However, if I were you, I'd be concerned that in all four of the games you didn't win, you were eliminated, rather than managing to take part in a draw, or at least survive.

The ranking of possible outcomes is generally agreed to be:

1. Won
2. Drawn
3. Survived
4. Eliminated

And you were eliminated in 80% of your games so far.

Should be:

1. Won
2. Drawn
3. Eliminated
4. Survived

^abge, you are just plain wrong about that

Well, the argument is moot, because there really should be no Survived category; it should just count as Eliminated. But, a Survived is certainly not better than Eliminated because not only did you lose, but you were still on the board when someone else won. You should have done something about it.

I strongly, strongly disagree. The difference is marginal, but a survived is just objectively better than being eliminated (ask PPSC!)

The real thing is that strong players never get surviveds, as they know how to turn a position where they normally would get a survived into a draw. So while a survived is better than an eliminated, getting a survived is also a signal of being a weak player.

"The difference is marginal, but a survived is just objectively better than being eliminated (ask PPSC!)"

You can't just say something is objectively better to make it so. You could make a very real argument that those who were defeated were either defeated early or were defeated defending against a solo. In my mind, that is much better than still being around when the solo happens. Perhaps you disagree, but your position is in no way objectively better.

"The real thing is that strong players never get surviveds, as they know how to turn a position where they normally would get a survived into a draw."

Given this, why then wouldn't you agree with me that Survived is, at least, no better than being Eliminated?

It's objectively better because in one you died and in one you didn't. In one you get no points and in one you sometimes get points.

Because the second point is orthogonal to the first. What something is a signal of has nothing to do with what is better. For example, I work as a trader, so our ideal candidate to hire would know something about economics. However, we hire almost exclusively math and physics majors because these majors are a signal of intelligence compared to, say economics majors. What we really would prefer is someone who is able to be a math or physics major but chose economics- just because being a math major is a signal of being intelligent doesn't mean it is the best background for the job

Does anyone know how GR takes into account these two things. Then there's your answer. Given that were talking about a wta game

Valuing a survival over an elimination is ridiculous.

I agree there no value to a survival. Unless your playing PPSC.

The only time you get points for surviving is in PPSC, which directly contradicts the rules of the game and is in no way a valid argument.

In fact, the only reason this discussion is even happening is because of the awful PPSC system.

No one said you have to play it Abge.

"No one said you have to play it Abge."

Nor has anything I've posted indicated that I ever thought that. However, even if I don't personally play PPSC, it is still damaging, especially as the default option, because it teaches players to play the game wrong.

1. Won
2. Drawn
3. Lost

GR follows the incentives of points, so that we see everyone playing the same "game". So, in PPSC, draw size matters, unless there's a solo, then centre count matters. And in WTA, draw size also matters- unless there's a solo, then the soloing player gets all the points.

I'm starting to think it would be worth adding a centre count scoring system too (where centre count matters in a draw, and if there's a solo, then the soloist takes all the points). Last time I mentioned this, someone pointed out that three scoring systems might be too many- perhaps replacing PPSC with such a system would be a good idea? Certainly I think many new players think that PPSC draws are by centre count.

To the OP- I don't think there's consensus on how to measure diplomacy players. I personally prefer consistency over Elo based systems like Ghost Rating. Does this person consistently get good results (draws or wins, and not survives or defeats).

On this site, draw size matters, and so I've wondered whether the stats page should also break down draw size. However, it's probably busy enough as it is.

In WTA survived and defeated are equal. Equally bad. There is win, draw, and lost. Using PPSC as a rationale to justify survived as better than defeated is dumb because sometimes in PPSC survived can be better than draw in terms of pts. For example the 15 in 18-15-1 as opposed to 17-16-1 draw.

Under players of equal skill, statistically, about 2/3 of all games end in a draw. This leaves 1/3 as a solo ending. Average players tend to win 1/7 of those, which is about 4% of games. If you're winning more than that, then I'd say you're doing fairly well.

In terms of draws, about half of all players participate in games ending in a draw, and if 2/3 of games end in a draw consisting of about 4 players, that's an average of about 30-35%.


That's the trend on this site. I should also note that if you've played less than 50 games on this site, then it's hard to draw conclusions since 1 game can have a significant effect on percentages.

All draws should be equal, or you will create at atmosphere where someone who has a poor start has very little incentive for carrying on.

In regard to the opening post I would say any player with a win rate over 10% is likely a good player and any over 5% worthy of respect. Such stats only really mean anything after 20 games or so, and it depends a lot on the sort of games you play.

There is also a large luck factor in diplomacy. You can play a great game and get nothing, and play an average game and win.

What is the large luck factor? Surely much less than any other board game save for things like Chess and Go.

While I tend to agree with the WTA perspective that survives and defeats should be equal, with a survive meaning that you failed to stop the solo, I think it's important to always play for the survive. If everyone's going to eliminate you, your best shot at a draw is to make someone a solo threat, and even if there's no chance at a draw, it's best to screw over as many people as possible on the way out.

1. Won
2. Lost.

4815162332,
In the begining try to concentrate on finishing witj a draw, first 20-30 games, just to learn the maps, stalemate lines, tricks, rules in unusual situations and thats it. Later, you should try to take more solos. Also, if you have will, read this, its great, it helped me when I started: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/

I tend to agree with uclabb but I think Jamie's last post, even if facetious, is the correct mentality to take. Focusing on any goal except a solo will put you in a frame of mind which is deleterious to soloing. The mind is an immensely powerful component of the game - if you haven't conditioned yourself to view not winning as a failure, then you have set yourself up to fail to win.

I make one exception to this, which is the 2-way draw, because a 2-way draw is fundamentally different from other draws - it's usually the one type of draw where you had the capacity to solo and chose not to, as opposed to any other number of draws where you were stopped from soloing. But even then, for our purposes, you shouldn't differentiate between these types of draws because if you want to improve and be a routine threat to solo, you must always make the solo your one and only goal.

So while there are some petty differences between the types of loss which allow us to rationalize which loss is better, in the end it doesn't matter. Your priorities must be:
1. Win
2. Lose

This is about WW1. Trench warfare. Is it better to huddle in the bottom of your trench and "survive", or is it better to answer the call and charge the enemy's positions to keep him from winning? Who gets the honor later?

@ abg

It varies between the variants, of course. The first phase in gunboat is almost entirely luck. But the largest luck factor is the 6 other people, whether they're the sort who will find you entertaining or annoying, whether they support your natural style or prefer an entirely different way of playing, whether they enter the game eager to try a new strategy that involves an early strike on the country that just happens to be you.

There are a huge number of factors that have major influences on the game over which you have no control. That I call luck.

Take 4-8's win, for example. An awful lot of things went in his favour for him to win that. If whatever had prevented the initial nmrs from turning up hadn't happened, and if he had been a corner power and Turkey a central power, he may have enjoyed more of a challenge.

Sure there are differences between variants, but Gunboat and Diplomacy are distinct enough games that I really don't think they can be discussed in the same manner.

As to things like CDs, those certainly do involve luck, but not as much as people think. Once a player CDs, it is known to the whole board. It is almost always possible to compensate for such things if you are good at reading the board.

I disagree with PE. All draws are not because Someone couldn't solo, it becomes part of collaborative team efforts to stalemate the board. Sometimes these games are quite fun and when you get the occasional 2 way and work on the trust involved to get there, sometimes that's more rewarding than a solo

1. Won
2. <does not exist>
3. 2-way draw
4. 3-way draw
5. 4-way draw
6. 5-way draw
7. lost
8. quit (aka 6-way draw)
9. CD