Wow. Give the guy a chance to write his message. Do you just wait for you new posts like that so you can be a asshat to people?

Haha

hahah Do *you* just wait for people to be asshats so *you* can act all high and mighty? :)

But, seriously, copy-paste ftw.

In the games I've played on this site, I've always preferred PPSC. Partly because that's how I was introduced to the game, and partly because I don't think WTA is at all a realistic system (regardless of how the board game was originally meant to be played).

However, many players on the site have insisted that the highest quality games can only be played on the WTA system. When I play PPSC, I never play for the strong second, which I do not consider to be a desirable end to the game, and I hoped this attitude would be reflected in a high-pot WTA game.

In this game, two players decided from the beginning of the game to play for a draw, ignoring the possibility of a win from the outset. A third player, instead of working to stop the advances of the alliance to find a stalemate line, instead devoted his attention to eliminating weaker players in order to ensure his position in a three-way draw.

So, in summary, is playing for the draw as a result of the WTA system any better than playing for the strong second in PPSC?

Wow. Yeah I do. You called me out good and proper :)

haha, I should have copy/pasted. I knew as soon as I started that this would happened.

For reference, the game was the Mapleleaf Challenge (http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=45568#gamePanel).

I should mention that I, as Italy, played a very poor game and deserved the elimination. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that this sort of gameplay makes for a much less interesting game than lower pot PPSC games that I have played.

hah, mapleleaf lost a lot of $d. ouch.

@youradhere, good question. I have two possible answers.

First, perhaps it is the large pot rather than the WTA versus PPSC. If you played a similar pot size as PPSC, those same two players could likely have gone for win and strong second. Granted, the third player might be more concerned with stopping them for fear of a 18-16 or 17-17 result.

Second, the current WTA system rewards small draws. I would like a different WTA version where a draw is similar to a cancel, everyone gets their points back (except CDers.)

In any case, I mostly play small pot (5 ) WTA. Hopefully the smaller pot makes for a more interesting game because there is less at risk and therefore players will play it less safe.

Your mileage may vary.

I assumed that the high pot size would be partly to blame. I was just frustrated with France's decision to play for the draw instead of trying to stop the leading powers. A PPSC match would, ironically, required him to try and stop the winners from wiping out more of his territory instead of rushing to go for the small draw (like you said).

I suppose the conclusion for now is to steer clear of high pot WTA matches.

WTA has always been very interesting for me. While I have never won them, and personally always seem to end them in a Draw, that has nothing to do with me planning it that way, i just suck.

But, I always do play low pot games, by virtue of having no points.

In my experience, almost every time I play PPSC it ends up with some sort of unbreakable alliance that lead to a 17-17 or 18-16 at the end and I usually feel like I have just spent too much time for nothing.
In WTA at least you could use diplomacy and evetually tactics (be usefull to reach a stalemate line) to make an interesting game and even get back after a bad start.

That's the problem I had with the WTA game. Suddenly we faced an unbreakable alliance and the only player who could have done anything about it decided to kill everyone off instead of trying to work in a coalition.

Sounds like he did the right thing for his position. When faced with possible elimination by allying with those you don't trust or feeling confident you'll be part of the draw by allying with the current solid alliance who you do trust, you go for the draw.

In a high stakes game like the one mentioned playing for a 3-way draw is positive for your EV.

Playing for the best possible outcome seems like a sane thing to do, especially given the fact that this site give you the opportunity to play many many games, and you will get rewarded if you focus on your EV rather then best possible outcome in any given game.

I agree that he did the best thing for his position, which is why I'm trying to criticize the system rather than the player. In my opinion, it makes more sense to try and stop the winning alliance than playing for what is essentially a strong third.

agree with OP. the way I see it, points exist outside of the context of a game, so considering them within the game is metagaming. unavoidable, but still wrong. also agree with those that suggest playing high stakes games is a good way to avoid this behavior ... although low stakes games create other issues.

What's the feeling here on pre-determined 2-way draws? Especially when there'e LOTS of opportunity for a stab.

LJ, define "pre-determined". if it was determined before the game starts, then it's obviously metagaming. if it was agreed upon during the game, there's some grey area.

first, i would say there's a reason AH+R is called "the better juggernaut". second, germany played like a complete idiot, attacking england when he needed to be worried abut AH+R. lastly, people usually unite to fight someone who is in danger of soloing. R and AH were pretty evenly matched the whole time, and whatever diplomacy was done to split them up clearly didn't work.

on the other hand, france might have done more to prop up E and G, hoping they would stall R, allowing AH to expand while R didn't. he could then pitch R to turn on AH, hoping to get a solo himself. but i think the early developments with E and G precluded that.

lastly, to LJ's question, i think 2 way draws are silly. i've done some in my time, but very few very good players would ever go for that. there are exceptions of course, and if that's their style, it works for them obviously.

there has only been one game i played that ended in a 17-17 draw and thats because italy was being stubbon and wouldnt draw while i (germany) was allied with austria who was a little weaker than me but also willing to draw and when italy just held stalemates against me austria took advantage and wiped them out while maintaining my stalemate line with them and i couldnt get the last sc i needed from italy because they were support holding everything. because of italys stupidity and not 3way drawing when it was offerd they got themselves killed and ended with a 2 way draw for me and austria because we had a massive stalemate line set up for about a year before he realized that neither of us could get through. i prefer PPSC over WTA games just because some people play poorly or CD and cause an unworthy player to win the game when it should have been a draw but in the PPSC games its much easier to get draws to happen or even gain points from survives if someone does manage to get the solo.

@ Snappy - From the get-go. Indistinguishable from a pre-arranged alliance, but the participants swear it wasn't.

@LJTD: That was the situation in this game. To be fair, I've played games to a draw with my original allies, which could be interpreted as such, but I've never played a game with the express intent to draw.

I find it unlikely that had the opportunity to solo been given to one of the players they would not have gone for it. Looking at the game, it looks like there was never any effort by any of the other players to disrupt what you are calling inevitable, so of course it happened.

"lastly, to LJ's question, i think 2 way draws are silly. i've done some in my time, but very few very good players would ever go for that. there are exceptions of course, and if that's their style, it works for them obviously. "

I'll never forget our attempt at a two way draw were we stabbed and made up about three times in the same game.

It ended in a four or five way draw, with some superb diplomacy by jbalcorn.