If it doesnt spoil any of your plans ATC give me an example of a Scoring system you could envision one day, possibly coming to the site. Ill make a 4 letter for it to show how it can be used.

I think I alluded to this in the other thread, but if Valis' tournament is well-received, adding Carnage would be something we'd consider.

Broadly, there are three kinds of Diplomacy scoring system:

Draw-based
Centre-based
Rank-based

In draw based, the number of participants in the draw determines your score.

In centres-based, the number of centres you have in the draw determines your score.

In rank-based, the size of your country (and then the order of elimination) determines your score in a draw.

We currently only have a draw-based and a centre-based system.

(Carnage is rank-based, for those following at home)

Carnage scoring:

Each game is worth 28,034 pts. If you solo, you get them all.
If the game ends in a draw, then the players are ranked by center count, through order of elimination, as necessary. If you top the board, you get 7,000 pts. Second highest center count gets 6,000 pts. Down to 1,000 pts for the lowest center count or the first person eliminated.

In addition, each player gets 1 pts per supply center at the end of the game. These points essentially act as a tiebreaker. So, if you top with 10 centers, that's worth 7,010 pts. Finally, if two players share a rank, they split the points for those two positions. If two guys top the board with 10 centers each, they each score 6,510 pts.

Here are 3 examples of scoring:
[Power: SC, pts]
Russia: 18; 28,034
Turkey: 3; 0
France: 6; 0
Germany: 4; 0
England: 3; 0
Italy: 0(2nd); 0
Austria: 0(1st); 0

[Power: SC, pts]
Russia: 14; 7014
Turkey: 7; 6007
France: 6; 5006
Germany: 4; 4004
England: 3; 3003
Italy: 0(2nd); 2000
Austria: 0(1st); 1000

[Power: SC, pts]
England: 8; 6508
Russia: 8; 6508
France: 7; 5007
Turkey: 6; 4006
Italy: 4; 3004
Austria: 1; 2001
Germany: 0; 1000

To recap: The scoring has a pure WINNER TAKES ALL part. It then rewards you for what rank you are, with the exact amount of SC only mattering for tie breakers. The over-arching idea is that there is little to no reason to just keep bashing on someone who's already down while naturally rewarding being in the lead and being a higher SC count than others. It should not result in any unnatural play, certainly not more than any other scoring system out there. With only three rounds that means a solo automatically beats any combination of non-soloing scores (maximal non-solo score for a single round is obviously 7017 pts, even if you got that all three rounds you would still be far behind a single solo).

Have some fun with showing off your INCREDIBLE acronym-building skizziles CB!
http://www.diplomaticcorps.org/Scoring/scoring.html

http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com/php/scoring/scoring.php

hmmmm. if I were to give a 4 letter for carnage it would be TVRD Total Victory Ranked Draw; however next to the name I would put "Commonly Referred to as 'Carnage" So including Carnage the system would be:

TVED (Formerly Known as WTA/DSS)
SoS (input math BS here)
PVED (Formerly Known as PPSC/SwS)
TVRD (Commonly Known as 'Carnage')

this would be new player friendly while not discouraging the veteran players.

if we add more ranked games we can (I do not know how many variant systems you intend) always add the first letter of the known name. Example: Carnage= TVRDc

(side note carnage looks interesting I am curious how it would work with our diplomacy points and ability to select the wager)

What systems and names do other sites like playdip use?

I just think that a big part of this site is people who have never played diplomacy before. Those veterans who have will understand (or atleast should) that the scoring systems need some type of simplicity for someone learning the game. If we make up acronym names for well know systems we aren't hurting anyone just helping every new player who is introduced to diplomacy through our site. we want to be the best place for classic diplomacy... well that includes both new players and veterans; casual players and competitive players. There is always a compromise, always a way around the obstacles if people are willing to work toward it. I am no optimist but realistically if we stepped back as a community to give legitimate ideas and spitball like i'm doing here we might find a better name for PPSC/SwS/Dss/WTA whatever we call them; and we might make the mods jobs a little easier by giving them positive feedback and suggestions they can work with. if we just sit back and not think about compromising we lose players. I may not enjoy PPSC as much as others or really at all. but I enjoy having the ability to get 7 people together for a game..... I don't want to be vDip. wow that rant is done...

We can start helping new folk get acclimated to the hobby by using well known, well understood, sensical acronyms or short names ("Carnage" is not too long) rather than cramming everything into asinine 4-letter acronyms that all look the same and have no historic or context specific naming that are only used here.

My two cents.

PlayDiplomacy only has WTA.

See thats constructive. I actually appreciate that feedback. I see that point; I guess I am thinking more along the lines that new players are "alone" because in theory they are. Unless they are comfortable using the forum or messaging a moderator. Having acronyms as a back up/ secondary to the primary names would net out some of the confused new players who are not comfortable asking for help.

CB: I think whatever we call the systems will be new to new players. So I think naming them something different to what they're called in the wider community is counter-productive.

I think the new player experience is more about clear communication than renaming systems (unless, like PPSC, the name is inherently misleading). For example:

DSS (Goal: Cause other players to be eliminated)
SoS (Goal: Collect a lot of supply centres)
Carnage (Goal: Have more centres than everyone else)

"We can start helping new folk get acclimated to the hobby by using well known, well understood, sensical acronyms or short names ("Carnage" is not too long) rather than cramming everything into asinine 4-letter acronyms that all look the same and have no historic or context specific naming that are only used here."

Well said, Valis!

And in that spirit, all in favour of renaming PPSC as the Valisian system in a gesture of respect say aye! ;)

The last thing a new player needs is a stupid acronym that makes them think they know exactly how things work. Obscure names make them figure out what is going on. It makes them ask questions either to themselves or others that hopefully give decent answers. That's what a new player needs.

Can we please go one scoring system thread without someone calling another member's suggestion stupid? It's just not necessary.

Can we please go one scoring system thread without someone making a stupid suggestion? It's just not necessary.

....

If we eventually go towards four scoring systems (WTA/DSS, SoS, Carnage and unranked), we can call them draw-based, rank-based, center-based and unrated.

Equal Points for Draws, Winner Takes All in the Even of a Solo (EPDWTAES)
Equal Points for Draws, Points Divide Up By How Many SC You Have (EPDPDUBHMSYH)
Sum of Squares (SoS)

Valis2501: Unintelligent me will respond to your reply in a new thread so as not to clutter this nomenclature discussion with your and others' senseless attacks.

"Can we please go one scoring system thread without someone making a stupid suggestion? It's just not necessary."

Your inability and unwillingness to consider other members suggestions just makes you stupid, not them. The stupidest thing I see in this thread is you trolling a mod who is asking people to be more respectful.

I wonder if the attitude of people like Bo and Valis directly or indirectly encourages new players to avoid the forum. I know if I was a new player and on the fence about forum participation I would find strong offense to their language and the language of others. Maybe a moderator could look into this.

Id be in favor of naming it WGAF too. has a nice ring to it.

If that's so, maybe we should rename "Unranked" to "ZFG"

"Won't Give A Fuck"

Hmmm.

FWIW I doubt Valis *didn't consider* the name suggestions, but he considered them very unfavorably and expressed that very abrasively.

The strangeness of having this as a separate thread isn't helping. Naming is both contingent on and relevant to the discussion of whether to keep PPSC.

At any rate, I agree with, uh, someone (bo?) that having the most informative acronym isn't as useful as having the most commonly used acronym with accessible scoring descriptions.