Honestly, I think draws should be rewarded. The draw is a result of a rational assessment of the board by the weaker powers. Heck, I think the point of WTA is to generate 3 or 4 player draws. Wins come in the PPSC games.

So what happens when two people get locked up in a 2-way 17:17 stalemate line?
Also, it's quite possible for a reasonable 3-way draw to get set due to a simple dynamic balance of power. Punishing everyone for falling into a drawn situation does not seem fair. It's my opinion that if everyone plays well, the game often does end in a draw.

I agree with @BobG
Wins can also come in WTAs when people fail to stop the solo out of some misguided notion that a draw isn't acceptable

Okay so it depends on the draw, and on your perspective.

If there is a three way draw like this, for example:

16-16-2

Then mad props to that poor fool with two who weaseled his way in. That's from his perspective though. From an outside perspective? That was an idiotic outcome. The other two should have killed the guy in a race to solo, or if they were at sufficient tactical deadlock, drawn 2-way.

Other kind of 3 way:

12-12-10.

Much better. This case begs for a three way if all three players seem to be rational. This is because one player will try to solo, the other two stop him, ad infinitum. No two players will be able to agree to team up and go for a two-way because they think the other will just try to grab a solo. So this is a good time to draw, with three equal powers.

My opinion of draws is that the two best kinds of draws are 17-17s and those equal three ways. All other draws are suspect, this I will admit, because I myself do not like to draw.

However it is a respectable outcome if you are one of the participants.

And jumping off of that yebellz said:

In my experience... a solo usually only happens when someone messes up, there's a CD, someone gambles and it doesn't pay off, (or does pay off), or if someone is diplomatically convinced into doing something very stupid.

I've never seen a pure, you might say, "legitimate" solo. What I mean by that is that all other things being equal, it's impossible to solo unless the other side (everyone else) slips up or drops the ball in some way.

That may seem obvious but its important because a lot of people point to that and say that solos are "unfair" or whatever, for that reason. But I disagree, I think it's just important to realize that a solo is not going to happen if everyone is on top of their game and thinking straight.

That's why, if you want to solo, you have to get them to start thinking "un-straight." Lol. That's the most celebrated kind of diplomacy. The outright deception. That kind of deception is necessary to win, barring a true accident or CD etc.

^^ imho

Thucy +1

I just get frustrated with 3-way draws that are determined in 1904 and the alliance sticks to it instead of listening to the diplomacy of the minor players.

Yes, true 3-ways are a push and pull between two majors and one minor between them, but when there are 3 majors and 4 minors, and the majors already settle for a draw before the rest are off the board? Lame!

Elaborating on BobG's comment: "Wins come in the PPSC games."

This refers to scenarios where a player plays for a strong second and doesn't mind helping someone take the solo since they are just interested in reliably maximizing their points. It's a big point of criticism against PPSC.

I have played in one legitimate 7 way draw and a number of 4 way draws. 4 ways commonly happen when two pairs of allies eliminate the board and are head to head. After playing 6 or 7 game years together, allies tend to get locked in and when a stalemate line is reached, won't stab unless their team has an SC count advantage and they can stab without weakining the line. So four ways are very legit.

The 7 way to which I refer was the Rage as Therapy II game and no one was stabbing any of their allies so we truly had lamely stalemated.

Calhamer once said something to the effect of the only possible end to a perfectly played game is a draw.

If you don't slip up and your opponent doesn't either, then you hit the stalemate line at the same time he does or you bring in an ally that can't be turned to bring you to an impasse that can't be broken.

can i take draugnars words, twist them and create the name for a 7-way draw : the lamemate.

Fortknox-

I more or less completely agree. I did a western triple once when I was relatively new to the game just to see how it played out. It was dull, except for the diplomacy necessay to keep Germany and France from going after each other. And yes, in retrospect, I should have joined one of them in stabbing and eliminating the other and gone for the solo.

So, imposing penalty on draws may discourage these so-called "illegitimate", prearranged draws, but doesn't it come at the cost of screwing over all of those legitimate draw cases that can come up?

1. Yes, a well played game will end in a draw. But that does not mean that a game that ends in a draw is a well played game. WTA games where three players go for a 3 way draw is no better than PPSC games where two players go for a win and strong second. Either way it is point/rating farming and not actually playing to win. In my opinion.

2. I had two proposals that have been proposed by others in the past.

A 0 game that doesn't count against stats or ghost rating or anything. No fear of being eliminated, no reason to not go for it.

A WTA option where a draw results in all non-CD players getting their points back, even the eliminated. GR would presumably be similarly adjusted for this WTA option. The point being that "going for the Draw" is pointless, so go for the WIN or bust.

3. Rage is Therapy II, basically was a 3 way draw between 7 players. 3 players were the western triple, 3 were the southern triple, and then there was small Russia balancing the two. Neither set of triple could self implode without giving ground to the other triple. So really it was very little different from a 16-16-2 three way draw.

And to clarify, I'm not talking about penalizing draws. I'm just asking for a variant, or WTA option where, or 0 game, where you don't gain anything for drawing, making it an environment where all the players will play WIN or BUST because there is no reason not to. I envision this being to WTA what WTA is to PPSC.

The way I see draws is that any players who could have gotten more out of the win are penalized for compromising and in the case of a pre-arranged draw for not taking advantage of opportunities when they arise. At the same time, the weak players are rewarded for their ability to force a compromise and to keep themselves in there that long. I don't think pre-arranged draws are a good thing because the goal of the game is to win and the point of diplomacy is to make it easier for you to win. This can be done be keeping borders undefended to allow for an easy betrayal. So, a pre-arranged three way draw can be used to make it easier to win.

@gma314
"At the same time, the weak players are rewarded for their ability to force a compromise and to keep themselves in there that long."

Doesn't it make them the strong players?

And I am sorry to raise it again, but the real goal of any game is not to win, but to have fun, and if somebody is having fun by succeeding to create an alliance so strong that they don't stab each other when there is a chance - they have achieved the ultimate goal of any game, including webDiplomacy. (And I am not even talking about long-term benefits from such sort of strategy).

"they have achieved the ultimate goal of any game"
@Bask: You have a terrible habit of making faulty superlative remarks. Especially when you mention just two lines before that fun is the main point.

On-Topic: I, for the most part, agree with gman. It's been argued all through the diplomacy community for years "will a well-played game (all things considered) end in a draw?" I'd tend to think that, yes, in the WTA spirit of the game, competent players will see the threat of a solo and stop it. Whether or not a nation or two gets elbowed out until the draw is declared is another matter.

If Alderian can math out and implement a third system of scoring, good for him. I'm sure some people would adapt to it eventually and then the WTA v PPSC debate will have a third side. And that will be that (hypothetically).

I mean weak players in the sense that they have a weak position. Their diplomatic strength is what rewards them.

@ODaly, Bask used his superlative correctly. You took it out of context. He said *if* they have *fun* by creating that alliance, then they have achieved the ultimate goal and that would be the goal of having *fun*. Please reread before you post. You'll look less the fool that way.

@yebellz "So, imposing penalty on draws may discourage these so-called "illegitimate", prearranged draws, but doesn't it come at the cost of screwing over all of those legitimate draw cases that can come up?"

The thought was to have a few options at the start of the game (draws result in 0 , or draws return every non-CD their points back). So if you like the idea, you arrange the game with those options, otherwise stray away from it.

I'm not suggesting that ALWAYS be the case, but we put in the options, try it out, then, maybe, use the options in league or tourney play.

I don't like the options in League play. The higher the League, the fewer wins. League C2 is wrapping up and there won't be a single win out of it. Just some three and four way draws. But yet it was some of the best gaming I've played on the site so far in almost 2 years here.

I really don't get why people get so upset about draws. A draw is better than a loss, but not nearly as good as a win. And we have 2 systems that reflect that. In a WTA game, you get a 75% profit for a 4-way, 133% profit for a 3-way, 250% profit for a 2-way, 600% profit for a solo.

The math of Ghostrating is similar to the point system: each person puts in a bet, and the winners split the pot. So solos are heavily rewarded there too. But since higher-rated players bet more than lower-rated players, a person competing against a bunch of lower-rated players can end up losing points on a 4-way draw or even a 3-way. (In the GFDT, where players are seeded, the top seeds will probably lose GR for a 4-way).

@pastorlan, what I'm discouraged by is people, including myself, playing for the draw, and not for a win. Right now I'm penalized if I try for the win. It is one thing to try and win and settle for a draw. It is another to just try to position yourself to be included in a draw right out of the gate.

It is fine it people want to play PPSC and it is fine if people want to play WTA with draws the way they are now. I'm not looking to change others. I'm just stating that I wish I had another option.

I'm with Alderian, but with an addition... people determining the draw well before the game should dictate the draw. It's like the discussion is "well, we are the 3 big powers, you stab this minor, you stab this minor, and when they are gone, we'll draw, ok?" and the 3 agree to it and spend the next 3 years finishing up and drawing.

It's like we are determining the game in mid-game, not end-game. When one or two or three powers grow quickly, the board should mount different alliances to push the big power down, instead of the next two powers agreeing to draw and ending the game without anymore diplomacy.

@fortknox - people who determine the draw well before the game are doing something illegal, and should be banished.
Regarding determining the game in mid-game and not in end-game - the game is determined in the beginning of the game. Yes, things can happen and change, but I usually enter a game with a distant vision of how I want the board to look like, and work towards this vision.

I do too, Bask. All my color and nobody else's. <grin> Somehow it never actually happens...

Maybe you should change your vision :)

I'm already colorblind so Austria and Germany look the same...

Also I am in a game now where one player is insisting that there has been a predetermined draw decision by 3 other players. But I know for a fact that player is wrong. No predetermination has been made. Yet he keeps insisting.

@Bask, you misinterpret fortknox's sentence.

He didn't say "people determining the draw well before the game".

He said "people determining the draw well before the game should dictate the draw"

As in: "people determining the draw well before-the-game-should-dictate-the-draw"

@Crazyter, could be he's trying to guilt someone into trying a stab which will then relieve pressure on him.

@Alderian, I see why that's really annoying. The problem is, if you have an early alliance with someone who is reasonable skillful and also be trustworthy, the risk of stabbing them usually outweighs the benefit. It's a given that they'll turn to the 3rd player and say, "look, he stabbed me--let's get him." Then you're toast. So it's much simpler to allow for 3-way draws.

I'm not wanting to disallow a draw. I just don't want to reward it so much that most people are content to settle for the draw and not even try to solo. A draw should be the last resort when no one can truly move forward.

Also, maybe the 3rd player will join the stabbed, but maybe he'll join the stabbee. And maybe you are toast. But at least you tried rather than settling for a draw without even trying.

I really don't see that draws are that well rewarded. Yes, you walk away with some points (does anyone really care about pounts?!?) and you get another notch on the draw count, but it's not as if you get people on the forum boasting about their stunning run of draws. At the end of the day a draw gets you sod all of anything worth having, unless you have the personal satisfaction of having played a damned fine game. The system is fine as it is, and no amount of tinkering will ever encourage the meek amongst us to risk all for a win.