Congratulations to 2018 World Diplomacy Champion, Andrew Goff, and to everyone else who participated in the Championship this weekend!

Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 348 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
WyattS14 (100 D)
20 Jan 17 UTC
Does math Exist, or is it really JUST an idea?
I found
70 replies
Open
CAPT Brad (2624 D (B))
19 Dec 16 UTC
(+1)
Why I Love The Live Gunboat Games
I have the PC game of Diplomacy and played it to victory pretty much everytime; the few losses from the beginning as i was learning.
36 replies
Open
Chumbles (959 D (S))
22 Jan 17 UTC
Only one needed: gunboat, ancmed
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=189485
1 reply
Open
Valis2501 (2098 D (G))
19 Jan 17 UTC
F2F Tournament in MA, USA
As above, below
10 replies
Open
Peregrine Falcon (1531 D (B))
21 Jan 17 UTC
Friends Game
I'm looking for three more people to join me and three friends for a game. We'll keep the meta gaming to a minimum. Post here or message me if you're interested.
7 replies
Open
King Of Avalon (10 D X)
20 Jan 17 UTC
Hello i am new
How do i play i need help
9 replies
Open
oliveskin (100 D X)
20 Jan 17 UTC
Canceling CDs in live games
Thoughts to follow (my phone isn't letting me both type everything and post as well lol)
12 replies
Open
Halls of Mandos (644 D)
19 Jan 17 UTC
Another clarifying thread...
A unit can cut support if it itself is only tapped as well, but it does NOT cut support if it is dislodged by two completely different units, right?
5 replies
Open
indigo93 (100 D)
19 Jan 17 UTC
Issue with Denmark Capture
Game id 189248

I am Germany and had has a unit in Denmark at multiple points this game, yet the map color has not changed and I gave not
10 replies
Open
pastoralan (100 D)
18 Jan 17 UTC
Convoy confusion
Can a fleet convoy an army and also provide support to another unit?

Paraphrase: have I been playing this game wrong for the last 20 years?
12 replies
Open
fourofswords (453 D)
15 Jan 17 UTC
new world 901
Why isn't New World 901 on the list of games that can be created?
16 replies
Open
slypups (1620 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
Worst possible 1v1 matchup
What would be the most unbalanced 1v1 matchup possible on the Classic board? I could see England v Russia being awful for England, especially with Russia enjoying 4 builds/turn.
32 replies
Open
Ezio (708 D Mod)
18 Jan 17 UTC
Highest stakes live game
What is the highest stakes live game ever on the site?
51 replies
Open
Ezio (708 D Mod)
15 Jan 17 UTC
Ethics
If someone admits they only want to ally with you for meta reasons, are you ethically forced to attack them?
22 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
17 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Selena Gomez vs. a Hot platter of Hush puppies and Fried Catfish
Is there an afterlife? Or is there reall just a giant reality tv orb that floats above Ariana Grande's feet.
30 replies
Open
Merirosvo (302 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Scoring System Proposal
I don't know if this has been suggested but:
1. If there is a winner they get the whole pot
2. If there is a draw, it's always a seven* way draw regardless of elimination.
*Or however many
39 replies
Open
jmo1121109 (2482 D Mod)
16 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Congratulations Zultar
On winning the first 1 vs 1 game ever made (paused till now) on this site (gameID=187512).
29 replies
Open
leon1122 (211 D)
15 Jan 17 UTC
Rule Question
Can you support an enemy unit to attack your own unit?
11 replies
Open
WyattS14 (100 D)
15 Jan 17 UTC
Med Game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=189125 This game is with 2 other friends of mine, and we couldn't get a full group together. We are in no way metagaming. The password is lollol
0 replies
Open
WyattS14 (100 D)
15 Jan 17 UTC
Posting password games in forum?
Was wondering if I could post a game's password I'm playing with two other friends in the forum? Two others couldn't join last minute
2 replies
Open
Matticus13 (1159 D)
12 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Best way to learn code
I want to learn how to code, but am having trouble deciding where to start. Their are many free resources, online classes, boot camps, etc. I would prefer to teach myself, but lack the knowledge to know what language I should be learning first and so on. Any tips from the experienced code writers here on WebDip?
47 replies
Open
taos (281 D)
15 Jan 17 UTC
what happens when to fleets convoy the same army to the same point?
?
3 replies
Open
snowy801 (621 D)
15 Jan 17 UTC
Stalemate Gaming
Is there a rule against holding a stalemate indefinitely even though the situation is clear? I think he's hoping the rest of us give up and leave, which if it isn't against the rules yet then it should be.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=189100
2 replies
Open
CAPT Brad (2624 D (B))
01 Jan 17 UTC
The Captain Will See You Now
I am starting my first long term gameID=187773 PM me for the password. It is one day turns and requires an eighty for reliability.
17 replies
Open
zultar (3900 D Mod (P))
12 Jan 17 UTC
(+5)
Removing Known World and Keeping World
See inside.
26 replies
Open
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
04 Jan 17 UTC
PPSC discussion thread:
I don't particularly care for PPSC. But saw that another thread was having this discussion as a sidebar and thought it fair to start a discussion thread. There is reasonable support for PPSC and regardless of the majority opinion the minority's should be heard.
136 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Abolish Sum-Of-Squares scoring
Ok, so I understand some people don't like PPSC and don't want it back. I disagree. BUT let's talk about SOS instead. It's a terrible scoring system and is directly contrary to the rulebook.
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Who was in favour of adding SOS to webDip?

What are their arguments?

Who agrees with me that it should be removed?
VashtaNeurotic (639 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Oh, God. What have I done.
Claesar (11 D Mod)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
I kinda like SoS. It feels right to reward bigger countries.
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+5)
SoS is a fantastic scoring system. I'm currently working on a video explaining why, but here's a (very brief) rundown:

All WTA systems encourage a Solo as the #1 priority, which is how Diplomacy should be. However, the difference in how they reward draws (if people are paying attention) makes a very big difference to the game.

Take DSS, or Rulebook Scoring. The #1 incentive is to win, obviously, but the incentive to get more points in a draw is to whittle the draw, force the elimination of other players even if it's not you who gets their centers.

Most good players will tell you that in order to solo, you should keep players on the other side of the board as balanced as possible, or if that's impossible at least try to keep as many players alive as possible so that there's more conflict going on there and it's less likely they'll be able to unite against you. The more players there are, the more likely it is that two of them have some sort of grudge with one another, and the harder a time they'll have coordinating. If there's one very strong player on the other side of the board, chances are they'll be able to stalemate you.

DSS's incentive system works very much against this. You have to think "Do I want to aim for a solo here, or do I want to try to increase my score if there's a draw?", which is not ideal. Of course, you can try to position yourself so that you can back off the line if you do get stalemated and allow players to be eliminated, but (especially if you let a lot of players survive to this point) it's very possible that they don't trust you enough to stab one another, and you're stuck with a lousy 5 or 6 way draw. An ideal scoring system allows you to work towards a solo while simultaneously working towards increasing your draw score - you shouldn't need to have to give up the shot at a good draw to go for the solo, and you shouldn't need to have to give up your solo chances to go for a draw.

SoS solves this problem. In Sum of Squares, you will always gain points from gaining Supply Centers, but you'll lose points if your largest opponents are gaining Supply Centers at the same time. The ideal distribution for centers in a SoS draw is for you to be the largest power and for every other power to still be alive and have their centers split evenly. That's also the best thing to aim for when trying to solo - so in SoS, the draw/solo scoring system allows you to work towards both a solo and a good draw at the same time, instead of forcing you to pick which you'll attempt to achieve.

One point people make against SoS is that small powers holding a stalemate line are often minimally rewarded for their survival, but these people miss a massive upside of SoS - since small powers gain very little from being part of a draw when they're on 1 or 2 centers, they have a massive incentive to throw the game if someone annoys them, and so any threat they make has to be given high credibility. A small power can demand a few extra centers from a larger power holding the line, and threaten to throw if they don't agree - and the larger power has to agree to it. I think people often miss this in SoS and it's a strategy more people should use.

Another complaint is that Draw Whittling is an integral part of Diplomacy and should be kept. I disagree - if you're whittling the draw by letting someone else take the centers, why should you be benefitting from that? SoS gives a situation where it's in the interests of the player(s) actually taking the centers to whittle, but if you aren't benefitting from it on the board then you don't benefit from it in the scoring. It gives smaller powers more options for survival, and stops large players letting other large players take a bunch of SCs so that their score is increased.


DSS is very good for players who like working towards a 3-way draw and are not good at achieving solos. I know this because I'm one of those players - but I'm trying to get better at soloing, and in DSS that requires giving up the ability to get a good draw. SoS is good for players who are good at working towards solos, because it essentially rewards you in accordance to how close you got to soloing.

One final remark - DSS is almost certainly better for players who use the 'Let's go for a 2-way draw' strategy to solo their games, because in SoS there is quite a large incentive to draw when you're close to the two way draw, but not quite there - you get nearly the same amount of points. However, alliance play is still very rewarding and although that ability is diminished, it's still very possible to convince someone to go for it (or to position for a stab slightly earlier).
Claesar (11 D Mod)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Captain does raise a very valid point here; I played a DSS game last night and I don't think that would've ended in a draw if it had been SoS.
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
"In Sum of Squares, you will always gain points from gaining Supply Centers"

This is not true. In a recent Sum Of Squares game, I noticed a point where, being on 4 SCs (for a power which starts with 3) and with 5 Powers left in the game (2 eliminated) I would have suffered a points loss if the game ended in a draw at that point.
Zybodia (355 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
I have had the opposite experience with SoS. I find that it disincentivizes going for the win while ahead, because if you fall short, you will have fewer points than if you didn't go for it at all. It straight up encourages people to draw as soon as they get a couple supply centers ahead, and it is responsible for so many six- and seven-way draws.
Nynzal (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
What about if we don't square the centers and just take the flat percentages? The point difference gets smaller, but more centers still rewards more points.
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
I agree with Zybodia, this is also my experience. Especially in Live Games. I have seen several 5 way draws that would not have ended at that point if SOS was not in use.
Deeply_Dippy (439 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
I suggest that most people agree that SOS & DSS are both flawed systems but that a less-flawed system is hard to devise. Perhaps the difficulty is that both reward size rather than diplomatic effort and success.

Maybe the alternative is to do away with both but to make the point split a condition of the draw proposal. If you want a draw you have to persuade the MAJORITY of remaining players to agree to share the points a certain way.

However, only the largest Power (or Powers in the event of equal SC count) has the right to call for a draw. This will prevent smaller nations hijacking a win and possibly encouraging a push fir a solo/stab to win.

In any given situation some will prefer a DSS & others SOS, whereas some won't want to draw at all. But by placing the onus on the draw-offerer to negotiate an end gives die recognition to the diplomatic skill if all parties.
Nynzal (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
I feel like that will be become to complicated. Multiple scoring systems are probably fine, but choosing one before the game is best I think.
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
13 Jan 17 UTC
"In a recent Sum Of Squares game, I noticed a point where, being on 4 SCs (for a power which starts with 3) and with 5 Powers left in the game (2 eliminated) I would have suffered a points loss if the game ended in a draw at that point."

I should clarify - you will gain points relative to your situation if you had not gained those supply centers. If other powers are steamrolling the game, you may still have a net loss of points because you're letting other powers do that, but gaining an SC will raise your points relative to if you had not gained that SC.

"I find that it disincentivizes going for the win while ahead, because if you fall short, you will have fewer points than if you didn't go for it at all."

If people are doing this, then they are playing incredibly suboptimally. Because of the way SoS works, if you go for a solo you will pretty much always gain points over your current position, because if players stop fighting one another and start fighting you then nobody else will match your SC count, and if they don't then you'll end up winning the game.

I would say this is more down to people not understanding how SoS works and seeing that they'd get more points than in a DSS three-way draw so thinking they should draw it, without realising that in SoS you can get something like 70% of the points of a solo in a draw if you manage to force an optimal SC distribution for yourself.

"What about if we don't square the centers and just take the flat percentages? The point difference gets smaller, but more centers still rewards more points."

There is a scoring system like this (I forget what it's called) but it's pretty much universally been replaced by SoS, because SoS encourages tactical stabs that don't benefit your strong opponents too much, whereas direct supply-center count scoring encourages any SC grabs you can get away with, regardless of how well your opponents are doing.
Zybodia (355 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
The situation I was referring to is specifically the one where the second-place nation has no chance of winning, but has as much potential for expansion as you, which seems to be the case in most of the games I play. In any game like that, your expected point gain if you continue will be negative.
wpfieps (450 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
I hate WTA/SoS as a scoring system. It causes many players to draw too soon instead of making more of an effort towards soloing, for the reason that Zybodia explained quite well in his post reply.

WTA/SoS should be removed from webdip. Variant scoring systems like WTA/SoS and PPSC/SWS should be relegated to vdip where they belong, and webdip should be reserved for only the pure Diplomacy game of WTA/DSS.
ssorenn (2545 D (G))
13 Jan 17 UTC
Webdip should only offer one scoring system. It would also equalize to a small extent the value of the points system itself
Jamiet99uk (100 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Having given this matter some consideration, I agree strongly with wpfieps.

If WTA/DSS is made the only scoring system on the site, I will drop my campaign for PPSC to be restored, effective immediately.
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
WTA is the only way to play the game.
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
13 Jan 17 UTC
You only draw if you're risking elimination or there is a stalemate. Otherwise, you have one and only one goal: to solo.

#Lusthog
ssorenn (2545 D (G))
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
The site needs to adopt one system and move forward.
ssorenn (2545 D (G))
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
If what Zultar says is true and he wants to be the best Dip site on the net, then following with the nature of the game, whatever point system pushes people towards solo should be the one.
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
There's only like three Diplomacy sites that matter, I don't see why we're striving so hard to be the best. It's not like we're trying to be the best gaming news site or some oversaturated shit.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
I'm a supporter of having a non wta scoring system as an option, and SoS is a wta style scoring system like DSS
I don't mind SoS, if I can only play DSS or SoS, I'd prefer to use SoS
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
13 Jan 17 UTC
Oh and if PPSC is ever re-introduced I would riot.
eturnage (367 D (B))
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
I prefer SOS. I've have played a lot of different systems, including systems that reward points equally to all survivors (DIAS), and systems that reward points primarily by center count. IMO, DIAS and center count systems encourage game long alliances whose function is to eliminate other players and maximize scores. In SOS, a more balanced game is encouraged, and when one player starts to get bigger, there is an incentive for everyone else to take him back down. Therefore, the game is much more dynamic and interesting from a diplomatic perspective.
civwarbuff (305 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
WTA (or DSS) makes much more sense to me than either PPSC or SOS scoring, but I do see an argument for a blended system in that you want to incentivize players to fight to the end and give everything that they have regardless of how dire the situation is.

SOS is a poor system in that all players who are involved in a draw should in principle always cut the pot equally, in my opinion.

Aside from WTA/DSS, I would like a system that divides all draws equally and rewards a solo with the vast majority of points and grants the remaining survivors with a small minority of points PROVIDED that the math can be worked out so that no situation could ever arise in which players would lose points in the event of a draw as compared to a survival.
Devonian (870 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
If WTA is how the rulebook says to score, why are we even having this debate?
CommanderByron (569 D Mod (S))
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Just an added bit of context: when two IRL governments agree to end a conflict through some sort of treaty, the results are rarely equal; because the nation on the losing end needs to concede a bit in order to survive the war; and the nation on the winning end needs motivation to end the war early. So SOS is actually closer to a IRL war.
Devonian (870 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Closer doesn't mean the same. In IRL war, the settlements would be negotiated.
So, it's still different from real life war and it no longer follows the rules of the game.
AngelEyesGBU (127 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
IMHO I love the existing system with its options. It's kind of like a single-table poker tournament where the organizer sets the buy-in, the game to be played, and the bet limits (limit poker, pot limit, or no-limit). If you don't like SoS, you don't need to join those games and you don't need to risk your "chips" on them. Likewise, if you prefer SoS, you can look for those games that are set up that way.

My preference is SoS because it *does* encourage going for solos more than DIAS or DSS. My local FTF group adopted SoS years ago and we like it. Because we rank by cumulative points over the year, it encourages more active, dynamic play as opposed to playing for a draw. I've observed its effect of postponing draws because one or more players realize they've got momentum and can get more points if the draw is postponed another game year or two.
VillageIdiot (4709 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Never tried an actual SoS game, but think i like the option of it in theory. Seems to me like it opens up an opportunity to play on secondary ambitions which of course helps the cause of vying for a solo. I've got to imagine it also causes additional elements within alliances as to the structure of the draw which also adds some interesting elements to it i would think.

We've had tournaments where SC comes into play with the scoring so and it makes it interesting. Yeah, i'm cool with this so long from a GR perspective one scoring system doesn't provide greater unfair opportunity to advance then the other. Somebody smarter then me would need to comment on whether it does or not.
slypups (1620 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Love SoS. Prefer SoS. If you don't, don't play those games. Simple enough. Don't force other to play DSS just because you prefer it, just like we should force you into SoS. This is like calling for all games to be only Rulebook Press or only gunboat. A little variation is good for different interests. It's not like the site has gone full vDip or anything.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
I dislike SoS because players who have a larger share of the SCs can rest on their laurels, draw, and "earn" a lot of webDip points. That provides a disincentive to go for the solo which is hard enough as it is.

I don't feel as strongly about dumping SoS, but PPSC should stay dead.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
And really, the only reason any variant scoring systems exist is for *tournament* tiebreakers. IMO # of SCs should suffice as tiebreak without resorting to the Carnage abomination.
ghug (4049 D Mod (B))
13 Jan 17 UTC
GR calculates separate expected values for SoS and DSS, so neither is any more gameable than the other.

I tried one SoS game and won it, but I don't think it was because of the scoring system, as a lot of the players didn't seem inherently aware of its consequences. I think there is a risk of oddly early draws (probably why it's so popular in ftf play), but I also think it allows for more interesting endgames if you get there. If people don't want to play the game to the end, they'll find a way to make that happen regardless of the scoring system.
VillageIdiot (4709 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Cool, got my endorsement then.
slypups (1620 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
The one thing I really like about SoS vs DSS is when players pretty much agree to a draw, they don't have to run around the board to eliminate a bunch of small countries before ending it. You can just draw and give up a point or two to the little guys. This is more significant in the bigger maps, than Classic.
slypups (1620 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
Or if draw votes are hidden, the various players can have a fun game of who hasn't voted draw yet - inspiring some good intrigue and tensions. Not so much an issue in DSS, since players look to knock the little guys no matter what to up their score substantially.
Lethologica (203 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
SoS' incentive structure exacerbates the fundamental tensions of alliances in Diplomacy. The basic reason to ally is because allies are more likely to get big; the basic reason to break alliances is because your ally is a threat and an opportunity. This maps exactly onto the basic incentives of SoS: get big, keep other players small. You need to get big to do well in SoS, even more so than in DSS; at the same time, your ally doing well directly reduces your own score.

The fact that SoS maps these tensions onto draw quality, rather than just survival and solo threat, is what makes it so great for F2F tournaments. SoS can strongly differentiate players who do well from players who do poorly *on a strict year limit*, which means being able to run more rounds on a predictable timetable. Meanwhile, in a tournament every point counts and there's always next round to do better, so there's little danger of players feeling a lack of incentive to continue.

On the other hand, because SoS accelerates alliance dynamics, it can lead more quickly to situations where most players don't want to continue. Players who do badly may feel much worse about continuing than they would in DSS, because they only have a marginal share of the pot and few prospects for reversing that trend. Players who do well may feel much worse about continuing than they would in DSS, because they already have a large share of the pot (along with a lot of enemies, in all likelihood) and see no reason to risk their winnings on a solo shot. This is why people complain about SoS producing early draws.

Phrasing such draws as "7-way draws" or "6-way draws" is disingenuous, though--the whole point of SoS is to measure draws by centers, and it even incentivizes keeping players alive, so an early draw is an 8- or 10-center draw. Under this metric, does SoS actually lead to a lot of early draws, compared to DSS? I don't know.

Ultimately, the same thing that makes SoS good for tournaments is what potentially gives it problems online--it was designed to score partial games in an environment where the incentive to play is taken for granted, so it doesn't necessarily maintain healthy incentives all the way to game completion.
Lethologica (203 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
*an early draw in SoS is where the largest player has 8 or 10 centers.
VillageIdiot (4709 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
"The one thing I really like about SoS vs DSS is when players pretty much agree to a draw, they don't have to run around the board to eliminate a bunch of small countries before ending it"

Didn't now it encouraged this. Now i'm extra sold.
MajorMitchell (984 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
I liked the post from AngelEyesGBU & one of slypups comments.
Like a few people have commented, everyone gets to choose what type of games they play, gunboat, full press, etc etc there has to be a reasonable variety of choices in game type, so why is there this push to get rid of SoS ?
I haven't seen a better alternative proposed ( excluding DSS, not because I think it superior to SoS, but because it's available as a choice already )
If the get rid of SoS supporters think the answer is DSS only they are wrong imho

LeonWalras (288 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
DSS fans, what is the point of draw whittling if you're not going to solo? Extending the game to eliminate a small power and then draw anyway always seems so pointless to me. I like that SoS reinforces this. I see a lot of talk about low-scoring powers being disadvantaged by SoS, but these are the same powers that are needlessly eliminated under DSS in order to whittle the draw.
slypups (1620 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Totally agree with Leon's point.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
It is more valuable to eliminate small powers in DSS scoring than in SoS scoring. It is more valuable still to solo.

Consider this: In a hypothetical seven-player, 16-3-3-3-3-3-3 draw, the ratio for points is 256-9-9-9-9-9-9. The player with 16 SCs earns almost 5 times as much as the other players combined!!

IMO a draw should never yield more than 50% of the victory to anyone. But SoS can and does.
wpfieps (450 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Getting back to Jamiet's original question, the point isn't whether or not there are some people who like a variation in how draws are handled. There are some. The question is whether they should be doing so here or on vdip. It's the same argument as talk about what to do with variations in how wins are handled. There certainly were also some people who liked those variations, and they should also be on vdip.

The canonical game design is "WTA+DSS" ... the "WTA" half of the equation dealing with wins, and the "DSS" half of the equation dealing with draws. Some people like varying the first half into "PPSC+DSS", some people like varying the second half into "WTA+SoS"; but, a variation is a variation, and they all belong elsewhere. You can't use the argument "one variation should be allowed here because some portion of people like it" without allowing that same argument to the other half of the equation (otherwise, a person is being arbitrary is expressing their own favoritism, not considering what the population would like to be able to play). The only non-arbitrary approach would be to ban all variation, and just play only "proper" Diplomacy here.

(As a note on notation: For those who weren't around about a year ago, this site used to allow only one kind of variation, providing "WTA+DSS" and "PPSC+DSS". Then simultaneously one type of variation was removed and another type of variation was added, currently providing "WTA+DSS" and "WTA+SoS". During the transition phase, this site used the confusing notation "survivor win scoring" or "PPSC+SWS" to refer to what I refer above as "PPSC+DSS", trying to be more regular in my notation.)


45 replies
CptMike (3450 D)
14 Jan 17 UTC
New varant porposal -> µVariant
I was wondering if the following Variant was not "easy" to develop and it brings a crazy number of exciting possibilities...
13 replies
Open
Sandman99 (100 D)
12 Jan 17 UTC
Where my Libertarians at?
Just wondering if I have any fellow Libertarians on this god-forsaken website
28 replies
Open
VashtaNeurotic (639 D)
13 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
New Scoring System Proposal
I don’t know if this has been suggested but:
1. In draws have everyone alive share the pot equally (As they should because SoS is garbage)
2. In a solo, the soloist gains a portion of the pot equal to 18* divided by the number of centers controlled by the soloist or survivors (but not neutral centers or those of resigned powers) and the survivors split the remainder proportionally based on their center count.
*Or however many
7 replies
Open
Page 348 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top