A cancel is as if the game never happened. Absolutely no record or effects result from a cancel.
A draw, on the other hand, splits points equally among the included players, affects GR, and shows up on your profile.

So for a player with my points and such, a draw would help right?

Draws split equally between those players, and everyone contributes the same amount to the pot (takeovers aside). So as long as at least one player has been eliminated, you always 'gain' points from a draw. You don't necessarily gain GR, though.

Thank you much, Riot.

No one really spoke about this, usually Draws happen; when a group of people wants to keep a record of the game, only a few people are left and don't want to continue it, an alliance has remained strong and the allied members want to divide the loot up equally, or there is a stalemate line or something else keeps anyone from gaining any new centers.

A Cancel is usually used in the case of; cheaters ruining the game, people not showing up early on which some feel causes a power imbalance, or people not wishing for the game to have any record, canceling in this case still keep the CD and NMR on the record of the no-shower I believe.

Personally I like to cancel if there are no showers and am only willing to contemplate drawing when over half of the board has been defeated.

But CDs in cancelled games still show up on profiles.

^Thus a CD hurts a no-shower without really affecting those who care about the game, the desired result I believe. If the no-shower is new to the site and doesn't understand the time requirements, a draw might allow them into a RR game, which continues the problem.

Drawing or Cancelling has no effect on RR. Only NMR'ing or CD'ing does.

@backscratcher: "points and such"

webDip points only matter...to a point. There are plenty of quality players with few points. There are also mediocre players with many points. The biggest thing points do is provide an arbitrary cost of entry which can weed out brand new players who only start with 100 .

Different people have different priorities as well. Some play to earn points. Some focus solely on wins and losses. Others strategize for draws. And plenty just want to have fun.

Mainly though, don't play PPSC.

Why do people hate ppsc so much? What do people feel is so different?

The difference is that, generally, PPSC leads people to play defensively whereas WTA leads people to play aggressively. Also PPSC, people tend to play to draw or survive as opposed to WTA where people play to win or draw. WTA, generally, makes the consequences of poor play more distinctly felt (if you don't win, you gain nothing). Also Also, players aren't necessarily inclined to stop a solo in a PPSC game, whereas it's damn near a requirement in a WTA game.

backscratcher:
Don't listen to the naysayers. The arguments against PPSC often don't make sense. For instance, if more is at stake for risky play in WTA games, wouldn't that encourage more conservative early draw play? That would make PPSC games more aggressive by comparison. The results you get largely depend on the personality of who you play with, not how you score a game in the event of a solo.

In any case, never join a WTA game in progress. That's just flushing points down the toilet.

+1 JECE. PPSC and WTA lead to thoroughly different endgames (assuming players are playing rationally for points outcome, haha look at my spherical cow).

I don't actually think the difference matters *that* much to early or mid game, where you're really still trying to set up to survive and maximise your opportunities to solo and stay in the draw.

But, the key difference is once you hit the point where a player has a clear run at a solo opportunity.

In PPSC, it is usually in your interests if you're not that player, to simply switch to protecting your SCs and trying to grab any more than you can, giving up any interest in draws, solos, or anything else.

In WTA, you need to start thinking about uniting opposition to the solo threat, and since there's no difference between survive points and lost-to-solo points (both zero), you might as well die trying to make a stalemate line than to do nothing.

(Obviously to return to the spherical cow, there are *lots* of reasons why those aren't the only things people might validly want to do during endgame, starting with that some don't give a crap about points or ratings whatsoever, but I'd say that's the main big difference between the two when players are playing for points.)

thorfi: There are indeed a myriad of different considerations to take into account when discussing the nature of PPSC vs. WTA. (I usually focus on which one should be the default scoring system or which one works best for players taking over for powers in CD.)

But limiting myself to what you've said, I would argue that in PPSC there is usually a points incentive for avoiding a solo. Sure, there is less of a points incentive than in WTA, but there is still a points incentive.

@JECE In PPSC? Sure, there's a points incentive for preventing a solo - but it's a *lot* smaller than the points incentive for simply not losing any more SCs once it's clear someone else is going to solo, assuming that isn't at your immediate expense. Of course if the solo is coming at the cost of your SCs, it's in your interest to stop it.

Don't play PPSC. The creator of the game thinks it's an abomination.

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm