@ TheMinisterOfWar: Based on the usage data you already have, can you tell me how many new games, in the last six months, were PPSC rather than (the default) WTA?

hmm. I was going to find the data for him by searching the number of games completed, but you guys took away the button in the "search" tab that allows you to search for PPSC. Is it possible to put that back? I don't see the harm in being able to search for a particular game.

@ssorenn, I absolutely see the point.

@jamiet: We discussed the numbers but I dont have the numbers at my fingers (others may). In general terms, we see that the main usage of scoring system simply follows the default option. PPSC usage has plummeted after it switched, and went to a steady but low level. Thats about the level of detail I can give.

Um, well, thanks - but it would be nice if one of your fellow flag-holders could give more detail.

All this arguing over points as if they were some end to be attained in and of themselves. All they were ever intended to be is a rough ranking system, a means to get into "higher-quality" games. We now have better ways to do that, so they should be disbanded. (I understand that they are the brainchild of the site's founder so it is unlikely that they will be done away with, but everyone knows they are essentially worthless as a metric to assess player skill.)

Instead of points by our handles, we should have our ghost rating (or whatever superior ranking system comes along to supplant it), our win-draw-loss percentages, reliability rating, or all three. Points may be useful in a tournament setting, to judge a particular pool of players' results against each other across multiple games, but outside of that, I say dump them.

^ this is something we're on the path towards. However, it's a lot of work (and the ability to use points to gate games is useful).

"....everyone knows [webDip points] are essentially worthless as a metric to assess player skill."

I bet there is a fairly strong correlation between points and win% and win+draw% once you get to > 200 or so (outside the lucky newbie win range). Points are not ideal and are not even close to the best system, but they do serve a purpose--matching people who accumulated them with each other.

Zultar just gave a whole bunch away. That should tell you their value. We all lines up like little ninnys and begged for them. It was quite amusing.

5 or 6 data points among how many hundreds of active users wouldn't affect the trend line that much.

Removing points entirely is a long-term goal for the reasons mentioned above; but the game-gating is indeed quite handy, and they're a fundamental aspect of the site that would take a lot of work to redo.

There's also no point in it until we have integrated ratings.

And you still need a scoring system even for a rating system.

i like the new scoring systems, but I will say that it is fun to have different ways to make progress and collect trophies such as points in addition to a true ranking system....just another way of entertaining my competitive streak.

@Hellenic Riot: Making the change at Xmas when some people are way more busy than usual and others have more spare time than usual will make it hard to measure whether any game creation or play drop is caused by this site change or by seasonal effects. Also, if a user plays, it shows absolutely nothing about whether they would have chosen a different option that isn't available. You'll be able to fudge those stats to "prove" anything you want to.

If you want SoS scoring is important, fine. It sounds good to me too. But please don't try to pretend that you'll have any idea of what the users would like when 95% of us had no idea the change would be made, nobody is allowed to start a PPSC game any more and nobody is allowed to search for PPSC games any more to provide any statistics. (That last one is particularly telling.)

Kremmen, I don't know what conspiracy you think we're cooking, but nothing we're doing is malicious. We're just trying to improve the site. I left the PPSC search option off the site search, since I thought people wouldn't be interested in searching for games if PPSC disappeared (game search is mostly used to find games). It's not difficult to enable if it's required - but it won't really prove anything. Of course people were still playing PPSC. We never said we were removing it because it wasn't being played. We said we were removing it because we believe it is 99% replaced by the stwo new scoring systems.

"hard to measure whether any game creation or play drop is caused by this site change or by seasonal effects"

Yes. That's why we're intending to keep it around for a few months to get a real sense of the impact.

There's no malicious intent behind making a change at Christmas - it's just that that's when I had the time to work on the site todo list. Many other changes had been made in this time - including some improvements that users don't see, such as moderator tool updates.

@kremmen, you speak as though things should be done as you think. You realize this is a private site, with people donating their time and or small dollars to help it run. That this change is such an inconvenience, when you should be grateful for the fact that this is an awesome site ,that's FREE, and as users ,we are not pounded by advertisements. The powers that be decide ,not you. Enjoy your time here, smoke some weed. Play a game. Relax.

Perhaps weed is contributing to Kremmen's sense of paranoia!

@ssorenn: I have no idea where you get that from. I have never said anything to suggest that users have any rights. I absolutely understand that the powers that be decide, not me. What I don't understand is why they then try to justify themselves in all manner of unbelievable ways and pretend that there was consultation with the user base when, basically, there wasn't. Portraying a fait accompli as an "experiment" makes no sense to me.The vast majority of the site was not consulted nor had any idea anything was changing. The removal of PPSC makes it impossible to tell how much it is liked from statistical analysis. The removal at this time of year makes it even harder to work out any trends. Attempts to see what proportion of past games were PPSC have been made harder by removing the option to even list them. It's clear that this has been sprung on the users and there's no going back, so just admit it and move on.

I ask my question again since TMOW was unable to answer it, despite claiming that the usage data exists:

Q: Based on the usage data you (the admins / mods / devs) already have, can you tell me how many new games, in the last six months, were PPSC rather than (the default) WTA?

It would be interesting to know, actually. A rough idea of relative popularity by comparing the percentage of games that were WTA when PPSC was the default to the percentage of games that were PPSC when WTA was the default would be fascinating.

In keeping with the spirit of our age of having many names for the same thing, I shall from now on refer to WTA as the "so called" DSS.

Apologies for asking something that's been no doubt covered before, but the thread is getting quite large. I understand why the new scoring system is desirable, but I've missed the bit where it was explained why removing PPSC as an option was desirable.

"It's clear that this has been sprung on the users and there's no going back, so just admit it and move on."

It's certainly been discussed many times, though not as organised and centralised as it seems you would have wanted. That said, I can see how this can be perceived to be sprung on those who weren't part of those discussions. I for one feel sorry about that.

But process != content. That doesnt change that I'm convinced this is a good way forward. We want a streamlined site with some (but not overwhelming) options that encourage high-quality competitional diplomacy. For the many reasons already listed above, SoS is a similar but superior system than PPSC, and again I hope you try it.

We knew this change was going to be impopular for some, and indeed it is. I'm also happy to see the many initial positive reactions, and the vocal opposition seems limited (as I'm sure the vocal opposition will agree too ;-) ). It's hard to gauge in any representative way what opinion is on this for the silent majority, so estimating that remains anecdotal either way. And honestly, even if it were possible to test, I think popularity is only one of many considerations for good policy.

So for now, the policy stands. It's logical that we feel strongly about it now, but I think the real interesting datapoint will come in a few months: will we really have missed PPSC?

@Octavious: several reasons:

- It's often confusing (to newbies and experienced players alike)
- it doesn't conform to the win conditions listed in the rules of Diplomacy
- it's contrary to all (afaik) FTF scoring systems in existence
- we want to maintain a limited number of options on the site to prevent fracturing the community.

@ TMOW: "It's certainly been discussed many times, though not as organised and centralised as it seems you would have wanted."

This is the problem, and it's why ATC's claims about "consultation" are so bothersome. There have certainly been several forum discussions, going back over the last couple of years at least, about whether PPSC or WTA is a better scoring system. Those discussions were almost always prompted by regular joe members, rather than mods or devs - and were therefore seen in that context; a discussion between ordinary members about which system they prefer, NOT some kind of official public consultation process.

At no point, whatsoever, was there a discussion on the specific proposal to REMOVE the PPSC option, in its entirety. This is what's lacking.

For a member to say "I prefer WTA" is not the same as saying "I think PPSC should be abolished". It's my guess that many WTA (or, indeed, SoS) supporters would have been less supportive of deleting PPSC completely.

A_Tin_Can: Perhaps you've already gotten into this above, but my discussion of your nomenclature changes does invite you to clarify your intentions behind these changes.

Regarding my suggested solution, 2 × 2 = 4. Four options I think is more than reasonable, especially when presented as two simple binary settings (which in any case are hidden behind "Open Advanced Settings").

Regarding waiting to see how things turn out, that's all well and good, but I don't see how that has anything to do with PPSC. You're waiting to see how SoS scoring and the elimination of take-over buy-ins turn out.

"As I said above, I also think claiming that PPSC is described in the rulebook by omission is tenuous at best."
I'll look for where you go into this, but I think that this is more symptomatic of the team not knowing how to explain, much less defend PPSC.

Regarding, "playing PPSC in unranked games", that doesn't make any sense. PPSC is a "Pot type" or "Points distribution type". Neither of these descriptions make sense when combined with unranked games, which are their own pot type − one where points are refunded to everyone who played, regardless of survival.

Looks like my third and fourth paragraphs got switched.

@jamiet: it hasn't happened, but I don't think it's lacking. Like I said, popularity is but one of many considerations.

@ TMOW: Yes, but the problem is, your colleague A_Tin_Can declared: "We canvassed opinion before and after making the change, and we will continue to do so."

This implies that some form of consultation took place. It did not.

By all means, behave like a dictatorship. But don't claim to be democratic whilst doing so. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Dictatorship, really? (Where's a raised eyebrow emoji when I need it?)
It's open source. Anybody can make suggestions and help to code.

Focussing on the word canvassing makes it feel like you're arguing for the point of arguing. We've discussed it tons of times. We will discuss it tons of times. Nothing more to it.

Words are important. They mean things.

ATC claimed members were canvassed. They were not.