whether or not PPSC is kept, i think we should be able to play 'unranked' games with no points whatsoever. keep the points system, but when your making a new game you should be able to choose whether or not points are being bet.

@Chrispminis - dude, the 'hybrid' scenario suggested in the beginning incorporates a huge PPSC element. Mine suggestion does not have a PPSC element.

So, if you prefer WTA I simply don't get what you're arguing about :)

As far as the numbers - clearly I am not defending 66,7% or any other specific number - the idea was to make the differences between the outcomes bigger than they are now. 2/3 and 1/14 seemed like a natural choice.

I am not going to argue with anyone who thinks that a SURVIVAL should be treated the same as ELIMINATION - if you fail to realize there should be a difference, so that people have some motivation to play to the end there's nothing more for me to add.

Hopefully, in the end this issue will be decided by people who are interested to have a system that makes sense - and not arguing for the sake of it and to prove that 'theirs is bigger' :)

@ ivo - You are mistaken good sir. The board game, as played over 60 years, has rewarded draws and considered solo's to be quite rare. as for my own decisions - I do only play WTA here... I dont join ppsc, and I'm through trying to convince people like you to change your mind - but I will continue to share my thoughts whenever I feel like it (as you will and should) so that new players are exposed to the 'real' diplomacy and realize that the ppsc games they are playing is a mutated version of the game.

@ Chris - thx - and great points

@ ukla - well put I enjoyed reading your post.

overall - my one hope is that people who are being introduced to 'Diplomacy' via this site learn/realize that the PPSC system is a variant and not the 'real' game.

but whatever floats your boat.

@Babak - what are you talking about. I suggested two things:

1. That a WIN always brings the same amount of points - regadless if it is it single-person, or a team win (e.g. DRAW). Because the current system gives 100% of the pot for a draw and 53% of the pot for a single-person win. Do you have a problem with this?

2. That survivals bring a limited return - so you're always on a loss (my specifi suggestion was 50% of your investment - or 1/14) - and that we don't count centers. Do you have a problem with this?

I actually never understood what you're arguing about? Especially if you claim that you hate PPSC so much?

What are you trying to change my mind to - you want me to endorse a PPSC-based system?!?!?

I think I've hijacked this thread - sorry about that - moving on...

omgnso - they do, so what's the issue?

I have been mentioned as not having a problem with PPSC... true and misunderstood at the same time.

Here are the Basics:
1. We purpose in playing a *THE game to have fun and make it fun for others
2. The object in the play is to achieve recognition of achievement by your peers

The wonderful thing I like about Diplomacy is that there is no consensus on what the details of that achievement is.

There are numerous scoring/achievement philosophies and players can have fun with all of them or with the ones they want. I believe strongly that there should be multiple scales of achievement so that people can do what they get kicks and chuckles on.

ALL systems have negatives in their impact on play as long as the concept of the system is to force into that game. This is truly metagaming at its worst because you are not even dealing with an individual you are dealing with a virtual construct that is interfering with your game.

I like to tweak the noses of scoring systems and their more serious grim advocates. For example in the Draws Include All Survivors (DIAS) equally which exists here, I purposely took a course of action in the intense game:
Dinner with the Borgias to have a three way draw while 2 non drawing players were still alive in direct contradiction of the WTA/PPSC concepts here. I have had a 7 way draw in a tournament just for the heck of it, and refused to take a solo win because it was more fun to force a draw than win.

If you are going to be in the hobby for the long haul, then you have to come to terms with your own desires in the game and not allow others to dictate what you should be doing. Otherwise you will simply burn out after a few years and leave nothing of value in your fading wake or take anything of value with you when you leave.

So let there be more different systems out there and different lists and rankings and let the fun part of the debate continue.

"We purpose"= The purpose

How about we get a preview button for your posts.

>>Edi
Thank you for your input - I think everyone was interested to hear it.

>>Ivo
This is my thread, and I hereby give you permission to hijack it. I think your system makes the most sense of all propose so far, although I do like babak's idea that a SURVIVAL is the same as ELIMINATION

>>babak
I agree with you on all points, I think

@OMGNSO, that's exactly the system we have right now.

"@Chrispminis - dude, the 'hybrid' scenario suggested in the beginning incorporates a huge PPSC element. Mine suggestion does not have a PPSC element.

So, if you prefer WTA I simply don't get what you're arguing about :)"

I don't like the hybrid suggestion, I don't know why you brought that into the equation... I'm talking about your suggestion. I'm not even arguing against PPSC... I'm arguing against your proposal and I'm defending WTA against your criticisms. You said:
"1. PPSC and WTA are both bad."
"This is a problem with WTA games"
"if you want to know what the situation will be like if we only had WTA then look at the League/GFDT games - 70% draws"

You clearly think your system is even better than WTA, and I'm arguing that no it isn't. WTA is better than your system.

The incentive to continue playing as a minor player doesn't come from a survival reward over elimination... it comes from the minor player colluding to force a draw. If you really think that survival and elimination should be treated differently, then why do you even have a problem with PPSC. That's precisely what PPSC does... What's the advantage of your system...? It just seems like a more arbitrary version of the hybrid already proposed except it doesn't differ between a 1 SC survival and a 16 SC survival.

I'm not saying you're defending specific numbers, I'm saying that the fact that these numbers seemed like a natural choice is no justification for them.

I'm not arguing that WTA is the superior system out of any self interest or because it would make me look better. Look at my record... I'd be doing far better if I got something for survivals. I'm doing it because I truly believe that WTA is the way to play the game, and I haven't heard an alternative solution that I believe captures the same values and efficiency.

@Chrispminis - dude, you're really starting to make it hard for me to respond in a reasonable manner to your posts. Please, read the following and think about it for a second:

WTA gives 100% of the pot for a joint win (e.g. DRAW) and 53% for a solo win.

If you think this is the right way to do it and that WTA is "the way to play the game" then, obviously, you also think that getting a 2-way DRAW should bring the same reward as a win - which, in turn, means it makes no sense whatsoever for me to discuss this issue with you.
The situation with SURVIVAL vs. ELIMINATION is the same.

Why don't you simply make a suggestion to have only 2 outcomes - WIN and LOSE - clearly we don't need to have the four we have now as they are all the same for you...

xgong...if you are going to post in the forum why cant you enter orders in our game?? abandoning a game is poor form, sorry to hijack thread.

Whoa, this has gotten ca-razy. I'll try to promote my system while addressing Ivo's concerns.

First of all, I *strongly* disagree that a draw is a win. It is the second best result, behind win. But it is also better than a survival. Under PPSC second place has an incentive to attack third place to maximise points while first place wins. Under hybrid or WTA the incentive is to force a draw. Under those systems, the leader also has a very strong incentive to push the extra mile for 18, rather than accepting 17. I think we all agree on that? These are good things, right?

WTA admittedly has these good incentives in abundance, and they are even stronger. So why isn't WTA as popular as PPSC? Because of the element of FRUSTRATION. Nobody likes to come away with zero after putting alot of effort into a game. Players need to rewarded for playing a game out, even after it looks like they might lose. The game isn't fun for even a winner unless some serious resistance is put up. PPSC has those rewards in abundance.

So why should you vote HYBRID? Because you get all the incentive benefits of WTA without all the painful frustration of PPSC. I'm not saying replace the other systems. But allowing someone the option of playing the best of both worlds seems like a no brainer to me.

Also Ivo: "WTA gives 100% of the pot for a joint win (e.g. DRAW) and 53% for a solo win"

Do you mean PPSC? Because WTA means winner takes all, all meaning 100%.

To further hybrid, I think it is best summarised by Winner-Takes-Most. Its like playing the lottery, one guy gets a big payout, but a couple others get minor prizes.

Hmm, you are correct - I totally missed this somehow - my bad - I was clearly being a moron :(

Apologies to Chrispminis

Apology accepted. No worries. Haha, I was really getting confused.

Now to move on to Centurian's hybrid... I don't like the idea, but I don't dislike it as much as I dislike PPSC. I wouldn't have a problem if a hybrid system were given as an option with the game creator deciding how much of a bonus is given to the winner. That said, while it inherits the benefits of both WTA and PPSC, it surely inherits their problems. Depending on how you tip the scaling, the hybrid inherits more of the benefits and problems of one system than the other.

The reason I think WTA is better than a hybrid is similar to why I think WTA is better than PPSC. It's because it can often tip the decision between forming a grand alliance and forcing a draw and becoming a vassal to the dominant player in exchange for survival in the direction of the latter, which I deem to be very undesirable.

I can understand the frustration effect in WTA, but honestly, I think it just makes the solo's that much more precious and makes the competition fiercer. While it may lead to a few sour situations, I think it in general increases the quality of game play. There's an easy way to avoid the full frustration of WTA without giving up it's benefits, and that's to play lower stakes games. Obviously, you'd be giving up the opportunity to win more, but isn't that the same sacrifice you make when you play PPSC or a hybrid? You can risk about the same mitigation of frustration playing one big PPSC game as you can with say, three smaller WTA games, but still with the benefit of WTA play, both versus playing one large WTA game.

The hybrid is an OK idea, and I don't have a problem with an option for it. If you really think some aspect of PPSC gaming will improve WTA then go for it, but I'll be sticking to WTA.

Actually if you look on the thread at the dev forum, you find that my original proposal was exactly what chrisp is suggesting. I had percentage allocations for winning and for surviving and then the rest went to PPSC. But there were concerns that it was too complicated, so I just went for the simplistic version.

Again, I'm more concerned with improving PPSC than improving WTA. If you can handle some WTA, then thats what you'll play, but lots of players intimidated, especially when they aren't at your level Chrisp and think they won't win.

Centurian, I knew that. That's why I brought it up. =)

There is no level at which you cannot play WTA. The risk vs. rewards should be about the same for your skill level as PPSC. It's just that PPSC builds you up slower, but steadier. The same effect can be achieved by playing lower staked WTA.

Maybe, but nobody plays low-stakes WTA. I can only create PPSC, and I haven't seen a WTA I could join since I got to this site.

@ Ukla, the site is biassed against WTA. New players to the site can't create WTA games. That's why there aren't many low-stakes WTA and why you haven't seen one you could join. That's why the culture is overwhelming PPSC. If a new player to the site wants to play WTA they can ask for a more experienced player to create one, if they think to do so, but then there has to be at least one experienced player. The new player is then less likely to win than if they are playing PPSC with a bunch of newbies like themselves.

I don't think that there is much debate over WTA. There is debate over WTA-PPSC hybrid (or other systems) against PPSC.

In a 50-50 hybrid:

There is an incentive to draw over coming second.
There is a big incentive to win over draw.
There is an incentive to continue playing even when doing badly.
There isn't such a violent gradient between loosing and winning.

This makes it, whilst not my preferred system, a good system for new players. That is because it gives you incentives to play as if it was WTA, but doesn't give the CD problems likely with WTA, and so it should replace PPSC as the "newbie option".

I would rather just make WTA available to new players through a points cap on the buy-in.

Well, then, the only real option for a noob (like me) is to PPSC it for awhile to raise my "worth". Is this a bad thing? Honestly, I don't know. I don't feel qualified to answer that question. I have already stated my philosophical views on the game itself, but this is about metagame, and I am inexperienced. In fact, I'm not really sure how good I am at the game itself. Previously, I have been the biggest fish in a small pond, but my new internet exposure may reveal me as a guppy, after all. I know what I'm good at.. personality. In a room with 6 other people, I'm the strongest force. Does this even translate to internet gaming? I have no idea. I guess the next few weeks/months will bear out the truth of my station.
But, just for the sake of argument, someone COULD be a very good player, indeed, who just never bothered to play on an internet format before. I don't think it's fair to limit their experience by assuming that every new player to your site is new to the game. At the same time, I see exactly what you mean about some of the qualities of certain variants and the ability to sub-in for CD countries getting their arses kicked being a detriment to retaining new players who actually ARE new to the game.
As always, in my humble opinion, the answer is not legislation, but education. The obvious problem with my point of view is that this places the burden on the noob to actually want to seek out education instead of just jumping in blindly and getting frustrated and going back to their Guitar Hero World Tour.
As I stated at the top, I do not feel qualified to answer such questions. I specialize in philosophy.. and sub-specialize in asking more questions. :)

Hmm, I'm not really sure, but a few of my thoughts are...
Personally I think that having PPSC default is a good option. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of new members here are new to the game as well, and shouldn't be discouraged by loosing their first few games for no reward. Something that I feel has been missed is the affect of CD. I'm not sure, but I would say that CD causes more problems in a WTA game than in PPSC. If you're off on a race with another player both striving to reach 18 first, and their neighbour goes CD, suddenly all your hard work goes to nothing. However, in PPSC you will be rewarded for the fact that you did keep playing, and you did try to win the game.
Having the WTA limit at 101 means that after 1 reasonable game, a player can start up. Indeed, you could argue that it provides a target to aim for, as WTA is being pushed as the 'true' representation of diplomacy scoring here.
---
The back story to this debate seems to come down to people's priorities again. I think these should be Win,Draw,Survive.
If you can, Win.
If you cannot win, Draw.
If you cannot Draw, survive.
With this in mind I have to admit the hybrid idea does have some benefits to it. I think I'm contradicting something I said before, but having thought it through in more depth I think it would be a good idea to add a WTM (winner takes most) which is scored 75% victor, and the rest split evenly between *other* survivors.

I've just had an idea. Currently we say that newer players (under 100) cannot start a WTA game. Could we make it that players over a certain amount cannot start a PPSC game?

And Ivo, I've been meaning to ask about the point distribution in your proposed system. In the event of a draw, the participants would split 66.7% of the pot, since together they got a WIN. This make perfect sense, but what happens to the other 33.3%?

I think limiting choice is something that we want to avoid.in general.

Figle, Hybrid IS winner-takes-most. Its in effect 75% (+) of the pot goes to the winner. Its only 50-50 because of the calculation. So If I have a pot of 68 points and I win a hybrid game I get half the pot for winning (34) and then the rest is divided up according to SC. Since I also by definition have 18 (or more) i will rake in an additional 18 points from PPSC bring my totaly up to 52 of the 68 point pot.

So the jist seems to be not whether Hybrid is good, but whether it is the best. I think in the basic form it could still be implemented with positive results and all players should be allowed to make one.

As for the 101 points to make WTA, either that should include points invested or it should be based on games played. But thats a side note.

xgong - in my suggestion it does not add up to 100%.

Looking back at the thread:
1. It seems there's a general consensus that when it comes to WINs and DRAWs we should have a WTA-style system. The only question is whether it should be 2/3, 3/4, or 100% of the pot - which is not really that critical.

2. The main open issue is what to do with SURVIVALS and ELIMINATIONS. WTA currently treats them the same (both get nothing). I think this is one of the main problems. Many people don't agree, so let me try to explain why I think there should be a difference:

You should always aim to have a system which allows people to play FOR something and not AGAINST someone.

This is valid for any game - and life in general. If you want people to behave reasonably you should give them reasonable options to play FOR something. Like figle said above - start the game with the idea to WIN - if things don't go so well at a certain point you should focus on the next objective - DRAW. But what happens if this is also not a real option? You're left with two alternatives:
- attack the bigger guy, even if this means certain death
- go berserk and hit whoever you don't like the most, go CD, or just act crazy

I cannot speak for everyone - but if I was in this position - and I know I'll get nothing out of the game either way I'm not sure I'll do the 'right thing' and attack the leader. What do I care - my priority is not to die while helping the others stop the winner - this makes no sense for me at all?

We need to have a system that gives reasonable options and goals to the players - expecting people to play kamikadze will never bring anything good.

So, while the hybrid system does provide for a difference between elimination and survival, what I don't like about it is that it still counts centers - so if you finish with 12-16 centers you'll have a positive ROI. Effectively, it still makes more sense to be the strong second. Maybe you won't get 40%+ of the pot as in PPSC, but you'll get 20%+.

In this aspect (the strong second approach) the hybrid is a step back from WTA.

I simply think we need to remove the direct relation between points and centers - what you get out of a game should depend on your status (WIN/DRAW/SURVIVE) and not on how many centers you control.

In the end, all I am suggesting is to take the current WTA, reduce it from 100% to something in the lines of 2/3 or 3/4 of the pot - and give something to SURVIVALS so that people always have something reasonable to play for.

Oh ok now I understand. You may have also inadvertently solved the inflation problem :)