If we are going to debate WTA vs PPSC and refer to what the objective of the game 'should' be - that is a normative question - which must take into account that the game is supposed to be a fairly good approximation of reality.
In reality, every country in the world wants to be the superpower hegemon in a 0-sum international relations world. However, there comes a stage when a country feels that they can't be a hegemon - not possible at all. At this stage they need to decide whether to stop the hegemon and get a draw or help the hegemon win?? Now, if the country feels that the main hegemon can't be stopped from winning, the country would prioritise survival as their no.1 priority instead of winning after a point. At that point, allying with the hegemon might become the no.1 priority.
So, if the above were taken into account: I propose a new alternative system: Where a survivor allied with hegemon winner would get more points than a survivor non-allied with the hegemon. Such a system would approximate real-life incentives and situations much more accurately.
A survivor would also get less points than a draw since a draw is better than allying with a hegemon
And a winner would get the most points while a defeat gets 0
.
The webDiplomacy points ruleset is almost perfect, but...
)
)
)
)