I like this idea.

Do you mean that this would allow games that already have a clear ending to end sooner, instead of drawing out killing those 2 center powers?

Eh, maybe. It would make 5-6 way draws not look too bad.

But you may as well be playing PPSC then.

What if PPSC draws work like this, but WTA draws divide evenly? That position I think is defensible.

I'd definitely be against a system where a draw wasn't a draw, but I don't see an issue with a [concede] option.

I agree with Figle. A draw is a draw. If you don't have yourself in a position that is vital and the others can eat you up without risking the line, you deserve to be eaten up.

I also agree with Figle. Winner-Take-All was designed to more closely model the official rules, which state that Draws Include All Survivors. That's why I suggested that WTA draws remain draws, but if you want to include this as an option maybe it's good for draws in PPSC.

But the idea of "by centers" in PPSC is just going to encourage eating even more of the little guys up to get more SCs when the draw happens.

Let's say you are at a 12-10-9-3 stalemate, but 12 or 10 can eat some of 3's 3 SCs to get more for themselves. They may not choose to consume all of him, but they will leave him with 1 SC to each get another one before drawing maybe.

The rulebook says everyone in the draw is an equal, doesn't it? I'd tend to stick with the spirit of the original game. Plus, I feel if one person gets to 17 and there are four people that force a draw, that the one on 17 played poorly to not get the solo and the person with a single unit really maximized their outcome and played well. If we're going to skew the point distribution, I say the person with more units gets fewer points/GR!! :-P

You are actually proposing a system that would make MORE draws with MORE PLAYERS per draw?!???1 GIVE ME A BREAK! I would rather lose a game tham agree to some damned 5 player draw! Give me a break! If we can't knock out at least half the players in a game, then what is the f*ing point of playing!?>!??!

"If we're going to skew the point distribution, I say the person with more units gets fewer points/GR!! :-P "
There is a proposal in the dev forum that looked interesting... In games that are won, the winner still ends up with roughly half the pot but the remaining points are weighted more heavily toward the smaller powers to reward the little guy who stuck in there and punish the big guy who was probably too busy beating up on the little guy to stop the solo. So in an 18-15-1 situation, the game between the 18 and the 15 is significantly larger than in a 17-14-3.

*game = margin. What a bizarre typo.

Deep breaths Krellin :)

Dislike. The idea is that if you can stay in and force your way into the draw, even with one center, then that is a skill in itself, which is out on equal footing with the giants who could not dislodge you.

That's been a fact of the game since a before we were born. (Well since before *I* was born anyway I don't know your age ivo).

So no I dislike it, for the mere fact that I don't want to be compelled to play that way ever. And though I *know* it would optional, it would irk me to have a player I'd love to play with stipulate that he'll only play that version.


A draw is a draw is a draw. Doesn't matter how you got there, you participated in the draw. There was no winner, only draw-ers.

And besides isn't this just pretty much a slightly different version of PPSC? Just play those if it bugs you.

"And though I *know* it would optional, it would irk me to have a player I'd love to play with stipulate that he'll only play that version."

This quote made me smile.

lol why

Thanks for the feedback. Krellin, fick off :P

Some clarifications:
1. The system I propose would give credit to the little guy. My suggestion was 1/7 + ... This is not a bad result for a single center survivor.
2. I don't care about scoring systems, my goal is to improve player behavior. Cases when you hold the line to stop someone from winning, then he retreats and you get killed. I know it goes against many old rules, but so what. Check around. This is an open issue everywhere. You have all kinds of sites and tournaments employing all kinds of systems.
3. I refuse to admit I'm dumber, by definition, that whoever wrote the rules, and don't believe thinking about improvements is blasphemy :)

I still think it's a valid idea.

I think I didn't explain well what I mean by "option". I mean having another button, between Draw and Cancel. If you don't like it, don't use it. My question is, have you had games where you would have used it. I have, a lot. I would expect other people to have similar experiences?

What if there's a seven-player draw -- say, six countries all end up on one side of the stalemate line, with the lone 17-center power on the other side? Extremely unlikely, I know, but then 1/7 goes to everyone and the 17-center power gets nothing extra. How about a Congressional pot -- it's split in half, all survivors get equal representation in one half and representation based on SC count in the other half. Lower-center powers will end up with a higher total than being eliminated, perhaps even making up their bet, and higher-center powers will get more than an even split of the whole thing. Call the button "Congress."

Ivo,

I could see this causing a lot more harm than good. If this were a button (and not agreed as the method of drawing of that game) then I could see a lot of arguments arising. A 4 center power would want to be part of an even draw and everyone else would want him to be part of an Ivo draw.

Plus, this seems as though it would only affect points, which a lot of people don't care about. For those that do care about points, this gives them even more to think about outside the game.

I'm not saying that we should think of other ways to do things, but, to me at least, I feel like a draw is a draw.

I haven't. I think the idea of cutting people out of the draw intentionally is perfectly valid, and indeed, to be encouraged.

You should get as close to winning as you can, and having fewer foes on the board counts in that regard.

Thus:

1. Win
2. 2-way draw
3. 3-way draw
4. 4-way draw
5. 5-way draw
6. 6-way draw
7. 7-way draw
8. Survival with a winner other than yourself
9. Defeat but a defeat which punishes he who defeated you
10. Straight-up elimination
11. Civil disorder.

That is the order of desirability for any player, in a WTA game at least. Anything that would change that... would be contrary to the game's spirit as I conceive of it, and that's why I'm against it. I'm not going to say *you're wrong*.... I just don't support what you suggesting.

The above is also why I usually attempt to avoid PPSC games, though I know that there is a whole school of thought which supports this style of play "strong second."

I just think it's tripe. Lol.

I don't care so much about the math, the important thing is to eliminate/reduce the motivation for killing off people once it's clear it's a draw.

But, won't this also cause a lot of people to give up too soon? I've seen a lot of very interesting late-end-game turn of events, which I feel this would eliminate.

Thucy, I get your point. I somehow agree with it, but I'd like to have the option to be not so brutal from time to time. The current system penalizes such behavior.

I'm not arguing you are not correct, I just want an alternative option. Do you really see any harm in it? Maybe it will turn out it's the way people prefer, who knows.

I suppose the real question is: How often has anyone said, "I wouldn't mind drawing now, but I really want those couple extra points."?

Some more explanations why I think the limitations of the current draw system may lead to negative behavior in certain situations:

With time people realize through experience that, as a strategy, it makes sense to play game for good draws (3-4 way). If you have a good start to a game, agree to map-wide alliance with a couple of the other big guys, and then kill the rest. Safe and effective. Going for a solo, the other alternative, doesn't really work with good players that often. Chances are, it may lead to a massive draw. So, one may give it a shot, but once there's some alignment among the others, the right thing to do would be to just settle for the best draw. Maximizing the outcome. All this will lead to is us killing each-other more often. More 3-ways than 5-ways. Nothing more. I'd say our points/GR won't differ much, if at all.

@Thucy
You gave a list:
1. Win
2. 2-way draw
3. 3-way draw
4. 4-way draw
5. 5-way draw
6. 6-way draw
7. 7-way draw
8. Survival with a winner other than yourself
9. Defeat but a defeat which punishes he who defeated you

I see one major flaw in with this system - win and 2-way are rather close, compared to 2-way and 7-way. Same at the bottom. 2-way or 7-way, a draw is still a draw. You don't lose, but you don't win. Once you know you won't win does it really make such a difference how many people you kill? Is this what we want to encourage? I am quite sure this was not what the game creators had in mind :)

Ivo -- "...my goal is to improve player behavior..." "...the important thing is to eliminate/reduce the motivation for killing off people once it's clear it's a draw..." You DO realize this game is the simulation if a WAR. In other words...uh...the weak DIE. This idea that you play three turns and then come so some happy new balance and call a draw without killing people off is **completely** antithetical to the concept of the game! The purpose of the game *is to win!!!* THAT is why there are **victory conditions**!

Damn....insane feel-good liberalism has wormed it's way into Diplomacy. How pathetic...