Shared wins?

[RoganJosh]

Back to the false dilemma, pretending that everything is either a loss or a win.

There is wiggle room, and that wiggle room is called a "draw."

And, seriously, if you tell someone you just won a game of diplomacy, and they go check out the game only to find a 2-way draw, they will probably come back and ask you why you were lying.

[TheFlyingBoat]

I am inclined to agree with RoganJosh. A win is a win, a defeat is a loss, a mere survival in a game someone else won is a loss, and a draw is a draw. The trap we should avoid falling into is conflating a win with success. A legitimate win (aka a win free of shenanigans that taint its legitimacy) is always a success, but not all success is a win. A success can be defined by anyone in general and for specific contexts. If you had the chance to solo and you botched it and had to settle for a two way draw, one might argue it's a success because a two way draw is a great result in general despite the context of your errors, while another may say your errors in this particular cost you a winnable game therefore it's a failure to seize what could have very easily been yours. Neither is wrong and both are correct in their own way given their axioms. Others may argue in context even a loss could have been a success if in doing so you denied/caused a solo if the reasons for denying/causing a solo were good for you. If it helped you advance in a tournament due to preventing a player that could have jumped you from doing that's a huge success. If it helped you send a message among the people you play with that you will play kingmaker if you get stabbed in certain positions and that message helps you achieve greater success later, then that could be a success too.

tl;dr: Language and the rules of the game result in one conclusion: a win is a win, a draw/tie is neither a win nor a loss, a survive(outside a draw)/defeat is a loss. Success on the other hand is defined by you and the community. If you disagree with the community, that's fine. They'll think you failed, while you'll be happy you succeeded. If you agree with the community, that's fine too. You'll think the same about the situation that they do.

[Wintogreen]

And, seriously, if you tell someone you just won a game of diplomacy, and they go check out the game only to find a 2-way draw, they will probably come back and ask you why you were lying.

Obviously I didn't mean this with someone who understands the game. I meant if someone who has no knowledge of it asks me if i won, I would simply say "Yeah, kind of" instead of explaining this dilemma... they would much rather me slightly exaggerate than explain a 2 page forum and how the game works.

Also I totally agree with TheFlyingBoat. Very well put on the difference between success and winning. That's what I was trying to refer to when I mentioned semantics, but you put it in a much more eloquent way.

[RoganJosh]

There's no need for them to know anything about the game. Your friends should understand, perfectly well, the statement: "It's a seven player game; five players were eliminated, and me and some other guy drew."

That said, I guess we all agree then, all is well.

On a personal note, when I accuse something of being semantics, then it's usually because there is word or a phrase which is not well-defined, and the conclusions depend on what you put into that word. Here, I would say, it's the opposite. What both me and Flying Boat are saying is that you should call a spade a spade. Sure, there are sub-games and meta-games -- other measures of success -- but the notion 'win' has a well-defined meaning as stipulated in the rules.

As a general comment, I would like to point out that this is not just an academic discussion. What you call a 'win,' or what you call 'success,' will affect the way you play the game. Just look at the question that started this thread. A minor power, helping another power to a solo, claiming he can count that as a 'win,' because he was in a 'winning alliance.' Nonsense of course! I would even be upset if someone claimed this could be filed under 'success.'

What I think really is going in here, is players trying to find shortcuts to claiming 'success.' Soloing a game is really hard. Helping another power solo is much easier. So, to obtain 'success,' a player decided to do the latter, claiming it's the same as the former. This should be frowned upon.

That is of course a blatant example - I think everyone here agrees that helping another power to a solo is the complete opposite of 'success.' But let me stick my neck out and claim that calling (also 2-way) draws 'success' has a similar effect. You are taking the easy route - it is much much easier to play for a draw than to play for a solo. Playing for a solo often means turning everyone against you, increasing the risk of elimination. That can be a hard decision, and it's impressive when people get it right. By equating draws with solos, you make it into an easy decision: the solo is not going to be worth the risk. We'd get players that are too afraid to loose the 'success' of a draw to aim for a win.

[North Sea]

It depends on the frame of reference. If the frame of reference is the game itself, then I think everyone can agree that a solo is a win and a draw is a draw.

If the frame of reference is expanded to include things such as friendship and integrity, then things become more fluid, as Wintogreen said.

RoganJosh wrote, "There's a simple distinction: are your opponents forced to acknowledge the win or not?" No-one can be forced to acknowledge a win in the larger realm, however. The aim should be not only to win, but to win the right way, in my view.

[Deinodon]

By equating draws with solos, you make it into an easy decision: the solo is not going to be worth the risk. We'd get players that are too afraid to loose the 'success' of a draw to aim for a win.

You make this sound like a hypothetical. We have players like that. I play against players like that. They exist. There are many of them.
Especially in face to face games with time constraints, that's the way many people approach the game.

[Restitution]

A two-way draw is worth half a win. A 3-way draw is worth a third of a win.

[Claesar]

A two-way draw is worth half a win. A 3-way draw is worth a third of a win.

Not necessarily true when you consider Ghost Rating.

[RoganJosh]

Not necessarily true when you consider Ghost Rating.

To be fair, in Ghost Rating it is clear that payoff = score - bet, which most players forget for dPoints. But also in dPoints WTA:

solo has payoff: 7 - 1 = 6
2WD has payoff: 7/2 - 1 = 2.5, which is roughly 42% of a solo
3WD has payoff: 7/3 - 1 = 1.33.., which is roughly 22% of a solo

[Claesar]

Not necessarily true when you consider Ghost Rating.

To be fair, in Ghost Rating it is clear that payoff = score - bet, which most players forget for dPoints. But also in dPoints WTA:

solo has payoff: 7 - 1 = 6
2WD has payoff: 7/2 - 1 = 2.5, which is roughly 42% of a solo
3WD has payoff: 7/3 - 1 = 1.33.., which is roughly 22% of a solo

Very strong argument, but keep in mind that in GR the bet will be different for each player.

If a high-ranking player joins a game with newbies, the expert may have to bet 1/3th (just a guess, I didn't calculate it) of the GR pot. Which means a 3WD won't break even for them.. They'd lose rating!