This is priceless. a multi-accounter crying that a guy who refuses to stab his ally is metagaming... Truly priceless...

wtf? I was an old multi-er. Im not doing it now. AND FOR THE F****** LOVE IF GOD!!!! IM NOT CRYING!!!!

There are reasons other than metagaming to act in that way. I might do it if I feel I should honour an agreement, not to prove to my ally I'm a solid guy for future games but for my own sense of self worth. Also sometimes I feel that some players *deserve* more than others. Although that doesn't happen too much anymore since I play WTA pretty exclusively now.

I have played 12 games here to a draw. Some of them were games that I could have won but decided to end for any number of reasons. I wish that this site had something other than a Kill System for draws: you have to kill everyone you do not want in the draw as they cannot vote themselves out of the draw to have a more social ending to the game rather than a grinding down to dust.
I do not see it as unethical or unsportsman like to decline to take a win, nor to sit back and hold at 17 while the rest of the board sorts itself out. Sometimes I use the threat of winning to force a draw and have been known to sit on 18 centers in a Spring and tell people they have a choice:
vote a draw as is or face that I would win.
It is all a matter of what is going on in the game and its personalities and not a matter of some metagame ethical approach.

There're some gray-area issues here - and phpDiplomacy does not adhere 100% to the Board Game principles (which I find has its good sides also).

I'm often in situations like this, so made these basic guidelines to help me sort such isuse out. Works well for me, hope you'll find it helpful, not claiming it to be the 'only way' :)

1. There're 4 distinct game outcomes:
WIN
DRAW
SURVIVAL
ELIMINATION

Anything that gets you up the ladder is allowed - and not only allowed - it is the right way to play. The point system and PPSC games mess it up a bit - but lately there's been more focus on game results and not points which is for the good.

2. When in a situation when the game outcome is clear (e.g. clearly going for the win) I'd focus to:
- finish the game asap as it is no fun for anyone else and dragging it along is simply poor taste
- try to not eliminate anyone (as it simply makes no sense)
- keep the promises (centers) to allies (for PPSC games)

Sometimes these are in conflict. I would personally not eliminate remaining players if I'm going to go for the win. Perfectly ok if going for a 2-way draw though.

The metagaming accusations in this case are irrelevant. Yes, of course there's some form of metagaming - this site is a community - and it's only natural that one tries to act the same way he'd hope others will act in a similar situation. "Every game is for itself" is simply not true here :)

And, finally, all of the above is void if you take it personal, or decide you have a good reason to punish someone.

I was in that game for a short while, I do not believe this a metagaming thing. MJ is doing what he has to do in the context of that game. I gave MJ my remaining SC's when I saw I would be eliminated.

That was so SrgnS would not prosper, seems to have same effect on other people!

MJT - nice! take him out! I love it when we get to hear the other side. It sounds to me like you're completely justified. I feel bad for eliminating someone just to help an ally get points, but when someone is rude - to hell with them, I take them out out of spite. AND I think it's in the spirit of the game - I love when I stab someone, and they still offer to help me, while the person we were attacking thinks it's their chance to get me on their side - it means I played both sides well. Diplomacy, in other words. If you're a prick, your diplomacy skills have failed and since that's the name of the game - to hell with you! Go MJT!!!

its horrendous sportsmanship - and its because of this idiotic ppsc system used on this site.

I am actually pretty fed up with it... and I'm probably going to leave the communicy because of it...

this is NOT "Diplomacy"

its a bastardization of a quality game.

@ philcore - I wasnt rude to him unless you count giving him advice to take holland as rude. And if I did come off as rude the only reason is because it happened after germany did nothing whatsoever the whole game. just sat there and is taking the spoils. MJT deserves to win, he played nicely, but germany who did nothing doesnt deserve to sit back let france get his SC's for him and take the spoil. Diplomacy isnt about whos nice or not, its about how well you backstabbed and lied. MJT good job, but i dont think germany deserves any points no matter what. Next time i have an ally im just going to sit back let him do the work and take his spoils. Sound good?

The leave, Babak. No one wants a whiny cryin' little b*tch in their games anyhow. Ive been playing Diplomacy since the late 70s (my early teens) and just accept that this is another variant that requires a different tact to play. I enjoy it all the same.

Oh and your other thread b*tchin' about not being listened to... Post on the DEVELOPER'S forum, NOT on this one. You might actually get listened to there. That's what it's for.

I completely disagree with ivo. Only people who win outright should get points, the rest of you, even if you get in 2nd most games, should get nothing for your efforts!

/sarcasm off

Obviously, I agree entirely with Ivo (just look at my profile). This game is about communication and alliances. If you don't like PPSC, then play WTA games. Kestas isn't holding a gun to anyones head to play his FREE game (that I know of).

@ivo: One minor correction, a draw can be less valuable than a survival in a PPSC game. Just saying.

@Babak: Just play winner-take-all. You can't yet because you don't have enough points. This may seem stupid but there is actually an incredibly good justification for this. For example, if seven new players, starting with 100 points each, played in a WTA game betting all of them, six of them would lose everything. This isn't the bad part - as you probably know, finishing your last game while having less than 100 will give you free points. The problem is, whoever won has earned 600+100 points from winning only one game. So they have 700. That's more than a lot of very experienced players. Now for the really bad part: if that happens repeatedly, so many points will be created they will all become worthless (inflation).

It's weird to be the only one on this thread defending PPSC while everyone else is bashing it, especially since I don't like it either, but I think everyone needed a reminder.

I like the idea of allowing anyone to start or play WTA, but limit the starting points to no more than half of your Daggers. I would even say that players with fewer than 5 games completed can't start a WTA with more than a quarter of their current Daggers.

@ aoe3rules - "ivo: One minor correction, a draw can be less valuable than a survival in a PPSC game. Just saying."

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. This is the points-system talking :)

I simply fail to comprehend how the idea of losing (survival) can be more appealing than not losing/shared win? :)

I have a survival with 15 SCs that I take more pride in than any draw I've ever been in. That game became a race to 18 and I lost, but I trashed a number of smaller nations along the way and almost pulled it off. So, points or no points, that was of more value to me personally than any draw.

Draugnar - this is a totally different scenario. You went for the win and gave it a good effort - this is perfectly fine. I'd assume it was the race for the win and how you played that gives you pride - not the survival in itself.

I am talking about intentionally going for a survival when there's a reasonable alternative to get a draw. And I'm not talking about a 5 or 6-way draw :)

Well- technically, if you still have 3 SC's, you haven't lost anything (4 for Russia), you've made a net gain!

Not true. If you finish a game with 3 SC then you will lose points in PPSC. You put in 1/7th of the points bet and will only take out 3/34ths. You would only get about 62% of your original bet back (.088/.143 =.617)

@Ivo_ivanov: I didn't mean it was better, I meant you'd get more points in some cases (for example, 16/34ths of 1000 points is less than 1/3rd of it, in a survival and 3-way draw respectively).

@Draugnar: You know, that's actually a pretty good idea. I'd prefer to limit it even lower, maybe 25 or 33, although one could argue while near-worthless games prevent inflation, they defeat the point of this. And offer very low-quality games (to anyone who disagrees with this because of the fact that experienced players sometimes play low-pot WTAs, I'm going to point out that this would imply that one or more experienced players had joined a WTA specifically to play with a less experienced player).

ivo - i could not agree more -

if people who keep defending ppsc like Draugnar want to ... go ahead. just admit that you are NOT playing "Diplomacy"... you are playing a far inferior variant of a quality game.

you want to call it whining? fine... i call it cheating.

its like saying you play football but then pick up the ball with your hands every once in a while and throwing it to a mate and calling that a pass.

you are not playing the game with the right set of rules - then dont pretend you are playing the game.

OK, so I play 3-D chess (aka Star Trek), your syaing because it is a variation of the original Chess it isn't chess. I call BS on that logic. By your logic, Texas Hold-Em isn't poler because it isn't five card draw, the original game. You are so full of it you must be tasting the SPOC in your throat.

By the way, I wasn't defending PPSC. I was defending the site as a whole. You whined about this site supposedly bastardizing the game. Plenty of evidence was submitted to show that even Mr. Calhamer had questions about the idea of WTA, PPSC, Draws an Strong Seconds, yet still you hijack threads with your incessant whining and insulting people. I hope to see you in a game because I will make it a point to crush you. Call it metagaming if you like, but you are making enemies here left and right and will probably never find an ally again. What we do on the forums will have an effect in game as long as we know who our opponents are. You CANNOT separate feelings in real life from a game, despite what you may think.

Finally, back to the topic of this thread, these same kinds of actions happen in face to face play. Having one player back another (who may not have done anything positive) to your detriment is just a sign that you suck at diplomatic relations...

oops, "saying" and "poker"

Let me exit by saying:

1. Babak - when you start a thread like "This is all BS and you're all morons" you'll get some stick :). Mostly justified - and the arguments you're making will not be really heard.

2. The anti-war movement - gentlemen, the current system is not perfect (but I like this site a lot). The fact that I need to constantly argue with people why a WIN is better then a DRAW and why a DRAW is better than a LOSS means something is not quite right? :)

P.S.
3D Chess is to Chess what Wii Tenis is to the US Open :)

The whole point of Diplomacy is the opportunity it provides to live the complexity of good and evil in a way not normally available to us in the real world.

To Rammstein's point, "You lost, and if they decide to be cruel and obliderate you for their own pleasure that is up to them." I can think of at least two or three games in my Diplomacy career where I might have wanted to see an enemy crushed brutally before getting to 18, and I can think of at least two or three games I've played where I probably deserved the same treatment.

Bravo!