" if players know you are motivated by raw points, then they can count on you to alter your course of play towards the maximum points. You then become predictable strategically or diplomatically on motivation and incentives that are determined by an outside source (the scoring system) and not some internal mechanism or aspect within the immediate game."

I don't really see how this site's unique 'external' motivation (points) makes a player any more predictable than the other standard external motivation of winning (and/or drawing). On the contrary, I think you might be better off this way because most players will assume that your intentions are to win (as that's the default), but if you have a history of playing for less than the win you're more attractive as an ally for someone else hoping to benefit from your timid ambitions and/or loyalty.

In fact, I'd argue that playing for points early on (and not for wins) could help your ghost rating in the long run because it should lower expectations for your performance with both the experienced players (like Edi apparently), and even with the Ghost Rating system itself. (it places a disproportionate emphasis on wins/draws in games against higher ranked players)

If you save your vicious stabs for later then they'll never see you coming. ;-)

I believe that PPSC should allways be PPSC, even in draws.

That's the point, right? More, SCs, more points...

@Xapi:
I assumed so, but apparently not..?
If it's really the case that the pot is divided evenly then I would have to seriously reconsider drawing with some minor powers left in the game (since they'd be effectively stealing a disproportionate share of the pot).

yeah, in WTA it seems appropriate to share a draw with all players.

i was thinking about 'allied victory' (which doesn't seem to feature on this site) where any combination of allies which controls more than 18 supply centres can claim victory (only really appropriate in a WTA game) and those winners get the victory (it should probably count as a draw for them, but a loss for everyone else; with points divided between the winners)

That said i'm fairly sure the original rules of Dip state that the game ends with one winner and six losers, a draw is a situation where everyone fails to win... (though i know sometimes drawing can be more satisfying.)

Mr.Pinguin, your logic on the Ghost rating is flawed. If you have a rating of x and play a set of games, and end up with a new rating n, that will be less than had you started with more points.

In addition, the reward system for Ghost rating is the same as for points.

The follow up on the original poster's (Plastic Hussar) questions of me:

There are actually 3 types of ratings. Akroma mentions two: points and ghost-rating. The third is your win/draw/survive/loss/percentages. Right now that percentage includes active games so is distorted, but that will be fixed in less than a month.

So on to the actual question. The less people in a draw, the better. In terms of points they have pretty clear values. A 2-way draw is the same as getting 17 centres. A 3-way draw is the same as getting 11.3 centres. So for points, you will get more the less are involved. For your win ratio: a draw is a draw is a draw. So no matter how many people are involved it will show up as a draw. Ghost-rating is similar to the Elo system of chess, where you have expected outcomes based on previous games and you get higher scores for beating better players. The less people involved in the draw the higher your final outcome, and the better for your ghost-rating.

Good players should be able to gamble for a win, but if they are unlucky, fall back into a stalemate line and into a draw. Check out EdiBirsan's stats above! He has never lost a game. His games have all ended in either him winning or him forcing a draw. The sign of a master to be sure.

I had quite a lot to say here after reading the original post, but by the time I got through all the comments, I've discovered it was all already said. Well done team.

@Plastic Hussar

Dude, have you no dignity at all? What you have written is simply not true - and you know it as you already did apologise in the game public chat?

Here's how the discussion went (and this was in the public chat - so at least 5 other people can confirm it):

GER (you): "no hard feelings, but I am not supporting a draw"
TUR (me): "So what are you playing for then - a win? :)"
GER: :"I'm just 7 SC away"
FRA: "For you to win this game FRA will have to hand it to you - which will only make sense if the two of you are cheating (multi-accounting or meta-gaming)"

At that point FRA had 14 centers and the better position. I still stand by this statement.

What you imply in this thread is simply not true. I have no idea why you decided to take this in public and lie so obviously - when there's a written record of it. So I guess I'll also stand by my statement that you're a moron.

Frankly, what is said in game and what is said in the forum are different. My guess is he was lying in the game.

Well, one of them is lying here and my guess is they both are. This is Diplomacy after all...

That's not the point - I the eternal question "how should this game be played" is also not the point. What I don't get is that:
1. There's a written record
2. We had a similar discussion in the game and I was under the impression this issue was sorted out.
3. I come to the forum and I see something that is blatantly not true + 40 opinions after it. What was the idea - that noone else from the game will see this thread???

Ivo, On Saturday, you said: “By the way, if you have a problem with what I'm saying I'd be delighted to take this discussion to the public forum,”
I replied an hour later:” As you suggested above, I also asked about this in the forum (before I saw your latest post)…”

So I don’t know why you are now shocked to see this here.

As the other player in the game (France), I think that Plastic Hussar has captured the situation pretty well. Ivo_ivanov, if you are upset that neither of us have decided to stab each other, that may be frustrating for you, but it's our prerogative. I'm a fan of teaming up with another player, and the two of us coming in 1st and 2nd. I can see that you don't particularly respect players who don't try to win the entire pot, but in a PPSC game, it's a perfectly valid strategy.

@Ghostmaker:
I didn't understand where you were going with the half-finished algebraic example.. How is it that my logic was flawed? (and are you talking about my reply to Edi's comment?)

It seems like you were saying something to the effect of:
"If you win more early games *and* you win more games later on, your score will be higher than if you only win games later on"

If so.. well that's fine and I don't doubt that this is true, but that was not my point. As I said before, the idea of losing early and winning later could help because:
1) The higher ranked players (that you're likely to encounter later on) would apparently (given Edi's comment) underestimate you and/or misinterpret your intentions.
2) Winning against higher ranked players counts for more than winning against less experienced players in the GhostRatings (and with the points as well, if the pots are higher).

Obviously #1 is debatable, but I think #2 is a correct interpretation of the system. Am I mistaken?

Assuming not, then I see it as follows:
There are three relevant probabilities affecting a player's eventual ghost rating:
The first is a player's innate probability of winning a game (I'll call it 'PiW' since I can't do subscripts).
The second probability is the Ghost-Rating system's estimate of a player's chance to win a game (maybe 'PgrW'?)
Finally, there's your chance *true* chance to win a game, the result of your innate abilities (PiW) and some additional advantage gained by their flawed preconceived notions about your intentions/habits/play style.. (PtW).


So, if my two assumptions above are correct, then the more games you lose early on, the lower your ghost rating and the related 'PgrW' estimate will be.

However, if these losses are a strategic decision rather than an accurate reflection of your true ability to win, then (PgrW) will drop well below your true potential (PiW).
And if accruing a record of losses (or loyal 'survivals' in this case), caused your future opponents to play differently with you and thus inflated your true ability to win (PtW), then the gap between the ghost rating estimate of win probability (PgrW) and your true potential for wins (PtW) would steadily increase.

At some point you could 'cash in' on your carefully plotted advantage, outperforming not only the ghost rating's expectations, but also your own innate chances. If it is the case that games with higher ranked players can boost your rating more than games with lower ranked players, then winning a string (or at least a ratio better than your innate ability would predict) of games against such players could serve to drastically incease your ghost rating, far more than if you maintained your innate win/loss ratio throughout your career (and thus lost progressively more and more games against higher ranked players).

wee_alex - my point is that I did not accuse GER of cheating because he refused to attack you - which is what he stated at the beginning of this thread. So, can you confirm if I:
1. Accused GER of cheating when he said he will go for second place?
2. The quotes that I posted in my previous message are accurate.

As far as the discussions about 'what is the right thing to do' - I am aware there are as many opinions as there're people - and I stopped replying as it made no sense, for the time-being at least :)

Hi Ivo...

I'm not going to get into the whole 'who-accused-who' of cheating, as it's really not the point of the thread at this point (at least, in my humble view). I just think that you came on pretty strong with a (self-confessed) new player who indicated that he was happy with coming in either first or second. As I said above, Dip (to me) is a game, and I'm going to treat it as such.

I just think that the entire thread is a bot of a tempest in a teapot...

Personally, I'm having fun being the 'Butcher of Vienna' in the game, and you've handed us some major tactical setbacks. I'm having fun ;)

Dude, I had no problem with anything and was happily playing the game until I saw someone lying about what I have said in the forum. Wouldn't you get a little pissed?

And I did not ask you to take sides - but just to clear up two 'technical' issues - a simple yes/no would have been enough :)

Ivo,

I am happy to confirm that the section of chat you repeated here is accurate. You also made the following statements in subsequent postings: (I have included the whole posts so that the context of any particular accusation is clear).
START QUOTE
“If this is your first game then maybe you should learn the basics before making grand statements - what I'm saying is not an accusation, it's a fact - it's not bitter and petty, it is the most reasonable response I can give to the nonsense you stated above :)
You see:
1. There's no such thing as second place in this game. You can win, draw, survive or get eliminated.
2. FRA is the strongest one and can go for the solo win. Or he may decide to not risk it, keep his agreements, and settle for a draw.
3. You cannot win unless FRA let's you do it - which is, for all practical purposes, against the rules of the game - as people are expected to play for their own interest in any specific game.
In here, as in life, you have two options - be able to take feedback and learn, or stick to your convictions because 'that's how you do it' - which is the most mature approach to take if this is your first game, obviously :)
By the way, if you have a problem with what I'm saying I'd be delighted to take this discussion to the public forum. Which will in any case happen should I see you coming close to a win here. I've played with a lot of cheaters and they all had one thing in commong - all got too sensitive when someone inquired about their irrational behaviour - and most got banned in the end.
The ones who didn't turned out to be simply morons - in which case it is again good to spread the news. Because this is a game with 7 people, and when some of them have no idea what they're doing, but are religious about keeping it up, they ruin it for everyone else.
So, to summarise, if you win this game that this will smell like cheating, and if FRA wins it will be simply poor play. The second option is not the best - but this entirely is up to you. However, unless FRA starts giving you centers you won't finish that much better than you are now (if at all) as after this discussion it is clear I have to start helping FRA win :(“
END QUOTE.
So perhaps I am being thin skinned, but the above did sound enough like an accusation of cheating, to cause me to ask the wider community about it.

Afterwards we'll be able to move all this nonsense within the game and leave the others to chat about ELO and such.

If the quote is accurate (and knowing Ivo, I have no reason to doubt the veractiry. It sounds like him.) then it absolutely had elements implying cheating.

Everything Ivo said was true. He was just needlessly aggressive about it.

However, he was speaking in self-interest within a broader diplomacy game, so I don't think we can question his words because he is simply trying to avoid getting killed.

Do what you feel best PH but:
1) Consider what everyone is saying to you fairly.
2) Don't post any further chat in the forum, this is an in-game issue.

Yep, I was :(