Awesome! Small update, but...

Mainly made this thread so people aren't confused, and to make sure that the +1 whores on the team (2nd and Zultar) couldn't get credit.

I don't really need to create a thread like this to get +1s. :)

Very good move, jmo. Keeping the +1 whores down. So....when are you guys going going to make me a mod?

Great update. We've been waiting a while for it

Might want to change the Default: Points-per-supply-center text under the advanced settings on http://webdiplomacy.net/gamecreate.php to read Default: Winner-takes-all.

Thanks y2k, forgot that.

I think games that are PPSC should accurately state as such now on the game's page if that's no longer the default setting.

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

This is the best late Christmas gift I've ever received.

@y2k, A_Tin_Can may decide to make that change. Outside of what I can do from work though.

I realize the second feature change is more than just textual and involves logic, but just wanted to mention it.

So does this mean that PPSC games are now for expert players only? ;)

Only 8 year late... Awesome update :)

y2kjbk: All games now show their scoring method on the game page.

Would there be any interest in a new scoring method "WTA, but draws split by centre count"? If we went that route, it might be appropriate to remove PPSC.

I think that's worse than our current DIASE WTA, but it's still waaaaay better than PPSC.

All current and proposed systems are DIAS (draw includes all survivors). What does the E stand for?

For example, if we had Draws by Centre Count, it highly rewards failing to overcome stalemate lines. Someone who does well but is too lazy to play creatively or boldly to get on the other side of a stalemate line sits at their 17, knowing that they are rewarded with half the points. From there they can take their 50% pot with their poor ambition and/or wait for the survivors to squabble and reveal a weakness. While the squabbling of the non-leaders exists in Draws Include All Survivors Equally as well, it's much more tempered as one must completely eliminate an ally; in DIASE the one who doesn't both thinking about or challenging the stalemate line often comes out with 1/3-1/5 the pot (and often times hilariously annoyed they are!) and I think that serves them right.

My late night two cents.

Draws Include All Survivors Equally, which, to be fair, I just made up the "E" in that. I understand both would be DIAS but one would be Equal, one would be Unequal (by center count)

I think WTA games should only be DIAS split evenly (as per rules of board game).
I think PPSC games should only be DIAS split PPSC.

A_Tin_Can: Hell no. You do know that draws in PPSC are just like in WTA, right?


jmo1121109, zultar, et al: I'm not opposed to the change pe se, but I think there should have been some discussion about this.

PPSC probably feels more intuitive to new players. But on practical matters, I think PPSC is a superior default selection for two reasons:
1. Users are much more likely to take over CD positions in games that are PPSC because it is much more likely that they will lose their (D) investment should they join WTA games. Since CD's are much more of a problem in games with new users, the default pot type should cater to the experiences of games which experience CD's. Advanced users can still create their WTA games with much less fear of CD's.
2. WTA losses may keep new users strapped for (D). This issue is explained here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/points.php#ppscwta

Jeff: I don't believe the rules of the board game provide a scoring system?

Draws should continue to be split evenly between all participants, as is the current system. The only difference between PPSC and WTA should continue to be whether there is any reward/consolation for surviving a Solo (and whether those making Solo attempts have that additional tool in their arsenal). This, of course, is up to the preference of the players.

@ATC: The rules of the board game do not provide a scoring system. They do, however, state that all participants in a draw share equally in it.

Tas, can you elaborate on the reasons for your "should"? I'm interested in the reasons for opinions either way.

I'm not saying this is somethig we will or should do, but I think it's an interesting discussion point. I think most FTF tournaments implement some sort of WTA-but-draws-are-by-centre-count system. And, I think theres an easy argument to make that in a draw including a 10 centre and a 1 centre power, the 10 centre power played a better game.

If the 10 centre power played a better game, they should be able to eliminate the 1 centre power without destroying the lynchpin of the draw, is one traditional argument.

In addition, most tournament scoring systems are designed with time limits and three-consecutive rounds in mind, often forbidding same-country in two games, often comparing countries across boards, and is all around not a place I would take inspiration from for PBEBrowser Diplomacy.

Tas: So they do. Hidden in plain sight on the front page :)

This whole "play strength by SC" is undermined if the players go in knowing it's PPSC or DIAS-byPPSC because when it becomes obvious they won't win, they can suicidally abandon strategy or holding back the leader for an SC rampage as what [I believe] has been explained many times as one of the reasons PPSC is not particularly well enjoyed by the more serious players and the constant call for WTA default [which after 5 years or so has graciously been answered as of late]. That guy with 10 SC, more often than not, in a PPSC game, was simply the one who decided to throw the game and attack allies with wild abandon and let the leader solo, not the one who played a better game, even if SC count was somehow representative of that.

(Not that the tradition/official-rules argument is void or not sufficient to me; I'm just trying to give theoretical arguments as well)

I would actually say that in some cases, and possibly many cases, drawing as a 1 SC power is even more impressive than drawing as a 10 SC power. Despite having only a single unit on that board, you somehow managed to convince (or force!) the other players to include you in a draw. That's impressive diplomacy (and/or tactics).

The substantial reward for making it to the draw is a powerful incentive for players in tough positions to keep giving the game their all, fighting to survive even when the odds are against them. This not only makes the game better for them, but for the other players as well. Doesn't it suck when someone just gives up on a game the moment things go poorly for them (especially if you're not the one benefiting from it)?

Regarding PPSC games, I actually like that there is some incentive to, in a dire situation, throw in one's lot with the clear victor/superpower. This is far from uncommon in real life "Diplomacy", including World War I itself.

Naturally, it is up to the other "alliance" members to convince one another not to break ranks, while the nation attempting the Solo strives to divide and conquer with bribes, threats, and promises. This adds a dynamic to the WTA endgame, alongside other common Solo methods such as stabbing in a 2-Way, charging across a stalemate line before others realize there is a threat, or getting everyone to hate each other so much that no bribe is necessary.

Who is going to do something about the WTA and PPSC buttons being too close together?

I agree with JECE.

"PPSC probably feels more intuitive to new players. But on practical matters, I think PPSC is a superior default selection for two reasons:
1. Users are much more likely to take over CD positions in games that are PPSC because it is much more likely that they will lose their (D) investment should they join WTA games. Since CD's are much more of a problem in games with new users, the default pot type should cater to the experiences of games which experience CD's. Advanced users can still create their WTA games with much less fear of CD's.
2. WTA losses may keep new users strapped for (D). This issue is explained here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/points.php#ppscwta"

I completely disagree.

Re: #1. Players are less likely to take over PPSC games because PPSC is a complete bastardization of the real game where either one player wins or all survivors share equally in a draw.

Re #2: There is no "strapped for points" on this site. If you fall below a certain threshold, points are replenished for free!

I'll emphasize again, there are many players who absolutely refuse to take over PPSC positions because it is a bastardization of the real game for reasons that have been elaborated upon ad nauseam. The fewer PPSC games on this site, the better.

The idea that one SC powers can/should be eliminated from a draw is obviously false. If that last SC sits on the stalemate line (ex: Munich, Tunis, Marseilles, etc.) that is a SC neither side can grab without opposition from the other side. DIAS equally is at least a motivator to play better to get a win, and rewards skillful diplomacy to remain in a draw.

This fairly recent thread elaborates on WTA vs PPSC:

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1201652#1201652

Maybe JaimeR will earn some more +1s for his statistical analysis.

Some commentary from none other than the creator of Diplomacy, Allan Calhamer, who argues against PPSC:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm

See also the "Calhamer Point Count" scoring system for tournaments:

"CALHAMER POINT COUNT (1) [MB:Jun80]
A rating or scoring system named after the game's inventor, giving 1 point for a win, and 1/N points for a N-way draw. It reflects the "win-only" philosophy. In the "Averaged C.P.C", this score is divided by the total number of games, and in the "weighted version", corrections are made for the relative success of the 7 countries. Present custodian is Doug Hollingsworth. See Rating Systems (KW). "

I saw this after my scoring system proposal in the thread listed above. They are pretty much identical except that I multiplied everything times 420 so that scoring is done in whole numbers rather than fractions or decimals.

From the original rule book:

"OBJECT OF THE GAME

"As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply center, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.

"However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

@Tasnica & cardcollector:

I think you are both kind of saying the same thing. Tas says that a 1 SC power sharing in the draw is more impressive than so for a 10 SC power. I agree. Usually though, the other powers will try their best to eliminate the 1 SC power so the draw is among fewer players. If you've got an SC sitting on the Main Stalemate Line in late game, you might benefit because others *have* to help you survive for them to survive.

^Tasnica's comment actually was the basis of mine.

I think it was just to point out that it's a bad reason to do unequal draws just because "1 SC powers can be easily eliminated by larger powers".

We're talking through each other to get to the same place.
1 SC powers *should* be more easily eliminated than larger powers. But by virtue of the fact that they survived and are also in fact critical to a stalemate means that their diplomatic achievement is more worthy of note so they should share equally in the draw.

Thanks for the discussion on this topic. This isn't something that was decided in an instant. This is a conversation the mod team has had several times over multiple years, with over a dozen mods. I've also seen this same change tested out for a positive result on vDip. When it comes down to it, PPSC creates a game atmosphere that becomes moved away from the spirit of the FTF game due to influences like the sites point system. WTA is widely agreed to more accurately reflect the "true nature" of the game.

For people concerned about points, if you fall under 100 the site will give you points to get back to 100, there is no way to run out of points entirely (without being docked for rule violations).

The incentive for taking over CD's is being taken care of in the RR updates which are almost completed on a dev server and will be coming shortly.

Essentially though, the main pros to PPSC seem to be focused around points. Points are an artificially created currency to ensure that players cannot take on more games then they are capable of playing properly. That is the entirety of why they were created. If the point system is causing more restrictions then we'll look into how to address that issue.

You might want to update this page as well:
http://webdiplomacy.net/points.php
It suggests all games are points-per-supply-centre by default.

the default does make it ppsc, right?

Not any more. Create a new game and see. WTA is the default.

But the link Nescio posted does need rewriting.

And i'm afraid it is more than a simple rewrite... cause it goes into soo much detail...

jmo1121109 and Jeff Kuta: I do plan to reply. But seeing as the change has already been implemented, there is not much incentive to take the effort.