+1 this reply to vote for PPSC: Points Per Supply Center

+1 yebellz. What a great way of conducting a poll!

Also a nice way to get super high numbers of +1's on your account. :-P

And thus we discover the problem with using the +1 button for polls. The thread is never bumped.

Oh, abgemacht, you're just jealous you didn't think of it first when doing your moderator checkerboards poll :P

Besides, bumping every now and then is far less of a burden than dealing with the error-prone "copy-paste the running tally method", and it keeps the thread much less cluttered.

@semck83: Mwuhahaha! That was my evil plan all along! Well, at least this demonstrates that one shouldn't attach much value to that silly number on our profiles.

@spyman: Yes, actually my real evil plan was to demonstrate how to properly do a poll by making use of this new feature.

Seeing as everyone prefers WTA, shouldn't that be the default setting for new games?

+1 Yonni et le bump.

I voted PPSC, but even ol' YJ is tempted to switch to WTA soon.

Winner take all rewards people that go for the win. Even if you solo in a PPSC, you dont get a bonus except for the extra points.

WTA is the true spirit of the diplomacy game.

Does anyone think that noobs with fewer points and less chance of winning are more likely to vote PPSC whereas experienced players more confident in their abilities will opt for WTA?

Personally, with relatively few points and keen to play as many games as possible to get more practice and improve, PPSC is the better option. Even if I just survive, I will still get a few points back to contribute towards another game.

This is why the points system should be scrapped and replaced with GR. Instead of specifying a "game price" players should specify a "GR Range". Then we would not have to worry about squandering our points and just play the game, without introducing the whole gambling element.

@spyman, the GR system is great for rating players, the D points system is designed to reduce CD's by limiting the number of games a brand new player can join (so you don't have 3 brand new players joining every open game and then dropping out of the ones they are doing badly in...)

two separate measures for two separate reasons.

Then there should be a system which limits the number of games you play according to GR. The higher your GR the more games you can join. If you can play 10 games and maintain a decent GR then that is fine. It should be a choice. But ideally going CD should seriously impact your GR.

going into CD doesn't reflect your skill, (which GR is trying to measure)

it reflects your ability to be online. Again i think two separate things should continue to be seen as such. (and i presume getting knocked out of a game because of missing two phases does negatively affect your GR, but no more so than getting eliminated by poor play)

I see your point. But going CD would impact your GR as much as a defeat. Maybe that is enough.
What is the rules these day. If you go CD and and someone takes over your place are you refunded your points or do you forfeit those points?

oh the same old pointless discussion again...
if you prefer PPSC you should play RISK.

Surely the best system should be something similar to Cdiplo 73 (made by Bruno Giraudon) which is played across Europe in all tournaments.
Winner gets all the 73 . survivors get nothing. participants in a draw get points according to position (1st = 38 PTS, 2nd = 14PTS, & 3rd = 7 PTS) + their supply center count + 1.
http://world-diplomacy-database.com/php/scoring/scoring_class.php?id_scoring=2

This encourages players to go for the win and also to maximise their own position, whilst also ensuring that no one takes risks in giving another a win.

It seems that this system combines the 2 systems on this site, and would suite most players. The newer players who are playing the game to snatch SC's even though they are causing another to solo, are doing this purely because of PPSC.

As a noob to this site, do I get the feeling that this has been discussed before? If it has then i assume that the majority want to keep it as it is! If not then what is the point in having a forum to discuss it if nothing changes when all are shouting similar arguements?

The other item to consider in WTA vs. PPSC is the ratio of points won in a draw. Again, WTA encourages players to go for the all out victory, rather than draw and get the same number of points as everyone else. When the 17 center power gets the same points as a 1 center power and a 16 center power, it rewards strategy and tactics by the 1 and 16 that set up the stalemate as well.

In other words, a draw in a WTA game is a lot like kissing your sister.

On the subject of points versus GR... While points were designed to limit new players games, the reality is that they can still play 20 games at a time, something even the most experienced players don't tend to do. I would suggest that scrapping the points could still be done *and* still limit the games a player is in based on their experience.

So limit a new account to say 5 games at a time, and for each draw they are part of, they get another game added to their available count. If they were the biggest player in the draw (or maybe over the average size like a 17, 16, 1 draw), then they get an extra game from that draw. If they get a win, they get 3 more games. Cap it at, I don't know, maybe 25 games.

Conversely, if they NMR and are close to their game limit (say within 1-4 games or 20%), they lose an available game and if they CD, they lose 3, period. It would be an easy thing to either compute on the fly based on their history or to keep a counter in their player record. I'd prefer the later so if a game is cancelled due to their CD, they still take a hit to how many they can play and have to earn the games back.

I don't like two having two systems. It's not very "elegant" for want of a better word. I realize that GR is not even official, but lets face it, most people prefer GR as a rating system. And Draug you are quite right that points does not prevent people from joining too many games. I can't really see what points contribute.
As far a setting up games between players of a similar standard, GR has the potential to be much better for this purpose than points.

I don't think NMRs should be punished, "forgetting" to enter orders may sometimes be a valid tactical decision...

both are just variants of the original boardgame

@Alex - There is a differenc between "forgetting" and atrue NMR. To NMR one must not even visit the games page to see the results. If you can't even do that, you should get punished.

Regarding GR, I'd also love to see a GR range option instituted in place of the points. And not just a minimum, but a maximum too. Then players could get a game of very close GRs together to play.

Interesting, the seems to heavily favor WTA. I prefer that myself, but I did expect it to be more balanced.