I want self interest meaning I can go for a win, with the ability to reward loyalty.

I'm quite happy that there should be winner takes all, in both the new forms of scoring, so that players who prefer that choice have the ability to set up or join games with that scoring system.

I'm simply supporting the retention of an alternative to be there for players who prefer that option.

So I'm not trying to deny you the choice you prefer, but you're trying to deny me the choice I prefer.

Although I can see myself starting to play this new non rated type of game as a very poor substitute for the old ppsc

Plus I like to occasionally mentor an inexperienced player, and there's a vicarious thrill in guiding a new, inexperienced player to their first win.

I could do that and still get some useful points playing ppsc

So taking away ppsc is a discouragement from doing that as well

Plus I am quite happy for the old ppsc system to be tweaked / improved.

I am not happy with the only scoring systems to be forms of winner takes all.
It's called Diplomacy because you should not be able to win without the support of an ally, or allies, hence the need to persuade other players to act in a form of common interest by diplomatic means.

Now I'm happy for there to be forms of wta scoring systems that cater for players with different views than mine, so i am not denying them what they want.

But it seems that there's a view that says not only do we want what we prefer, but we also want to deny others the alternative they prefer
That's called totalitarianism

While I like the new additions, I believe that PPSC/SWS should not be banned. I don't see why it should not be an option for players. It should obviously still not be the default, but I see no reason why to completely bar players from using it still. At least for now, while we're getting used to the new systems.

It might be more appropriate for me to start a thread to discuss this issue so that this thread can concentrate on the new scoring systems.
I support most of the new changes to the scoring systems.
But I'd like to see the old ppsc retained in some form

JtG, is the system you've generally used in FtF? I don't think encouraging divide and conquer tactics is a bad thing at all. It's actually very interesting and just takes a shift in strategy.

I just thought it was an interesting new dynamic to point out. It's not as simple as maximizing your centre count. Things are a bit more complicated.

Is there a reason why it is sum of squares and not just directly proportional to centre count?

Cool update. I'll weigh in more later on. For now, back to volcanoes.

@Yonni

The reasoning behind Sum of Squares is that getting more centers is increasingly harder to do.

Really fantastic to see the continued updates and improvements to an already excellent site.

If it's a vote, I favor making ranked games and WTA/DSS as the default game settings. This seems the closest to the spirit of the game to me.

Abg, I guess that's obvious. Still, the decision that 10 centres is 4 times as impressive as a 5 centres rather than 2 time seems like a sort of random distinction to make.

I think that the free takeover and the new pointing system are great innovations, and might help to finish games in a better way. Sometimes you are playing a live game, and someone who knows that there is going to be a solo, starts doing silly things to finish the game and it gets ruined.

@Yonni

I'm inclined to agree with you. However, Sum of Squares is probably the most well-regarded system in the Diplomacy hobby. Somewhere there is a paper that defends it very well. I can't seem to find it atm though.

I mean it makes sense that getting a certain number of centers gets more difficult at an exponential ratell rather than linear. Of course I would need to see data to figure out exactly how accurate using sum of squares is.

Ah, I guess that's the explanation I was looking for. If it's to get in line with the hobby as a whole, then I think it's a pretty good idea. Online and FtF are definitely different beasts and somewhat different communities but anything we can do to bridge the gap is a good thing, imho.

We all need to sharpen up before Chicago next year.

Yonni, our club has been using Sum of Squares for the past five years, but I've played draw-based, center-based and rank-based systems over the years, both face to face and online. I grew up in the draw-based postal hobby, so center-based scoring seemed unnatural to me when I first encountered it in FtF tournaments. I still like playing draw-based games now, but I much prefer center- and rank-based scoring.

And speaking of Chicago, June 24-26 at Roosevelt University downtown. Website is here: windycityweasels.org/wdc2016

Scoring systems are a necessary evil for competitive play. It seems fruitless to debate which system is best. They're all bullshit because they reject the rule book, but you need them to evaluate performance. Rule book victories are so rare. Know how the game you're playing will be evaluated, and play accordingly.

I'm looking forward to playing some Sum of Squares games on the site, and I'm glad that the webDip leadership decided to give players here an opportunity to practice the system in advance of next summer's world championship in Chicago.

As for PPSC (SWS now?), talking an ally into giving you a solo so that your alliance can "share in the victory" is a skill. A scoring system that rewards a player for throwing a solo is an abomination.

Isn't that why there should be choices
Thankfully there is one alternative to wta games, that is unranked / unscored games.not a very good alternative, as it's really there for other purposes, but it's at least a way I can play that although being subjected to wta rules, because it's not scored they are innefective.

I've started a separate thread and encourage anyone with a view on this topic to post there, my many critics as well as the odd person who may have views similar to mine

My apology for being late to this thread as I was and still am traveling this morning. Thanks much to ATC and the mod team and developers for working on site improvement. Their work makes the site better and gives us all more options to play.

Thanks and merry xmas.

I agree with Chumbles. I haven't read past the first page. Although I think SWS could be an option to allow Tournaments to work smoother. Positioning yourself to be a vital player in a draw even with just a few SCs can be very difficult.

I didn't have a problem too much with PPSC to bring in new players, but I do prefer WTA/DSS, so thank you for keeping that as an option.

Cheers to ATC and the Gang!

"Kremmen raises an interesting point. I suspect many players brand new to the site may also see takeovers as a way of seeing how the game works without dedicating much time to it."

Can't read all the comments - but this makes me think of a feature, having a 'trial' / newbie friendly game/games - advertised like live games are. Something similar to SOW but with less commitment and effort.

Small test games with one or two moderators, teaching 'new players'. Make them all unranked, minimal time investment. I imagine that implementing Jdip on the site would be more work... So just thinking of the simplest solution for giving new players a place to 'test' out how the game works.

Also, feeling really good about the direction the site is going.

Thanks for all the work from mods, admins, and devs!

I've noticed a couple bugs. I'm sure you've seen them too, but I haven't seen any mention of them yet.
For starters, rather than joining CD positions for free, now it's actually impossible. When looking at a game with a CD position, there's no option to takeover a country. An extension of that is that the 'Joinable' games tab is completely empty, since it's no longer possible to actually join CD'ed games.
Another bug is that in the countries list of a SWS game, each country is worth the same amount now. I know this was purposeful for DSS games, but it is also affecting SWS games, which doesn't make sense. It should still rate how much a power is worth in case of a solo.

"Another bug is that in the countries list of a SWS game, each country is worth the same amount now. "

This is correct. The "worth" indicator shows how much the position is worth in a draw.

"For starters, rather than joining CD positions for free, now it's actually impossible."

This is unexpected. It was working earlier - I'm not sure what's changed. I'll look into it.

"This is correct. The "worth" indicator shows how much the position is worth in a draw."
In the opening post, I read that as only for DSS games. For SWS games, it's not very useful to show what a player would get in a draw instead of their true worth. Even for DSS games it's not very useful to show what they're worth in a draw.

It's to keep it consistent across games. An earlier draft had the "worth" indicator showing both the draw and the win score (separately) for SWS. Since we're phasing out SWS, I figured it wasn't necessary. Maybe it is?

I've fixed the other bug - it was to do with games with missing positions where the game had progressed (or a user had been banned). The games list should repopulate as games process. The mod team have the tools to reset the entrance bet on any games where anyone wants to join before that happens.

Thanks for the report! Much appreciated.