I would be inclined to agree with Alderian. A draw is always better than a survive/defeat, so why shouldn't it be rewarded as such?

You're supposed to play for a win! I certainly wouldn't award points for draws unless the various factions are jammed at the stalemate lines.

I'd also make the games anonymous, but that's just me.

@SpeakerToAliens
Don't people how they are "supposed" to play.

Can I suggest 0 for a 2 way draw?

@Baskineli, actually, the Masters tournament was specifically designed with the idea that you should play for the win and not a draw. In the previous season a draw wasn't worth anything with regard to the Masters tournament score. Only wins counted and as a tie breaker, wins over other players with wins.

So Speaker was merely speaking to the nature of this particular tournament.

@Speaker, I believe having the Masters anonymous was previously decided upon. I assume it is going forward that way.

I think the difference between win and draw could be bigger, 5 for a win and 1 for a draw or even 7 for a win.
About the size of the draw, I guess 6 and 7 way draws could be awarded 0 to avoid early draws, but great games sometimes end in a 5-way draw if some stalemate lines are reached. Like Alderian pointed, I don´t like the idea of having to eliminate someone just to be able to get some points. If you can´t win the size of the draw really doesn´t matters.

Why is a stalemate line necessarily the end of the game? Unless you've got 17-17 with two players, surely there's room for diplomacy?

It´s not necessarily the end of the game, but usually is, specially if one side is near 18 centers as why I should risk giving the solo to the big power? Like I said, if I can´t win then draw and the size of the draw really doesn´t matter.

The big power ought to be able to do something diplomatically to keep the game going.

I would disagree with the 5-7 ways gettings no points as it may be that stopping a solo requires all five remaining players. In that case, forcing the 4-6 people trying to stop the solo to consume one another in the hopes of getting down to only 3 of them plus the big guy without letting the big guy get the solo is actually helping the potential solo along and is not in the spirit of the game.

I think I prefer the original format.
Simple and fits the tournament purpose... play for the win no matter what.

@Ghost - "The big power ought to be able to do something diplomatically to keep the game going." - Agree with you, if I am the big power I will do my best to make the others fight, but if the "not so big powers" are reasonable (and the game is WTA) they will probably stick to the draw other then risk giving a solo just to have a smaller draw.

@Troodonte - i think the reward for stopping someone solo-ing should be considered.

If everyone is just playing to win then once they can no longer win they're more likely give up. If some people are willing to accept a draw then a player with only one supply center left has something to contribute to that draw, and is hence more likely to survive and grow... (perhaps even going on to win if he's lucky)

1 point for a draw and 5-7 for a solo seems about fair.
Any draw, though 7 palyer draws might give a player that 1 extra point to bring them from 7 -> 8 and thus be as valuable as a win if that will make the difference...

hmm...

@Ghost - "The big power ought to be able to do something diplomatically to keep the game going."

I'd be really interested in seeing a game where a power came close to soloing but was stalemated and rather than drawing, withdrew from the stalemate line, not just enough to trick the other side into doing something stupid, but conceding centers to give some life back to the game and possibly going on for the solo later on.

But as long as draws are rewarded, players seem happy to take the draw. That's why I still wish there was an optional version of WTA where a game that ends in a draw merely returns points to everyone, even the eliminated, and only a win counts for something.

That's effectively what the Masters tournament was last season, but between the current draw culture and ghost ratings still crediting draws I think people were still in a mindset that a draw was a positive outcome even though the tournament rules said it wasn't.

How about 1 point for the win, and 0.1 for a draw, draws include all survivors.

That way, winning a game is still a driver for the tourney, and it preserves the classic Win >>>> Draw > Survive > Eliminated mentality

@Aldarian - I think the Masters runs on the 'If I can't win, then I'll do my damnedest to stop anyone form solo-ing' lines. It's not so much being happy to take the draw (always good in such exalted company), but stopping anyone else from getting that vital win.

"I'd be really interested in seeing a game where a power came close to soloing but was stalemated and rather than drawing, withdrew from the stalemate line, not just enough to trick the other side into doing something stupid, but conceding centers to give some life back to the game and possibly going on for the solo later on."

I've seen such a game. I think it was one of anlari's

If we make it much more for a win than a draw, then we're just doing the same as 1 point for a win, draws as a tiebreaker, which isn't any significant change at all.

Ghost - how about 0 for any number draw... UNLESS there is a genuine stalemate line.

as in, no voting for a 3 way just because we each get 1 point... the mod has to actually endorse that a genunine stalemate has been reached to award the 1 point for each drawee...

thoughts?

What is a genuine stalemate line? Do you mean a stalemate line that cannot be broken through orders? What about political stalemates? You might have a 2 on 2 where maybe one pair could get the other pair to split up, but maybe not because then the one that splits may end up being the one consumed.

Ghost - "If we make it much more for a win than a draw, then we're just doing the same as 1 point for a win, draws as a tiebreaker, which isn't any significant change at all."

That begs the question, why make a change at all? But I do have to point out that you are not quite correct. At least according to the tournament rules listed on the website. Draws is the third differential. First is number of solos. Second is "who you won solos against, so looking at the sum of the points of the players beaten in the solos, a higher position will be awarded to the player who beat better opposition" So making the draws worth even one tenth of a solo does have a significant change.

I liked the original format. It worked well overall and i enjoyed the experience which is what it's all about.

Of course you could get a point per supply centre that you own at the end of game...that could keep a few games going, of course it might just lead to lots more of the smaller powers eliminated for a few SC's more.

How about a very large number of points for a solo (say 100) and where there is a draw each participant in the draw either get the number of points equal to the supply centres they have. That would arguably make draws less stable and still mean that a single solo will be worth more than drawing all games.

@Ghost: if you make draws worth something, you will create situations in which playing for the draw makes sense. If you want a tournament in which everyone plays for the win all the time, you can't give them a reason to draw.

I also loked the original format, it made for interesting games and getting to know quite some players.
Totally against some soft rule for awarding some draws and not others, as this would without doubt lead to discussion on why my situation did not qualify for points whereas the very similar one of xyz did.
The only chage I would introduce would be to make it anonymous. That might lead to more solos happening.

btw...
what happened to the champions trophy?

@ab: tournaments are interesting to me because they reward slightly different behavior than a stand-alone game. Winning is the best in every situation. But what's second best? The "leagues" reward honesty and cooperative draws. The GFDT rewards strong seconds. The Masters rewards NOTHING. Win or die! It seems like a good balance for all the people who complain about "carebearism."

You could make draws totally undesirable by adding another rule: you can't qualify for the final unless you win at least one game. If only 6 people score points, players 7-13 play a final game, with the winner going on. If there's no winner, you ask the best non-player you can find to take part in the final game.

I like pastoralan's idea of only winners. But in the wildcard game, make top SC count be the winner if there it draws, and then break that tie by GR.

@Draug: that makes more sense.

@MM The orignial format made me so ruthless. It was the first game I ever played at that level and the first time I ever played against you. I kept diddling around at 17 centers , trying a find a way to eek out the win. If a Draw had been worth anything, I would have drawn much earlier.

Ghost- I agree with Wizard. It would be great to have that Champs game.

@patoralan: I agree with your assessment on tournaments and leagues. Each tournament needs to be looked at with a different mindset. In the leagues, you can just look at a single game, you have to look at overall standings, in GFDT, it is a true PPSC format and the Masters is a true WTA format. I would like to keep it close to same, 4 per win and 2-way ties 1 point. 0 for any other draw.

Hmmm... I'm starting to lean in that direction but still think 3 and 4 ways should be worth something. Maybe a win is 4, but a draw is worth 2 divided by all players with a maximum 4 way draw. 5, 6, or 7 is worth no points. So a three ways gets .667 and a four way gets .5, but a 5, 6, or 7 gets nothing. That makes a win always worth twice what the smallest draw is and thereby encourages going for the win.

Draug, if a win is worth 4 and a draw is worth 2 divided by the number of players, 2/2=1, so that makes a win always worth four times what the smallest draw is, not two twice as much.

OK, make the win worth 3. I don't think two draws should equal a win and a loss. Draws should be worth less.

@Alderian: Thankyou.

Thanks for the reminder about the Champs games Wizard.

Okay, it seems like the general consensus is towards keeping the format the same, which is fine by me.