JECE wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:09 am
They made it free to join games that are already in play. So it's hardly comparable, ha ha.
Ah, didn't know it wasn't always that way. Does seem to have solved the problem though?
JECE wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:09 am
Try drawing a game when you're in the retreats/disbandments phase and see how it works out for ya. Counting pieces is exactly how WTA/DSS scoring works.
It's literally
not how WTA/DSS works.
A soloist will almost always have less than 18 units under their control when they reach the winning threshold of 18+ centers. WTA/DSS on this site and everywhere that I've ever encountered count that as a win precisely because they count centers and
not units.
If a power has 1 center and 1 unit, and the sole unit is force disbanded in the spring and the board votes to draw in the fall i.e. after the spring has been fully adjudicated, I have never encountered a scoring system that would consider that player eliminated, which is what the original rules say.
I wondered if you meant that WebDip scored DSS/WTA like this so I went into the code and found that it doesn't:
https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomac ... s.php#L161
DSS/WTA for WebDip gives points to every player with the status "Playing" which means hasn't left and hasn't been defeated, where defeated is 0 centers and 0 units.
https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomac ... m.php#L107
But I get the impression that you do agree with my original point? Which is that
the original game rules are not a productive tool for advocating for or against using any particular scoring system, even as they do provide helpful guidance for how to play the game both literally and behaviorally.
JECE wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:09 am
If you're playing for a win, stalemate lines should never be formed. I think that I proved that pretty decisively when the 2012 World Cup ended in 2016. Stalemate lines are a dead end that stop a game in its tracks before a player can clinch 18 supply centers.
I disagree. But hey, I wasn't around for that world cup nonsense.
What if I want to hold a stalemate line while trying to convince player B that I will totally help them against player C and totally won't try to solo? Why not have an unbreakable position while attempting this persuasion so that I am 100% confident that I have nothing to lose? I can always walk away from the line if B will do what I want in exchange for my retreat.
Absolutes are meh when talking about Diplomacy
this goes both ways of course re: any critiques of JECE-PPSC encouraging certain behaviors.
JECE wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:09 am
Not that it matters, since you're quoting a post by captainmeme where he used stalemate lines as a way to counter the straw man argument that "you should allow someone else to reach 18 if you're doing well". Since nobody was arguing that on this thread, his point about stalemate lines isn't particularly relevant. I did respond to him on the next page anyway, though, in case you're curious.
I read your old post. You basically just say that this old post from Jamie, which I'll just quote the first part of, is your answer:
"1. PPSC encourages players to go for the win. A pure WTA style scoring approach actually encourages players to draw rather than taking a risk to go for the win, because the danger of losing your stake prompts you to "settle" for a draw. In PPSC you are encouraged to take risks to try for a solo in endgame situations where two players could potentially solo and there is no stalemate yet - whereas in non-PPSC, those two players will probably try to settle for a draw."
Is this really true though? Again with the absolutes.
And like I said this goes both ways. I agreed more with CaptainMeme's argument for PPSC encouraging strong seconds when I first entered this discussion, now I'm less sure that...it's not just a people problem.
I feel like it's more about the players and less about the scoring system.
If the players want to draw, they'll find justifications within the scoring system for their opinion.
In your 5+ year old game where you talked about hidden draw votes saving you from being ganged up on. The rest of the players wanted to draw but you did not, and so you didn't draw, and so the game didn't draw at that time.
The DSS+WTA scoring in that game clearly failed to change your behavior. So I don't think it's primarily a scoring system issue. It's a culture issue. If players aren't trying for solos, it's because their hearts aren't in it.
Soloing is definitely something of an advanced skill since a player has to 1) get good enough to get into a solo-able position 2) recognize that the position is solo-able and 3) be brave enough to try to solo. So I'm not blaming anyone for not having it in their hearts or minds. I'm just saying that a lack of solo ambition is not a problem that I see stemming from any particular scoring system.
---
A caveat to all of this is that I really mostly play gunboat with a little press sprinkled throughout the year. And let me tell you, gunboat has no lack of solo ambition. I'm in a game right now that's past 1930 because we're all trying to
win. Which is why I think it's more a people/culture/emotional problem than any particular scoring system.