:-)

Bingo!
And another enlightened player joins the ranks.

Yes, yes, and yes.

My final disillusionment with that scoring mechanism worked in my favor—I got the win, because I had an ally who was satisfied with helping me win, provided he got the biggest piece of the losers pie. Left a bad taste in my mouth, and I never went back.

I disagree that it is an inferior game (as is implied)...it is simply a *different* game, and now that you are enlightened, you must adjust your strategy accordingly.

This is an age old issue. First, I prefer WTA, it does lend towards better playing. However, the original board game did not involve points, and had neither WTA or PPSC in the rules. Both are just variants that we play here.

Any game in which you do better by letting someone else win is an inferior game.

"Do better by letting someone else win" is a false argument. You can always play to win, no matter the game style.

In WTA games, I see people doing the same sort of thing - I've been in a WTA game where people were shooting for a 4-way draw about 5 years in to the game...how is that any better?

It is the players that make the difference, not the game.

Now...you *can* probably argue that WTA will draw a higher caliber player in general...and that I can't argue against.

"I disagree that it is an inferior game (as is implied)...it is simply a *different* game, and now that you are enlightened, you must adjust your strategy accordingly."
+1 to krellin, they are two different variants that require different strategies. PPSC has the advantage of players playing for the survive even when they have no hope of victory (rather then enter all holds and get defeated in WTA) while in WTA people play to the survive instead of the draw.

Its just how the game is played. People have preferences, but I don't care either way since they both have consequences based on the scoring system.

@krellin

Drawing is not giving someone else the win. Nor is choosing to let someone else win the same as being rewarded by in-game mechanics to throw the game.

Doesn't this come down to whether you're more concerned about your points or about your ghost rating? And aren't both rating systems completely artificial? There's absolutely no prize other than personal satisfaction, so if someone gets more pride from a second place finish than a 5-way tie, who really cares? And maybe someone else could argue that it's more fun to lose to good players than it is to win against poor players, who's to say that's right or wrong?

Playing for the draw isn't good, either, but sometimes you must draw in order to prevent a solo.

@Abge - my point is that you apparently want to play a game where the players are motivated to go for the win. I'm saying that I have played WTA games where players clearly were not opting to go for the win, but almost seemed to go in to the game with the minset the game is about the draw.

I'd argue that *any* systems that acknowledges Survive/Draw as somehow superior to Defeated/Eliminated is going to skew the game.

When I played the physical board game as a kid growing up, nobody ever played for the draw or the survive - it wasn't in out mindset. Here, it seems too many players only focus on such an objective.

That's why I argue there is little difference between WTA/PPSC, because my objective is to win, regardless of the game style.

As I see things, there are two objectives when you play a game of Diplomacy. Ranked in order of importance, they are:

1. Win
2. Not lose

Nobody on this forum with any sense is going to argue that you don't play to win the game. You also don't want the other players to win. It's really two sides of the same coin. Points are what confuse things. As the site is currently configured, though, the only way to differentiate between a "good" player and a "bad" player is to use points as a proxy for skill. Until we get GR integrated in place of points, players will always play for points in PPSC.

In a sense, both points and GR create a sort of metagame. "I will settle for a draw in this game because to go for the win risks a loss, which would hurt my GR."

"I'd argue that *any* systems that acknowledges Survive/Draw as somehow superior to Defeated/Eliminated is going to skew the game."

I wouldn't necessarily equate a "survive" with a "draw." A draw is a result and a survive is a loss. If you play to win, and you can't win the game, why would you create an environment in which another player can win instead?

Even points can skew this picture, because if you play high calibre players with low point games (tourney's) you won't automatically have a lot of points.

A good secondary system would be a stepped point system: 3 for the Solo, 2 for the Draw, 1 Point for the Survive, Nothing for dying, displayed as an average...Your GPA...game Pint Average.

Yes, I do, but that's not my point here.

WTA may encourage people not to win, but PPSC encourages people to lose. Clearly, that is worse.

A survive is still a loss though, krellin. You aren't rewarded in the current system or in GR for a survive, so why award points for losing? A performance rating is really the only way to go.

Survives should be eliminated as a category. A survive is a loss, often worse than a loss as it means you were still alive when the solo happened.

A solo is a win
A defeat or a survive is a loss (I coudl care how many poiutns you got)
A draw is neither a win nor a loss, it is just a line reached that all the players agree cannot be broken through.

I would rather have a survive than a defeat. Especially when I am the target of "thinning the draw"

@Draug, a draw is not a win, but it prevents anyone else from winning, so you can play them again without having been beaten...

@Gen Lee - As you point out, that distinction is situation dependent. If I am defeated helping stop the solo byt the one who was trying for the solo, that is better than if I survive bceause I was to dense to see the solo coming.

But there can be no argument that being part of the draw (i.e. no Solo so no wonner) is always better than getting a survive in the purest terms. Eliminate points and think about the board game. A group of people stopping the solo at the end would feel better about their play than that same group getting survives and defeats cause they let someone win. That is why WTA is closer to the board game than PPSC. Nobody playing the boardgame (well, no decent player) would ever throw the game to the point of letting someone else actually win. They might help him get to 17 and put themselves in a spot to be vital in the end game guaranteeing they are part of the eventual draw, but giving that player #18 or helping that player get #18? Only if they are a tool and a moron.

Abge - I think you're missing the point about diplomacy. That's diplomacy with small d and Diplomacy with a capital D. It's about achieving the best possible outcome in the circumstances.

In Diplomacy the board game you want the best result for your country. If you happen to be Austria and are attacked by three neighbours in turn 1 your best outcome maybe becoming Russia's satellite state and assisting him to a solo. I'd do this regardless of the scoring system. The important thing is that I communicate to Russia that I'd be his lacky and my reasons. It's also important for me to know what motivates him/her without assuming everyone shares my priorities. (Enjoy the game / win / draw / survive / make life difficult for anyone who stabbed me).

In real life some countries would sooner survive under a super power than ally with someone who mistreated them earlier. Some countries will quickly bury past differences when their interests coincide.

There is nothing superior about WTA v PPSC. There are good diplomats and people who have yet to achieve that mantle.

But, Maniac, in the game, per the rulebook, it is assumed that the first to 18 would gop on to conquer the world. No allies. Complete and absolute domination. So if you help someone solo, you are in effect helpign them conquer you. The game just doesn't play out until all 34 SCs are owned.

But that could be a cool variant...

Darug -- but even in a world in which you have been dominated, you are either set up as the puppet ruler of your sub-domain, or you are either dead or a slave to the conqueror. To that extent, there is merit to helping the conqueror...leading to my next forum thread...

No, there is no merit there. What price for your soul, krellin? What price for your soul?

Bah....what price my soul!! What price my extreme public torture when I am found helping the resistance frrm my lofty position as Conqueror's lapdog...

What krellin said.

This has been hashed over a million times now, all we oldtimers know the arguments. At the end of the day, you pick a metric of success, and play to maximize your gain within that context. Any alternative to this is foolish.

Indeed, one of the things that makes this game so fascinating is that everyone comes in with different goals, priorities, and motivations. Figuring out and exploiting what those are is a key to success.

@Tasnica,
Couldn't have said it better