Keep it, it works well for phasing in players new to diplomacy.

However, I agree we should implement other varients yes

>>Figle
I disagree; I gives players a false impression of the game

I don't see how it makes a difference. It lets you form better alliances, and it's all about the game. I don't see how points make a difference.

For those that don't understand why people want to get rid of PPSC:

There is a fear that people 'game' the system. Basically, if you get second place a TON, but rarely get first place, you can rack up a ton of points. So those that go for the win and lose from time to time would hate the system, because it rewards someone who doesn't go for the win every game...

Of course, its highly frustrating when only 1/7th of the players gets anything from the game, and people would be recycling their 100 points constantly, otherwise, and the high pot games would be an extreme rarity. So, yes, I think they should stay, and I'm also not opposed to having other variants to keep things interesting.

People play for the points, so you can change how people play by changing the way that they win points. I agree that WTA is better than PPSC, but wouldn't be so bold as to scrap PPSC.

>>Onar
You hit the nail on the head. PPSC lends itself to game-long, unbreakable alliances because neither player cares strongly about a win (or even a draw); they only care about their center count at the end of the game. In my opinion, 18 centers is the only number that matters. A survival is a survival, whether it is 1 center or 16 centers.

Well then, that's a better point - now you've offered an alternative.
I certainly wouldn't oppose adding in a new form of game which was 75% to the winner and the rest split evenly for the survivors.

Hmm, saying that as the winner would also be a survivor (and for simplicity of understanding) I would suggest actually 50% to the winner, 50% split between all survivors.
The only issue I can see with this is that it would increase the number of games where, once virtually finished, the leaders kill off the minor powers.

Then I don't see why you wouldn't get rid of the point system as a whole.

>>Onar (again)
I am okay with keeping the point system, since it does a few things very well: It keeps "n00bs" out of games with more experienced players, it discourages going CD, and the gambling is somewhat exciting.

Can someone with access to stats find out in the last month, what percent of WTA games were drawn? I'm not sure there's much of a difference between WTA and PPSC anyway.

I dislike authoritarians who see a One-Size-Fits-All.

I would reserve "authoritarian" for something rather more extreme than choosing a point system. You don't complain that on a scrabble website there's no option to increase the score of the "q" from 10 to 12 and remove the triple word scores, do you?

Of the 488 games that finished last month, 457 (94%) were PPSC, and 31 (6%) were WTA.

I shall be giving more detail on the drawn front of things.

isn't there a danger that someone who only has 1or 2 units stops playing when they know they can win a WTA but would continue to play in a PPSC game?

*cant you mean

*can't i mean

If Edi doesn't have a problem with PPSC, then who can?

PPSC should stay, but I definitely think that it's given too large a slice of the demographic. WTA needs to be better represented. I think that new players should be allowed to create WTA games, but not with their full 100 points.

Would anyone disapprove of putting a 50% cap on creating WTA games in general?

50% cap of what?

S.P.A.O., I'm pretty sure Edi doesn't play by any real scoring system. I think he's resigned to the fact that no perfect rating system can be designed because people have arbitrary and differing values for various outcomes in games. Of course, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I get the impression that while he doesn't have a particular problem with PPSC, he has a general disdain, or at least indifference, toward all forms of rating.

I like that idea, 50% cap of your total points.

If you CREATE a WTA game, the max bet is 50% of your total points.

The idea is to encourage new players to create WTA games, while not allowing them to keep trying their hand at a 700 pot game and ditch it as soon as they start doing poorly.

PPSC: 25% drawn
WTA: 29% drawn

With 100+ Average Ghost-rating:

PPSC: 30% (91/306)
WTA: 31% (9/29)

And with such a small sample for WTA, I think we can ascribe the drawishness of WTA to the fact that 94% of WTA games are among above average players, where as only 67% of PPSC games are, and better players are more likely to draw.

"better players are more likely to draw."
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of what a lot of people are trying to do by eliminating ppsc?

Why are better players more likely to draw??

Better at forming stalemate lines, more likely to stay out of CD, perhaps a different game philosophy. The pure evidence proves that this is true, look at the data above- noticeably more frequent draws when we remove the less than 100 category)

Ghostmaker, I think you are misreading the evidence. I would bet that the majority of the WTA draws are NOT on stalemate lines.