+1 to Valis for the phrase "monotonic gradient". I think I got a chill there.

bump. I figure for a solicitation of thoughts we should get more thoughts on the matter.

A_Tin_Can: As a reminder, I thought that switching the default game type from PPSC to WTA was a bad idea, though I didn't say much because the change was made before consultation.

I don't think that extending PPSC to draws is in the spirit of PPSC. I'd imagine that the main benefits of PPSC (such as encouraging CD takeovers, encouraging users to play on as minor powers and encouraging resistance to solo pushes) would be lost or diminished with such a variant. Notice that the best performing players in PPSC (winners and those who draw with 17 SC's) are unaffected by this proposal since they can never gain more than half the pot. Only players who are not close to 17/18 SC's may see their play affected.

Think of PPSC as a mirror of users' "Game stats". "Defeated" users get no points. Users who have "Won" gain half the pot. Users who have "Drawn" the game split the pot equally by a function of how many players made it into the draw. Users who have "Survived" a solo win split the losers' half of the pot by a function of how many SC's they control. In fact, this pot distribution system is even more accurate than the official "Game stats" in users' Profile pages since the latter do not distinguish between games joined in progress and games played from the beginning. (Granted, no distinction is made between solo wins and 17-17 2-way draws.) WTA scoring is available for users who (1) don't distinguish between survives and defeats and (2) have enough experience/dedication to not need encouragement to resist solo pushes, to keep playing in spite of odds or to avoid CD's. With WTA pot distribution, defeats and survives are merged (users who are defeated/eliminated or who survive a solo push both get no points), while winners are given the whole pot. I can sort of see an argument for merging survives into draws (users who survive similarly split the losers' half of the pot by a function of how many players managed to survive). Such a pot distribution system would be supported by the rules and might even encourage everything PPSC encourages better than it currently does. But your proposal for a pot distribution system where draws are merged into survives (users who have drawn also split the pot by a function of how many SC's they control) doesn't make sense to me. I suggest that this "variant" not be introduced.

If you prefer to take a dogmatic approach and leave the option available to the end user, please consider not listing the option under the "Pot type:" section but rather under a new section of the "Create a new game" page entitled something like 'pot distribution in the event of a draw'. Because really (as you point out) this is a true variant to Diplomacy, not a simple question of rulebook interpretation.

Allan Calhamer, creator of the game, wrote an interesting article about the objectives of the game.

Personally, I dislike PPSC and the "strong second" mentality (maximizing SC count while allowing another player to win) in general.

Here's the article:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm

Whatever you do, I would suggest NOT adding a 3rd type of game. PPSC can switch to this sort of scoring system (or simply a dice roll for all I care) but adding a 3rd type would further fracture the GR lists which is not a good thing, imho.

bump

I've been in PPSC games where one player or another starts off the game saying, "Let's play for a 3-way draw with this other guy."

HATE it. I almost never hear that in WTA.

I think this score system you suggest is more or less what happened on the WebDiplomacy Tournament (where TruNinja fooled us all in playing a PPSC telling us it´s a WTA). And it´s was really painfull, I guess it´s even worse then trully PPSC.

Too lazy to read all the previous comments, but here are mine. I "grew up" in the hobby playing draw-based systems. I vastly prefer center-based systems now because a) they're more fun/fluid to play, and b) I don't believe that reducing the number of players is the best path to a solo. I'll gladly play draw-based systems, however.

PPSC is an abomination. Replacing it with any center- or rank-based system would be a vast improvement to this site.

I admitted to being lazy at the outset. Still, that's no excuse for using vast twice in two paragraphs. Sorry.

I say I say that that is a vast vast problem, JimTheGrey. I for one shan't never never forgive you.

;-)

Err, that said - what do you mean by "centre based system"? As in, points relating to centre count for draws? And what about during a win?

@JimTheGrey:
Please clarify the difference between "draw-based" and "center-based" systems and how they relate to WTA and PPSC. Thanks.

Draw-based = scores at the end of the game are based on the size of the draw.

Center-based = scores at the end of the game are based on the number of supply centers each player holds.

Regardless of whether a system is draw-based or center-based, a soloist takes all the points (WTA). Therefore, PPSC = Horse Shit.

It's not obvious but it's very common to call player-count-based draw systems, "draw-based" draw systems. It's really bad nomenclature but it's also pretty prevelant.

So, if I had absolute power, we would have two scoring systems here: One draw-based and one center-based, and both would be WTA.

Which is what ATC is putting out a Call for Opinions on, with an emphasis on Opinions From Those Who Play Current PPSC

ATC asked me to comment back on the 21st. I finally got around to it today. As I've said, I'm lazy.

I like PPSC more than apparently most. It gives more incentive to play when you're down, and it gives more incentive to cooperate. If you get stabbed or make a misorder early on in WTA, you're dead. But in PPSC you still have a chance to survive. Also, it's harder for alliances to work well in WTA, because the incentive for a late-game stab is much larger. And yes, that's totally part of the game, but I like success-via-cooperation more than success-via-deception. I'll concede that that's totally my subjective personal preference, but I think that's still worth something.

Helllllll no on both counts.

Teaming up with someone to kick ass is, admittedly, fun.

"If you get stabbed or make a misorder early on in WTA, you're dead. But in PPSC you still have a chance to survive. Also, it's harder for alliances to work well in WTA, because the incentive for a late-game stab is much larger."

The game is called "Diplomacy", not "Alliances."

@Jeff; yes, but the concept of Diplomacy does involve alliances.

I guess this is all coming down to the fact that, in a way, I'm less cynical that most of you. (Although in other ways I'm probably among the most cynical.) I like to think that the world's problems can be solved by working together, and like when the game reflects that. But then again, that's just psychological analysis.

Alternate theory: it's not that I'm less cynical, it's that I have an urge to be a dictator--a mostly-benign dictator, but a dictator nonetheless--and thus want it to be more realistic; as in, where multilateral solutions are best. Again, that's just a psychological theory as well.

My opinion is how it is on the matter, regardless of how it was formed. I respect other people's opinions, but I don't see that my opinion is likely to change.

Alternate theory: You just aren't playing the game with the right mindset. If you start the game from turn 1 thinking, "Who can I get into an alliance with so I can draw?" you are playing the game wrong.

The goal of the game is to WIN. If that concept isn't first and foremost in your mind, you are a patsy for the other players, not a diplomat representing a great power.

What gives you the impression that one mindset is more 'right' than others?

orathaic
The Rules?
The Word of the Author?
Common sense?
9th grade philosophy not being applied everywhere and anywhere?

I agree one should be in it to win it, and that WTA is much better than PPSC (I believe points should be abolished, myself) but isn't the fact that seven people could come in with seven different goals what makes the game interesting?

The fact that seven people could come in with seven different goals (or seven different approaches to the same or similar goals) is one of my favorite aspects of the game.