I think we can fairly predict that SoS scoring is going to result in even more draw games. It is incentive for ppl in the lead to draw instead of try for a solo.

I'm so sick of games where one or two ppl are eliminated and then everyone draws.

I propose a new scoring system: "Win or nothing: " - if you win, you get all the points. If there is no winner, no one gets any points back.

@ dirge: My (albeit limited) experience so far would support your proposition.

@ Chaqa: I would strongly support that system; in fact I have lobbied for it in the past.

I propose a new option in the games, like no msgs, winner win all, and so...
It´s called "no draw option". It refers to it´s forbidden to draw as far as 4 players, (in classic) have been eliminated. Then, the "draw" box would be opened for the others three players of the game.
It has not sense forbid the draw, because there are games where the stalemate position can´t be broken.
Happy new year!

that exists its called lusthog

Not quite Lusthog, this sounds more like the draw option wouldn't appear until X players had been eliminated.

Lusthog is no drawing allowed till it's stalemated, correct?

Correct.

Here's a thought, offered in the spirit of compromise and problem solving:

Instead of having two scoring options, WTA and SoS, both of which incentivize absurd early draws, why don't we revive PPSC as a non-default option, so people who want to play for wins and scaled scoring can do so. Of course, for this to work we only need to PPSC haters to agree to allow it and agree to refrain from ranting and raving with ad hominin attacks every day on this forum.

I agree with both josemurc and dirge

Gosh. The spirit of compromise, huh? (Also, I'm curious as to how SoS incentivizes absurd draws where PPSC doesn't. WTA, sure, if you get people voting to draw as soon as one person is eliminated.)

@Letho
When a player is in the lead in the SoS scheme, he or she is going to be tempted to draw rather than risk a solo when a draw results in a scaled point return. Is that understandable?

I'll need you to define "in the lead" here in order to identify what the actual unhealthy incentive is.

For example, in WTA, a player profits as soon as at least one other player has been defeated, so a risk-averse bunch of players might persistently play to 6WD and 5WD for certain profit. It takes everyone having that incentive to create the potential for unhealthy behavior.

In SoS, how are you going to create a situation where everyone profits and is incentivized to draw absurdly early? Without the situation also incentivizing a draw under PPSC rules, that is.

. . . conversely, with PPSC, the lead player has little incentive to draw because s/he will get more points by soloing than by drawing.

"in the lead" means the player with more centers than other players.

In *every* scoring system I'm aware of the "player with more centers than other players" will get more points by soloing than by drawing. Please make an argument particular to the difference between PPSC and SoS.

@dirge: so the real problem is players playing for points and not for wins. isn't that exactly why people complain about ppsc?

"no steephie, you will not be paid to code for the site."

Touché, but that was not where I was heading. I would not qualify nor would I be interested anytime soon. Just thought there's other things you can do with donations if the hosting costs are covered for years.

@kasimax People make endgame choices for a zillion reasons - ratings/points outcome is just one of them. Personally, I think the debate is silly - I'm entirely with @Chumbles - the rulebook is extremely clear on what a win and a draw is worth. Anything other than that is a variant.

We can argue *forever* about what variant scoring schemes are better and why, the whole damn argument is boring. If it were up to me I'd just leave PPSC up as an option. If you hate PPSC, *don't play it*. It's not like it's going to be the default ever again - it already hasn't been for some time and nobody had any serious complaints about that.

Agreed thorfi.

@jamiet: I wasn't consulted about this change and don't expect to be. I don't expect the current team to get every decision right, just like I/my team didn't, but I know they're v pragmatic and effective. If they think PPSC should be an option they'll do so, if not it won't be, and they'll make that decision on their own good judgement.


@stephie: As a past freelance coder, current software developer, past webDip developer, person with knowledge of our income/expenses, who has made paid changes to webDip, and who has seen a webDip fork site held to ransom for $20,000 of developer costs: I can safely say that complex changes to the webDip codebase just won't be made by payments from the donor pool.

It takes some time to be able to trust a freelance developer to publish safe/efficient/neat changes to a busy site (when even a dumb change I make can bring it down!), but it takes even more time to become familiar with a complex 40KLOC project like webDip.
Freelance devs advertise that they're familiar with WordPress / Drupal / Oracle eBusiness / whatever, so they can make a change to it right away. Making a change to a unique 40 KLOC codebase like webDip takes a lot of familiarization that excludes quick jobs from freelance workers (unless you pay a huge amount or don't worry about quality, which means instability).

Rather than expecting to pay for freelance developers we should appreciate those who enjoy working on it as a hobby, and encourage others to try.

I concur.

Is it allowed

Whoops.

2 questions: what's a fork site?

Is the income/expenses stuff private? It's more of a curiosity thing and if it were my site, I would probably keep it private, but I'm just wondering.

http://forkswa.com/

A fork site is a dev copy of the website from which new code can be merged into the live site.

Thanks!

Man, this site has gone down hill.

What's bothering you, Al?

Yes, ever since Al Swearengen was un-silenced the site has been a bit more poor for it.

Why is there a page 12 with no posts?