xgong, he won't have inadvertently solved the inflation problem, because to do that you have to go back to where it comes from and solve it there. I haven't solved my acne by using make-up, have I?

As for Ivo_'s suggestion, I am happy with it except for the fact that it is not zero sum. To my way of thinking, that is not justifiable, because that implies that not all games are equal, and I disagree. However, if you were to say that 3/4 of the pot goes to winners/drawers, and then the 1/4 be divided among survivors, then you would have me in equal support between that and the hybrid I think.

Yes, it's not zero-sum - but trying to make it zero-sum means you'll either have to count centers, or you'll have to make survivals not equal (depending on the total number of survivors).

Which, in turn, means that if you have only one surivor (apart form the winner) he'll get more points than if there are 2, 3 or more survivors. Which would encourage irrational behaviour - be it center farming or infighting between the survivors.

We should not be setting up a system that promotes killing other minors to impove your result, while leaving the winner to cruise to victory. We should not be pomoting such behavior?

So, all games are equal in terms that the players will get the exact same return for survival - for me this is more important (and a key element of the whole idea) than whether we'll have a zero-sum game.

I think the reason most games are PPSC is simply that its the default setting.
honestly i don't know where to change it

When you create a game there's an option at the bottom - where you set it to be PPSC (default) or WTA.

You have a valid point when it comes to new players - but then PPSC was designed especially for newcomers.

However even people who have played enough and understand the difference would usually go for PPSC. I've been creating two new "2009"games every month - one WTA and one PPSC - never managed to get enough players for the WTA ones, no such problem with PPSC.

You could of course give a certain amount per survivor, and then the rest goes to the winner.

MrProper, you aren't allowed to make a WTA game until you have 100 points (so that you cannot just keep on playing 100 point WTAs until you get a lucky win and suddenly have 700 points.

Yes, you can - but then the ROI for winning would not be fixed - which would encourage the winner to eliminate as many of the minions as possible - and there're in any case more than enough people who think it's some great achievement to win with 30 centers or so...

Why do you want it to be zero-sum in the first place? It is not a technical issue to be implemented? Of course it would be good if we had a perfect formula and zero-sum is a good idea in general - but not if it affects game-play.

I think it should be zero-sum because diplomacy is in my view zero-sum, basically.

We have to give out the points put into a game. Its easy for Ivo with 5000 points to be ok with lowering the amount of points everyone gets, but this makes it harder for new players to usurp leaders.

Ivo, i think you are just wrong. I think finishing a strong second is better than randomly not dying. It just is. The incentive for throwing a draw or throwing a win are no longer there tho, which is the problem that needs to be addressed.

some general points:

some seem to have the misconception that the only two options in WTA games are to win or lose... but thats not the case. 60-70% of WTA games (barring CDs) would end in a draw...

in fact in a PPSC game, after year 03, 2 players are eliminated - pretty much at the same rate as in WTA - meaning zero points. so in that sense, it is a logical falacy that you have 'more chance' of not losing all your points.

The point is that Kestas, when he created this site, decided unilaterally to create a brand new point system and invented a new variant called PPSC b/c in his mind it would attract new players. Personally (no offense to Kestas) I think this is rather self-indulgant. I mean a game that has survived and thrived for 60 years does not need an 'internet variant' to be kept alive... if new players were told and it was explained to them how to play properly, they would learn to play WTA and would enjoy it as much as we vets do.

Ivo - the reason your WTA games dont fill up is because we have a mutated culture here on phpdip where for your first 8-10 games as you try hard to get to 101 pts you are pretty much forced to play or start ppsc games.... when only 4-5% of the games on the site are WTA that creates a culture among the community... so then even at higher points people play ppsc because thats what they have learned...


the CORE problem with PPSC that your amended points systems (WTM) can not fix is that the ppsc concept creates a rational choice whereby its better to have permanent allies (either pre-game or during the game). so the effect of this variant is that it encourages, through its reward distribution, players to form 2 (or 3) way alliances that SHOULD NOT exsist based on the actual rulef of the 'real' game of Diplomacy.

The REAL game of Diplomacy (WTA) encourages only one thing: self-interest. forcing players to make rational decisions only for the benefit of their own country. this mutated variant (PPSC) distorts the rational decision-making-process so that self-interest includes the interest of your 'permanant-ally'.

no matter how much you tinker with the point system (eg WTM) you cant fix that problem.


my (obviously minority vote) is to completely get rid of PPSC or if you include it - include it as a variant choice among others like 1900, gunboat, or global press. WTA should be the standard and it should be the default game setting....

in the long run, if this community continues to insist on the ppsc model - it will be marginalized in the broader Dip world as an abberation - not an alternative platform.


ps. I also think the argument that PPSC helps reduce CDs is bullhockey (ie BS) because if you go through ppsc games you'll see plenty of CDs... the way to resolve the CD issue is NOT through the points system... someone who is going to quit is not doing so because of getting zero points instead of 'xx' pts...

Babak, firstly, you do make up every statistic, and if your going to make them up, better not use statistics at all.

The other thing I want to pick up on is the post script, which is the biggest piece of nonsense use of logical fallacies I have ever seen. It is simply absurd to suggest that you've even made an argument there. CD does not happen for only one reason, and CD will happen whatever the points system, but that doesn't mean that the points system cannot encourage CD. Your argument is parallel to the argument that "people commit crime in spite of prison, therefore prison does not prevent crime". It is wrong. I need to look at sound data on WTA/PPSC which is not available to make a hypothesis on this front, because there is no data for low-standard WTA play.

Honestly, I don't really care about points.
Whatever happened to playing for the fun of playing?

Babak said: "The REAL game of Diplomacy (WTA) encourages only one thing: self-interest."

What a crock of ****.

You keep making this same type of statement in every thread, suggesting that anyone who doesn't play the game the way YOU want them to isn't playing "real" Diplomacy.

Babak, who died and left you as the ultimate ruler on what is and is not "real" Diplomacy? I've been in plenty of ftf games with no point or other scoring system, where players played for draws, or good survivals, or just to enjoy stabbing each other, all with no real expectation of an eighteen center solo win.

Diplomacy is a PEOPLE game, and in this world different people have different perspectives and motivations for the way they play interact and yes, play Diplomacy. If you can't accept that as a fact of the game, then you're only going to continually be frustrated because others are playing the "right" way. Get over it, and you might actually enjoy playing, maybe even *gasp* ppsc.

"The point is that Kestas, when he created this site, decided unilaterally to create a brand new point system and invented a new variant called PPSC b/c in his mind it would attract new players. Personally (no offense to Kestas) I think this is rather self-indulgant. I mean a game that has survived and thrived for 60 years does not need an 'internet variant' to be kept alive... if new players were told and it was explained to them how to play properly, they would learn to play WTA and would enjoy it as much as we vets do."

Babak, you really don't know the history of the site, so I wouldn't presume to know what Kestas was thinking if you want to further your argument. I'm on your side, but you're going about it the wrong way. Kestas created the site first, and later implemented a point system. Before the point system, the only real ranking was just the results of Win, Defeated, Survival, and a title based on the raw number of wins. There weren't even draws at the time and the adjudicator was not fully functional! There were absolutely atrocious numbers of CD's and NMR's and no proper way of ranking. Worst was that, people will go for any incentive, and the current incentive was to play for a higher rank, based solely on raw wins. Many players played upwards of 40 games at a time and left all of those in which they didn't attain an early lead immediately through a lucky stab! At first a raw 10 game limit was imposed, but it was soon apparent that more would have to be done. Despite all that, the game was still pretty fun to play.

The point is that eventually there were many debates as to how to address this problem and many different scoring systems were considered, with most of them being quite simple and arbitrary like Ivo's. Kestas came up with the idea of points, letting simple economics govern. The idea was simple yet brilliantly flexible and immediately and significantly curbed all major problems, and the number of players who stayed on the site dramatically increased. The numbers speak testament to the overwhelming success of the points system.

There's a short history lesson for you. =)

"in the long run, if this community continues to insist on the ppsc model - it will be marginalized in the broader Dip world as an abberation - not an alternative platform."

Want to bet? While "true" Diplomacy will always be Face to Face, I have no doubt in my mind that internet Diplomacy will soon form the bulk of the Diplomacy world, and honestly, some of the scoring systems on alternative internet Diplomacy sites are just bad. =D

I wish you would all stop hating on babak.

>>DipperDon
"Babak said: 'The REAL game of Diplomacy (WTA) encourages only one thing: self-interest.'
What a crock of ****."
Having played with both you and babak, I would definitely say that he is more true to the 'spirit of the game'. Diplomacy was created as board game; no rankings, no scoring... one game in of itself. This is still Diplomacy. It is online, but I like to (and should) play each game as a single entity. It is my objective to win, which DOES "encourage only one thing: self-interest". When winning is no longer realistic, it is in self-interest to share a win (draw). When that is longer realistic, it is time to survive. The benefits of others should not be considered outside of your own interests - when an ally is no longer an means to an end, it is time to get rid of them. This is how the game should be played

Sigh, guys. Its great if some of you have higher ideals that lead you down the right path. But thats not how you deal with the entire php populace.

Xgong, we're not hating. We're disagreeing.

And again you, like Babak, are saying that there is only one way to play, and it *should* be the way you want it to be. So, anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't playing the *right* way. Says you. And only because I actually wanted to keep an agreement with my ally to include him in a 17-17 draw. You didn't want that to happen...why, because you wanted some big survival points?! Is that true to your supposed spirit of the game??

You say "The benefits of others should not be considered outside of your own interests - when an ally is no longer an means to an end, it is time to get rid of them." What if the "end" is a desire for a long term alliance, instead of a win? If the player's end goal is a satisfying 17-17 draw, then why is there a need to stab? Where in the rulebook does it say that a mutually satisfying 17-17 draw is against either the rules or the spirit of the game?

Your kind of idealism and cutthroat play often results in stabbing after the slightest advantage is obtained. If someone else doesn't share your philosophy and tactics, on what basis do you say they are not playing in the spirit of the game? There's an old saying that opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one. Why is yours better than mine or someone else's?

Hey Xgong, just for you I'll play the big pot wta without any plans for a gamelong alliance. I'll be just as cutthroat as you are, if that's what you want in that game.

I would argue that even WTA isn't the real game of Diplomacy because you are still putting a value on something other than your win loss rating. Some players may play lots of low pot games and others only ever play large pots that nearly wipe them out if they lose. The only way to play the real game is to strictly run on win/draw/survive/defeat statistics. To have ANY pot means to place a value on the game such that some games have a higher value than others.

I agree with that, mostly. Like I said in previous posts, it's just the ego in us that makes us want some kind of ranking system to show off to everyone else. Really, each game only matters unto itself.
However, the problem with the idea of only tracking wins/draws/survives/defeats as a way of ranking is that those that are overly concerned with the rankings will tend to avoid playing in games with 6 other experienced players. Instead, they will look for noob games to dominate and to pad their stats with.
This would only exascerbate the problem of noob retention.

If you really want to know how good someone is, play a game with them.

@Ukla, so we go to an all anonymous system when signing up and track CDs as well, so those who decide they don't like their opponents after the game starts will take a hit if they decide to drop at that point. The whole game doesn't need to be anonymous, just the signup, much like playing on the Judges.

I like the anonymous signup bit. I think we should also have some kind of option for friends to sign up and play together, but for ranking purposes, I think anon is the way to go. If you have ever played Catan, Uno, Ticket to Ride, or any similar game on XBox Live that is exactly what they do. (i.e. - anonymous signups for ranks, public signups for fun games.)
Of course, this would mean a drastic overhaul of the process for finding a game. I'm an idea man, not a programmer. :)

Well I think anonymous games should be an option at game creation. Perhaps with players only revealed at the end of the game.

>>DipperDon

"I actually wanted to keep an agreement with my ally to include him in a 17-17 draw. You didn't want that to happen...why, because you wanted some big survival points?! Is that true to your supposed spirit of the game?"
You were at 16 centers and he was at 8. As I told you, I considered it EXTREMELY poor sportsman ship to delay the game and not take the win while working with him to kill me off. As I also told you, I wasn't interested in the survival points, because SURVIVING is LOSING, same as ELIMINATION. Once it was only the three of us, I NMRed until you finally decided to just win, which decreased my center count from 10 to 6.. A 10 center survival is no better than a 6 center survival, and neither is better than being eliminated.

"What if the 'end' is a desire for a long term alliance, instead of a win?"
If that is your desire, why even play? The object of the game is to WIN.

"Where in the rulebook does it say that a mutually satisfying 17-17 draw is against either the rules or the spirit of the game?"
As a matter of fact, draws are not even mentioned in the rulebook. And I don't have my set in front of me, but the back of the box reads something along the lines of: "A player must ally to grow, but eventually stand alone to win". THAT is the spirit of the game.

"I'll play the big pot wta without any plans for a gamelong alliance. I'll be just as cutthroat as you are, if that's what you want in that game"
I'd like nothing better :)

@XGON

As I stated in a previous post..
This is straight from the rulebook, "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."

Oh sorry Ukla, I must have missed that. Does it really say that? I'm really just curious, it doesn't change my argument at all

Yes, the rules for version 4 do say that. Hold on a sec.. I'm gonna check the other versions to see if it was and addition or from the original.

"Does it really say that? I'm really just curious, it doesn't change my argument at all"

Naaaahhh, of course not. We wouldn't want our opinions of the the supposed "spirit of the game" and the acceptability of draws be influence by the actual rulebook, now would we?