of course, please do refrain from commenting on it until it is over.

"of course, please do refrain from commenting on it until it is over"

LOL. Seems there might have been a good way to prevent that.

lol yeah, guess i'm an idiot.

Like I always tell my 6 year old, ' There's alot of candy in the top drawer, but please don't eat it'

I could give you another example, but won´t as the game is still going on....
But I really don´t understand some people minds, one guy told me that prefer a survival with 12 centers than a three way draw (in a 70 point game!!!!!).
Let´me see, you prefer to lose to get 25 other than a honoured draw where you get 23 ? Is this logic?

Well, Rdrivera, not that I disagree with you, but I suspect it was more the 12 SCs was assured whereas the draw that still in the theory stages

I actually disagree even if the draw was assured.
PPSC is simply a different way to play diplomacy. I don't like it, but when I do play it, the purpose is to maximize the amount of points you get. So yes, 25 is better than 23!

By the way, nice job for Kainer - looks liek a promising new player :)

I don't think that playing PPSC must necessarily mean focusing on points only. I usually look at the outcome (win/draw/survival/elimination) more than at the points, but PPSC better reflects my way of evaluating results. For me, a good survival is much better than an elimination, and I like playing in a system that recognizes that difference.

I never draw in a PPSC unless it seems to me I will be defeated otherwise. To me, a "survived" is more prestigious than a "draw" because draw just means you ended the game before you could be eliminated.

and glad to see Austria still kicking.

@Thucydides

For me you are thinking the wrong way.
You should be thinking about the win and not the elimination.

By drawing you prevent another person that not you to win the game!
And it is the nearest place to the win, no matter what peolple say or what number of points they get.

@djbent - I appreciate your attitude towards the game!

I do not want to barge in but I am about to finish a game being played with Thucydides.
He has been great throughout the entire game. I was wondering if I might get the opinion of some of the other experienced players here on that game when finished.

I do not wish to cross any lines here and will put up the game ID if it is ok to do so while it is still active. And Thucydides I do not want to step on your toes either. As you already know I am just looking for honest feedback on my play.

@mdruskin - well, he has done a great job, but he also has been greatly helped by england going CD for a couple phases. of course, russia then went NMR on a crucial turn, so that helped even things out...

i don't believe in playing PPSC differently, and that's why i don't normally play it. uclabb asked for someone to take over CD, which is why i joined the game (cuz he's a nice guy and helped with School of War before). it's this attitude of "if i'm in PPSC i play for points" that is exactly why i don't play PPSC for the most part anymore.

@thucy - i couldn't disagree more. a draw is much better than a survival. of course, neither is as good as a win, but i know i won't win every game. anyway, to each their own, i suppose.

To be honest, I enjoy both PPSC and WTA and I'm not sure I've consiously played them differently. Perhaps I try a bit harder to stay alive in WTA though, since w/ even one SC (and good/lucky positioning), you can still help force a draw. Everyone appears to be more inclinded to prevent a solo.

*consciously*

Lol no it's fine tailboarder. And yes, LanGaidin, you're right, it more affects the way the others play than it does the way I play. I'm always going for the win.

I think Thuc is dead wrong. a survive is a Loss... which is the same as an elimination... a survive is a glorified way of saying you were somebody's b*tch ;)

but yeah... PPSC is a great variant of diplomacy for the timid =P in the end, (and I've done this analysis elsewhere) the early game is pretty much the exact same for both PPSC and WTA... usually 2 playes will get eliminated as you enter the mid-game... the mid-game is where in PPSC 'meta-game alliances' start to really form while in WTA good vs bad alliances become distinct...

its really the end-game where the two differ... where in my opinion, PPSC destroys the 'motives' that make Diplomacy such a great game... but most players wont get to the end-game (ie wont me the 3 out of 7 who make it) so it really does not make a difference for htem if they play WTA or PPSC.

I will say this... PPSC is much easier for good players. I have a far higher win percentage with PPSC games (both here and on FB) than with WTA games... its because its very easy... specially if you have some sort of name-recognition, its not hard to get a newbie or a improving player to want to hitch their star to your wagon so they can go places... to convince them to come along for a ride, geta 15 dot survive, build some points, and "make friends with a big-shot"...

honestly, if i were forced to play PPSC games, i would not be above such tactics... and in fact, any "good" player playing PPSC worth the adjective, would be dumb NOT to... in fact, I pesonally think if you are not 'meta-gaming' in a PPSC game, then you are not playing the variant all that well.

but anyways... to each his/her own... and I'm glad that the site now allows lower point players to start WTA games so it has a fair shot... in my judgement, new players can play both, hear the arguments for both types of games and decide for themselves... but if they want to play the game the way it was meant to be played... as in with the proper 'motive inducers' that the creator envisioned, then WTA is the way o go. (yes, FTF is the 'real' game... but WTA is far closer to FTF than PPSC)

so... dont take it personally you PPSC-lovers... you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that fully... and I'm glad we all have the choice to pick our own game types... but for the new players trying to figure out the difference, I want to provide a no-holds-barred pro-WTA/anti-PPSC position.

much love to all my fellow dippers ;)

Well, Babak resumed all I think in the first sentence: survive is a loss, don´t mater if it´s with 1 or 16 SCs, so I will always play for a draw no matter what if I can´t win. For me the game is win/draw/survive/defeat, but this "points" mechanics seems to change this order a lot. People prefer to ensure a survive than take the risk to play for a win or to play for a draw to avoid any other player winning.
I see no problem with PPSC, it´s hard to get nothing in a game where you fight to the end and end with more than 10 SCs, the problem to me is the way people play this.
Just my newbie opinion, of course. But was just glad to see some good players think the same way.

game ended, commentary welcome now =)

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=12606

You know why it was played the right way? Because you were the only person to gain from the wrong way of playing.

good point TGM. =P

<rant>
like I said - if you are an experienced or vet player playing a PPSC game, I encourage you to engage in the 'meta-gaming' that PPSC engenders... I feel its foolish not to. if you are 2nd, go for the dots not the draw etc.

seriously though - the problem rdrivera, as I see it is that we have a whole generation of newbies to Dip who have never played the game except on here... and their conception of HOW the game is supposed to be played will forever be formed and created by this PPSC non-sense... they will get the wrong idea of the value of a win vs a draw vs a loss...

Dip is a game where 65-70% of the games should end in a draw if played right... THAT should be the norm. but its not unfortunately =(

</rant>

well, i thought the g-rating gain would be worth giving up the extra 20 or 30 but maybe not - if i'm not mistaken, i'll only get .6 of a g-rating point for that draw =/

dj- G-Rating treats PPSC games as PPSC, so you're better off playing in the PPSC style.

dammit! oh well. anyway, it was a fun game and that's the point i guess =P