yeah, that was just the way i was interpreting your statement.

I like it, except in that weird meta-gamey way. But it would work or a non-ranked variant.

Well as interesting or dull and silly as your suggestions of some wacky points currency trading within games might be, it's an irrelevancy in this discussion, except for illustrating the value in having options in scoring systems for players to choose from

This threads about discussing a way of keeping one non wta scoring system

WTA and PPSC are different games. The incentives are completely different. PPSC games are *not* Diplomacy.

This site is dedicated to being the best Diplomacy web site.

Therefore, PPSC has no reason to exist here.

At this point eight SoS startup games I've either set up or joined have failed to get seven players, plus another four games are set up and waiting for entrants
Something alledgedly so popular seems to have a lot of reluctant / shy supporters

I disagree with the view that only wta is the only "true" form of diplomacy.
We have variant games
I reject your "cultural imperialism" and this narrow orthodoxy on scoring systems

I.like to be able to reward a loyal ally with something better than just another backstab when I win

This "loyal ally" stuff is a distraction. PPSC should stay _as_an_OPTION_ because some people clearly want it to stay. People who don't want to play it don't have to.

"Loyal ally" is not a distraction. It is the totality of the argument to keep PPSC.

This is the "diplomacy" necessary in a "loyal ally" game:

Player A to Player B: Will you be my "loyal ally"? Y/N?
If Y, then A = Win, B = Lose but gains points.
If N, then repeat for players C thru G until "Y".

That is *NOT* a game of Diplomacy. As I said above, they are different games entirely. This site is dedicated to Diplomacy, so PPSC should be banned forevermore.

Jeff Kuta, you don't get to define that Diplomacy is for anyone but yourself. In my experience, for most people, "defeated" = "lose. "survive" != "lose". PPSC allowed those who come second to score points, which is totally reasonable. If you don't like PPSC games and like every game to be a draw instead of a solo, don't play PPSC.

@ATC: Most players have little/no interest in the forums. When you "asked about whether it would be well received in several threads where scoring systems were discussed over the past year", I never noticed. I just checked about 20 players I'm currently in games with and only one has more forums posts than me. The majority of profiles say "Forum posts: 0". It's fair to guess that none of them noticed either.

A reasonable conclusion is that your prior discussions may have been noticed by somewhere around 5% of the users. To extrapolate that what that proportion of the user base like is the same as what the other 95% like without ever asking is intriguing.

PPSC isn't the best system. I will admit that it has problems with people throwing solos, and that WTA games have less of that. However, that doesn't mean that PPSC games are only that. There are very good stop-the-leader alliances that form in PPSC as well. People playing PPSC still regard Survival as losing, and draws as preferable to that.
I like PPSC because it awards people for their play in the game, whether they outright won or not. I believe that players should be awarded for strong seconds.

Also, I do not believe the "it's still available over on vDip" argument necessarily holds up. Do you really want to drive people away from this site? You want to encourage players to leave? Also, vDip has a much smaller player-base, which makes it quite difficult to actually begin any games. I've been trying for close to a month to start a Fleet Rome game, but haven't found enough players.

PPSC could use some changes to improve it. Perhaps giving a higher ratio of the winnings to the soloer, and the survivors getting points closer to a draw would solve some problems. It should not be simply banned, just because some players believe it is against the spirit of the game. Enough people have spoken out in favour of keeping PPSC that I don't believe it being disabled is warranted.

"Enough people have spoken out in favour of keeping PPSC that I don't believe it being disabled is warranted."

I'd like to repeat what I said earlier. Before we decide whether to make the removal of PPSC permanent, we should know how many people would mourn its absence. Players who join the site after today won't notice, players who only play rarely probably won't care, the group we're after are the "regulars" like Peregrine Falcon, Kremmen, jamiet and Major Mitchell who enjoy playing PPSC as an alternative (I'm intentionally not saying "variant") way of playing Diplomacy.

So, dear mods, please investigate how many people would prefer to play PPSC over Draw-size or sum-of-squares before deciding whether to remove it permanently or bring it back.

I still would like PPSC as an option...

@MajorMitchell--"I.like to be able to reward a loyal ally with something better than just another backstab when I win"

Yeah, here's the thing. In a lot of games, if you didn't have that option, *you wouldn't win*. Without that option, it gets harder to maintain alliances as you get bigger due to the solo threat--which is *as it should be*, in order to allow for dynamic gameplay. With that option, on the other hand, the bigger you get, the more incentive smaller countries have to attach themselves to you in hope of gaining centers, regardless of your solo threat--or, alternatively, to stab for centers while giving you the solo. There is no reason for you to ever be uneasy about your alliances as long as you're the biggest bully on the board, which is exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Stale alliance structures and broken feedback loops make PPSC a worse competitive game mode, though perhaps it's fun for casual play.

@Jamiet--"This "loyal ally" stuff is a distraction. PPSC should stay _as_an_OPTION_ because some people clearly want it to stay. People who don't want to play it don't have to."

Well, it was the entirety of MajorMitchell's argument, which is why so many people have spent time shooting it down. But I agree with you that if people like it, if people play it, if it's useful for alternative game modes, that sort of thing, then feel free to keep it around.

I agree with Jamiet. It's not so much about rewarding a loyal ally as rewarding players for good play, and strong seconds

I never make alliance offers at the start of the game of the type described
"Let me win and you'll get a share of the points" type of offers.
I try to make alliances at the start and early stages that are for strategic reasons and so that myself and my ally or allies get through to the "middle" game. It's more about survival at the start.

When I get to the middle of a game then I can see what might be possible, and have a better idea about an ally's performance.

I don't rely on being able to make the reward offer as my only way to get a win either

@Kremmen: I'm not defining Diplomacy. I'm citing the rule book.

@ Jeff Kuta
"Player A to Player B: Will you be my "loyal ally"? Y/N?
If Y, then A = Win, B = Lose but gains points.
If N, then repeat for players C thru G until "Y"."

First of all, you should reread the rulebook. Nowhere in it does it mention points, or highly exaggerated arguments about PPSC. Secondly, the rulebook wasn't designed to deal with large scoring systems. All scoring is secondary and an invention of others.

Peregrine: That's not actually accurate. From the rulebook:

"As soon as one great power controls 18 supply centres, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that great power is the winner."

"However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

This is the definition of WTA/DSS.

This means: PPSC is a variant. SoS is a variant. DSS is described in the rulebook.

This has come up many times in the past - I remember someone once tried to claim that PPSC still followed these rules, because the rules don't mention second places, so including them along with the winner is a "reasonable" interpretation. I think if this were intended in the rules, then they would say so.

Technically, webDip doesn't even implement these rules correctly, because a 0-unit (but positive SC count) power can still share in a draw.

Also of note - the many different ways of determining draws (draw flags, public votes, hidden votes) are not described in the rulebook.

I'm not saying that DSS isn't the rules described in the rulebook. I'm saying it wasn't described to be scored to gain points. Points and scoring are ultimately meta gaming. While they are necessary, scoring in itself is a "variant"
So which variants are acceptable is really the question.
Also, I was poking fun at Jeff saying he was citing the rulebook. :)

What if we made a variant that after the first winner was decided the remaining players (except the initial winner) would then fight to determine a second place. It could be programmed that after the game the person who won is then counted as a CD and the remaining players fight for second. In this way the game would still encourage solo victories but allow for a second winner or even a second round draw. the points could be bet in 2 pots. Pot A is what the first winner wins. Pot B is what the second winner or draw is. For example:

Classic Game , Bet A: 20 Bet B: 10

that means every player would bet 30 . in Spring 1910 England wins after working closely with France. France is in second with 10 centers compared to Turkey's 5 and Russia's 2. England, is adjudicated to be a CD (even though he has won and made off with 140 . the CD would not count against his RR) france, russia, and turkey now fight for Englands abandoned centers and it becomes a race to 18 and a battle for second. while France holds an advantage his success is not guaranteed especially if Russia and turkey work together. After 6 years in 1913 france wins with 18 centers to Turkey's 10 and Russia's 7. The game can now reward them PPSC style with France taking half of the 60 (England is refunded his 10 point wager on the second round because he won round 1) available and russia and turkey splitting the rest accordingly. It may not be easy to program ad code but I think it would be fun and maybe meld the divide.

It could be called Double Round Scoring. DRS

I prefer wta cause I'm a stab-happy asshole

@MajorMitchell--
"I never make alliance offers at the start of the game of the type described
"Let me win and you'll get a share of the points" type of offers [...] When I get to the middle of a game then I can see what might be possible, and have a better idea about an ally's performance."

The mid-game alliance structure is precisely the point we're all talking about, since scoring is pretty much irrelevant to early game.

"I don't rely on being able to make the reward offer as my only way to get a win either"

Your entire argument to this point has been about having that option. If having that option doesn't benefit you, you have no reason to want to keep it. If having that option benefits you, it's at the cost of the inverse relationship between solo threat and the friendliness of other players, which is what limits the ability of countries that get big early to just get what they want by throwing their weight around.

@MajorMitchell: PPSC hypotheticals.

1) Someone who has slightly more SCs than you offers you this deal: He gets the win and you get some points. Do you take the offer?

2) Same situation and you have accepted the offer. Things go badly for your opponent and you end up with more SCs than him. Do you renege on the deal and take the win?

1 it depends on other factors
Eg am I already in alliance with another player,
Which option increases my chances of winning, switching sides or staying in alliance.
What fits best with my strategic plans
If for example I'm already in an alliance with the chap who makes the offer, then what are our relative strengths if he has 14 units and I have 8 to 10 units, and my growth opportunities are limited, then I'd probably accept.

If I'm the stronger partner and have good opportunities to grow then I'd either say no, or be evasive in my answer

2 why did things go badly for the other chap
If the opposition suddenly formed an effective resistance with new opposing alliances, but with my support he'd probably defeat them, well I'd stick with the deal.
He's played badly, what are my opportunities, what's best for my nation, what's the opposition like
If he's played badly, then I'd reconsider the deal, but other factors are important

The guiding principle I use in all decisions is, what is best for the nation I am playing while there is still hope for that nation.

Once the nation I'm playing is most probably stuffed, then I change my goals, to things like how do I punish my principal aggressor, or how do I punish the player who failed to support me against my principal aggressor

Look I understand that lots of players dislike ppsc type scoring and prefer wta.
They're entitled to hold those opinions and to be able to play in games that have a form of winner takes all scoring.

But apparently myself, and other players are not allowed to prefer a form of ppsc scoring, or have the opportunity to play in games with type of ppsc scoring.

There's an inconsistency in that.

There are also other reasons that some players have raised in support of ppsc, eg the strong second finisher, or a strong 2nd and 3rd player in alliance in opposition to the winner

I'd like an alternative to wta, and everyone else gets nothing