Think about game theory the next time you drop your soap in the shower.

Depends on particular circumstances. In my view, a win is to be aimed for - but a share of a draw is better than a defeat. Deciding when to change objectives from the first to the second is an art in itself. Too soon, and the game becomes a bore, too late and you may let someone else win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Playing for the win only benefits one player. The most efficient outcome in a game of Diplomacy is a seven way draw, but that never happens because people are naturally selfish. If we were altruistic creatures, a seven way draw would be implied at the start of every game. Since we're not, we play for a win until it becomes clear that cooperation will provide us with a better outcome than if we continued to be selfish.

In the classic prisoner's dilemma game, two prisoners are taken to separate interview rooms. They are each given the same choice: betray your compatriot and you go free, but your friend gets a year in prison. If both remain silent, they both get one month in prison. If both rat out each other, they both get three months. Cooperation results in the best outcome for both, but the incentive exists to rat out your friend and walk away. If both prisoners rat out each other, they end up worse than if they had said nothing.

The key, though, is that neither prisoner gets to talk to each other. Logically, each prisoner will betray each other, even though they would be better off to remain silent.

Couldn't disagree more. A seven way draw is the least efficient outcome. Time is spent for no benefit to any of the players. The most efficient outcome is the solo, as this tends to be valued higher than any other possible combination of draws.

@2ndWhiteLine, while your metaphore may work for you, it works not at all for me. I expect we value things differently. A win is a win. A draw is NOT a win. The goal is to win. If you draw, you did not win so you failed. The points system (and the GR system based on the point system) have created a culture of accepting a draw as a victory and I like it not at all.

And +1 to Octavious. When players play for the win rather than the draw the game is FAR more exciting, even if you lose. When you get three big powers that all get together to get a simple 3 way draw the game is BORING. When you get three big powers that are trying to manipulate each other to get each one in position for a win the game is EXCITING.

To clarify a bit. The point of this game is to have FUN. Not going points or ghost rating. You can have fun while losing.

I'm not speaking to whether or not Diplomacy is fun. Diplomacy is definitely fun, nobody can dispute that. I'm discussing the incentive structure of the game and how, when framed in the context of the Prisoner's Dilemma, a seven way draw provides the most equitable and efficient outcome for all players. If seven players play and only one walks away with points, it's a very inefficient outcome, so it provides an incentive for players to keep their points. Diplomacy is a zero sum game, so no player is made better off without making another player worse off. Pareto efficiency doesn't exist in Diplomacy. There is always a cost in playing a game of Diplomacy, either in time, points, GR, or all three (ignoring external costs). Each player seeks to maximize his or her payoff for playing the game, which is the logical move for any player. This comes at the expense of other players, resulting in an inefficient distribution of points and six other players who have played the game for nothing other than fun, which is not quantifiable.

To clarify, I'm talking completely in theory. Humans are irrational creatures, which is why you get players who ignore a dominant player in WTA games and put up no resistance to one player taking all the points. The human element in full press means that anything is possible, which makes it different than a true Prisoners Dilemma where both parties have no contact with each other. In economics, the concept of "perfect competition" is studied as a basic set of rules governing business competition. Perfect competition doesn't exist. In the same vein, a seven way draw will never exist because this idealized scenario of rational actors is impossible to create in a game of Diplomacy.

2ndWhiteLine, the prisoner's dilemma is necessarily a non-zero-sum game. It really doesn't have anything to do with Diplomacy as we play it. And equitability has nothing to do with game-theoretic efficiency.

With only basic assumptions, the fact that we wager points in a zero-sum game simply means that either we think we're better than our opponents, or we value the playing game intrinsically, or both. Given that, all game theory would say about the game is that we should always go for a win (to reap the greatest profit from our supposed superiority) and/or do whatever makes the game most enjoyable.

Then again, if we're going to assume that x points are not valued x amount by all players all the time, anything can be postulated about the game theory of points in wins and draws. If someone values 7x points more than 7 times as much as x points, they'll prefer a win over a 7-way draw. The inverse is equally possible, and same goes for draws other than 7 ways. If you knew all player's value functions you might be able to solve the set of equations, but the impossibility of that is what makes discussions about draws and wins endless on these fora.

Well, the dilemma might have something to do with certain situations in a game (as in an alliance where either member could defect but would be screwed if the other did too) but not with the game as a whole.

Also our assessments of our own superiority can change during the game. A bet that was a good idea at the outset ceases to be one when you've got two centers and there are four players on the board. So, going for a win might not remain the best idea throughout the game to all players. But again, it's an insoluble question, very little game theory can bring to bear on the game as a whole. That's why it's so brilliant to play.

@2ndWhiteLine - I think the disagreement here, is that implicit in your argument is the idea that a player does (or should) value an X way draw 1/X times the value of a solo. You're treating it as a zero-sum game. While this is a reasonable opinion, it is by no means universal.

I might just as well say that since the goal of the game is to solo, that any non-solo result is worthless. That a 2-way draw is an equivalent failure to a 7-way draw. I think that most players probably fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

For my part, I kind of value each results based on how difficult it is to achieve. IMO, a solo is more than three time the difficulty of a 3-way draw, and I consider it more than three times more valuable.

(As an aside, you're also assuming that the correct way to divide up "points" between surviving players is to simply divide them equally among everyone who's alive. Again, while that's not an uncommon opinion, it's not at all universal.)

I'll chime in along with others here. 2ndWhite, you seem to value supply centers as the "good" being competed for in this situation. Taking a 2-actor theory and extrapolating it onto a 7 actor game aside, I would agree that based on your theory, to "remain silent" in the prisoner's dilemma would be the equivalent for you to going for an equitable draw, while "squealing" would be equivalent to going for the solo, no?

Well, since the prisoner's dilemma depends on us getting something in return for these choices (in that case, year's in prison) we choose base on what "stuff" we get in return. I think we all agree here that the "stuff" we are getting in this situation is happiness. You seem to play on the assumption that "If everyone gains and remains alive, it is an equitable distribution and thus everyone is happy and that's the best." (or something along those lines). Myself as well as others who posted play on the assumption that "Competition for the solo produces better quality games and thus everyone is happier" which in effect leads to decisions that are the reverse of your situation. It is this dichotomy of views that creats PPSC players and WTA players, imo.

2ndWhite, not every diplomacy game is fun. And I'm not talking just wen I'm quickly eliminated. As I said in my previous post, a game can be boring if the first three big players just wipe everyone else out and draw with no attempt to solo.

Also, 7 way draws do happen, I was in one. And it was a valid 7 way draw, but would not likely have happened if it wasn't for it being Public Press. I/A/T facing a western triple and Russia getting to be the lucky middleman.