo suggests it.

That said, here are reasons I WOULD thin the draw:

1) Tournaments. Many tournaments favor smaller draws. If that's the case, thin the draw. I'll do some super crazy crap I normally wouldn't just for a better turnout in a tournament, especially if I NEED to. There may also be tournament examples where having someone solo doesn't matter. For example: the masters tourney only counts solos. If I have 2 solos and player X has 2 solos, but I'm playing with player Y who is the solo threat in my game and he has 0 solos, I may be willing to walk a line that could net Y a solo for the chance for me to solo instead.

2) If I am in 2nd place in said game with a solo - worthy position, say 11 centers while the draw fodder have 4 or less centers, then it's reasonable for me to go along with Mr Solo's plan but tweak it so that it adds risk to him. If he wants to thin the draw, then he has to be willing to put something on the table and it should be something that could give me the opportunity to solo. If I'm a smaller power, even 6 or 7 centers with no solo chance myself, then I'm not thinning the draw.

If I can't solo, it's silly to trim the fat because all draws are the same: not solos.

The interesting question here is how much each player values being part of a draw. While some players see elimination as abhorrent, to be avoided at all costs, others take pride in smaller draws and will take a risk to make that happen. In my mind, Calhamer points (split the same as D) are a pretty fair valuation of each result, so I would be willing to take the risk if I considered the probability of being eliminated less than the expected gain from tightening the draw. Though I will say in practice I'm probably a little more inclined to take the safe route and make sure I'm not eliminated.

So I disagree with Tru. I don't think all draws are the same. And I think this site could do a better job of keeping track of that in the stats page, by acknowledging average draw size or even breaking down the stats on a player's profile.

I really can't stand the "all draws are the same" philosophy, drives me nuts. It's hard to blame the attitude though, we don't do a good enough job of rewarding smaller draws especially in relation to the added time commitment to see the game through and the potential risk associated with. The downfall though is we end up with such weaker end-games as we see so many people get to the mid game and make a decision as to whether they have a legitimate solo shot and if not then just race to the stalemate lines.

It makes for significantly less interesting games due to overly conservative game play, shorter games (end games really are the most interesting parts), fewer decisive endings (solos), and an all around watered-down competitive spirit. There's a lot I really enjoy about this site, but that's one of the few things that's a bit disappointing. Luckily if you've been around long enough to built a reputation you tend to get invited to higher quality games with like minded competitors and it's less of an issue.

"The downfall though is we end up with such weaker end-games as we see so many people get to the mid game and make a decision as to whether they have a legitimate solo shot and if not then just race to the stalemate lines."

I am intrigued to hear what you believe a person in the Mid-game who believes he has no legitimate chance of a solo should do.

But you are correct that not all draws are the same. Some are dire, miserable affairs and some are hard fought and exciting. Again, however, the number of people who happen to be in them is not a good yardstick with which to measure how good or bad a draw was.

"I am intrigued to hear what you believe a person in the Mid-game who believes he has no legitimate chance of a solo should do."

Have to admit i'm surprised a #4 guy would feel a need to challenge that comment. I can't imagine you got that far with a conservative attitude (tournament games aside).

But since you asked.

Just do the natural thing, form a lynch mob against the game leader. Solo risks make for great common enemies/fast alliances and also make for great negotiating leverage when requesting returned and/or equitable centers among those within the lynch mob. Maybe not as practical if he's at the edge of the solo, but if there's still wiggle room left don't just drop your swords and lock your shields together. That's pretty lame.

Furthermore, don't presume you have no legitimate chance at a solo when it's still mid-game. If you're not following gameID=156309 then I'd recommend it, Turkey's a shining example of that based on where he was in 1905 to now.

I don't necessarily mind players knowing their limitations and managing their risk/reward, that's understandable. The pet peeve is when i see stronger players settling for the easy "any draw" outcome like was being discussed in earlier posts.