WTA - PPSC is not an ordinary game setting, it is THE game setting, the most important one.

It tells WHICH WAY the players are going to behave. It does impose the PLAYSTYLE. In particular the last part of the game is going to be completely different under the PPSC or the WTA setting. For example, all other things being equal, it is definitely easier winning the PPSC game compared to winning the WTA game.

Creating/being forced to play a “vassal state” can be widely used in PPSC, not it WTA, while surviving someone else’s solo is tolerable in PPSC (as long as you still own something tangible) and absolutely not in WTA.

Ultimately, after this brief refresh of what I’m sure the majority of you already knows, I want to appeal to the V-dip users:
PLEASE PLAY EACH GAME ACCORDING TO POT-TYPE SETTING.

If you create or join a PPSC game, play trying to maximize your SCs number. In case someone reaches the victory condition, your reward will be PROPORTIONAL to your final number of SCs, in case of an N-way draw, your reward will be an equal share of the pot.

If you create or join a WTA game, play trying to solo, if you can’t win, play trying to avoid someone else to win forcing a draw, else that would be your complete loss.
If you do succeed in the ultimate challenge of a WTA solo, your reward will be the whole pot, if you take part of a draw your reward will be an equal share of the pot. Else, if you fail, your reward is zero, regardless of your “survived” or “defeated” final status.

For reference: http://vdiplomacy.com/points.php

PPSC – WTA is an Option, a Setting, a PREFERENCE.
Nobody forces the users to play under a setting they dislike, but once they choose a pot-type setting, they have accepted the rules and consequently are expected to play accordingly.

It is really senseless to join a PPSC game pretending/expecting the others to play like it was a WTA or vice-versa.

To me, the single most important aspect of diplomacy is not WatA versus PPSC, but rather, that people play to "win".

I understand that "winning" can have different meanings in wta/ppsc, and ill even accept the bastardized notion that letting someone solo and you having 16scs is somehow better than a 4way draw with 2 1 sc powers.

However, the issue i have is when people play with no intention to win. These are the people im sure we've all ket, who play game-long alliances with no intent to solo. Instead theres a premeditated draw at games end. Whether its 2, 3, or 4 way doesnt matter. Its one thing to play with variant rules everyone has accepted, but when some people are playing with different "win" conditions, all hell breaks loose.

I choose to harp ofn ppsc because in my exoerience, this rarely if ever happens in wta. However, in ppsc, you see it happen all the time. Allies waiting at 17scs so another can get to 17. Keeping a. Sc power alive for no reason other than you agreed to let them in the 3 way draw when you could have soloed by taking their sc. THIS type of behavior needs to be curbed.

When you set up a game, you are offered a variant/map/rules choice. The default is "Standard," which by my reading means that games follow the Avalon Hill Diplomacy Rules (when set to default) or the specific variant rules (when set to a specific variant). This means there is winner. When you are offered a choice between Winner Takes All and Points Per Supply Center, the only info you are given is the following:

"Points-per-supply-center vs Winner-takes-all

For more experienced players who have over 100 there is a "Winner-takes-all" mode, which can be chosen instead of the default "Points-per-supply-center" mode. In winner-takes-all games the winner gets all the points from the game, and the runners up get nothing. This mode is for expert players who think that winner-takes-all is more true to the board game; there's no honor in second place, and playing for second place makes the game worse!

But remember that you are less likely to get any points back in a winner-takes-all game; even if you play well you might get no points back, so try to bet less on winner-takes-all games than points-per-supply-center games!"

This only states that if you choose Points Per Supply Center, you will get vDip points for finishing the game when you don't win. It says nothing about alternate victory conditions, i.e., there is no winner in Points Per Supply Center. And in fact, a solo is awarded based on the same conditions of both the Avalon Hill Diplomacy Rules and the specific variants rules. So, how are members supposed to know that normal victory conditions, as stated in the Avalon Hill Diplomacy Diplomacy Rules, do not apply in Points Per Supply Center? I've been here for a couple of years and I've never seen that quote of Oli's before. I have heard others say something similar, but I've also heard yet others who say you should still play to win in Points Per Supply Center. This should be clearly defined in both the game setup and in the FAQ - particularly since it is the default setting for games -- which goes against the Avalon Hill Diplomacy Rules that I think most players would expect we are following when a default game is set up.

All of this impassioned defense of a flawed system ignores the fact that PPSC is the variant, whereas WTA is the standard. The question remains why does VDiplomacy default to the PPSC setting? Why is WTA the option, and why is it presented as some elitist setting? It's not. It's just the way the game was designed to be played. The game of Diplomacy is a winner take all game. The entire concept of points per supply center is a form of feel-good welfare, and I fail to see why this should be used in anything other than an odd variant Teach players, even newcomers to play for points while allowing solo, and calling that success is just foolish.

What's worse is that this entire conversation would not be taking place if the default setting was WTA. But for whatever reason the powers that be insist on keeping the default setting at PPSC. And it is the default because the PPSC option is preselected for all new games. Suggesting that the setting is simply is a "PREFERENCE" is disingenuous. This means that a majority of games created are of the PPSC type even amongst experienced players. The entire problem goes away of the box is preset at WTA as it should be. PPSC is an option, and should be treated as such.

would a solution be to force the players to choose WTA or PPSC by having the default as <choose> ?

Look i play both ppsc and wta and find that many players are still keen on preventing a solo regardless of state of play. the talk changes and so do the moves.
Stalemate lines and such.
Also see many people fly at the same player regardless of game play because of some perceved slight or an other.

The defeat / survive / draw / solo stats do drive some of this action as well not just D ponits.

As you can't dictate what drives other player you simply need to find what you're happy with.
For the logest time i didn't play WTA at all as I didn't want to drop all my points in a game when I knew I stood a good chance of keeping some or gaining a few with good play.
Put up 100 in classic WTA and draw Austria a few time or worse Pisa or French in Reminsamo( sorry spelling) and PPSC's look better...

Play both play often :-) room for both

Kaner, forcing a choice to be made would be an improvement, yes. While purists (like me) would prefer to see WTA as the default, at least if you provoke a choice when starting the game anyone creating a game will have to consider this. I suppose it's asking too much to have WTA described as the traditional style of play, but I think that would be an acceptable compromise to those of us "addicted to WTA".

To be clear the objection comes from the imposed style of play, not the actual awarding of points, and how that style become a completely selfish and greedy game by the second and third place players (first and second place losers). Points should be seen as fun, as a bonus, not as the objective of the game. Maybe there are some variants where the PPSC system works better, but *if* it was real points per supply center (even in draws), then it might have some real appeal. But the points per supply center application *only* comes into play *if* someone solos. No Diplomacy game should ever endorse by design players being okay with allowing a solo. A solo is just that, sole victory. The present system of PPSC encourages players to play for points rather than by the spirit of the game. This kind of game should only be played in rare occurrences when everyone is specifically aware that no one cares about the solo.

How about a hybrid PPSC/WTA game where half the pot goes to the winner (or gets divided equally in the case of a draw) and the other half is allocated to survivors per sc.

So, with a classic 20 point pay in (140 pot total) which finishes France 18, Turkey 10, Italy 4, Russia 2 - France would get 106 (70 for the win, 36 for scs; Turkey would get 20, Italy 8 and Russia 4.

In a high caliber game, where I could be assured everyone in the game understands the nature of the map, is entering moves, and genrally trying diplomatically, I would be happy to play WTA. However, I've been in several games where one power just gives up and stops submitting orders, causing a break in the lines in favor of the soloer and robbing the diligent members of the "grand alliance" opposed to the solo of their chance at the draw. Practically speaking, in many cases in a WTA game a power who is just a few away from the solo has a strong incentive to just hold out indefinitely, even when there is a stalemate line, and wait for someone to get bored or a phase when someone will be too busy with life to submit orders. (Particularly easy to do when as on this site you can see whether another nation has submitted or not.) While you could make the argument that that kind of outcome should be part of the game, it should be understood as a victory more by happenstance than pure skill. So I
think in many cases the PPSC format can actually more accurately reward the effort people put in. Keep in mind that the WTA rewards system was designed for the original Diplomacy board game which was both face-to-face (essentially eliminating NMRs) and had a certain design (with Switzerland, the StP bottleneck, etc.) which makes it especially difficult for one power to solo (and hence makes more sense to provide a greater reward for doing so). For a lot of variants there often aren't establishable stalemate lines to stop a big power from soloing once he gets within striking distance.

I understand having an intellectual discussion about the various merits of either. Personally, I find the differences on player behavior interesting and am happy that both options are available.

I don't understand why any one would get upset about the topic since no one is forced to play a version that they do not wish to.

"would a solution be to force the players to choose WTA or PPSC by having the default as <choose> ?"

This would be a good idea.

I'm disappointed no one has chimed in on my thoughts, so I'll repost.

To me, the single most important aspect of diplomacy is not WTA versus PPSC, but rather, that people play to "win".

I understand that "winning" can have different meanings in wta/ppsc, and ill even accept the bastardized notion that letting someone solo and you having 16scs is somehow better than a 4way draw with 2 1 sc powers.

However, the issue i have is when people play with no intention to win. These are the people im sure we've all met, who play game-long alliances with no intent to solo. Instead theres a premeditated draw at games end. Whether its 2, 3, or 4 way doesnt matter. Its one thing to play with variant rules everyone has accepted, but when some people are playing with different "win" conditions, all hell breaks loose.

I choose to harp on ppsc because in my experience, this rarely if ever happens in wta. However, in ppsc, you see it happen all the time. Allies waiting at 17 scs so another can get to 17. Keeping a 1 Sc power alive for no reason other than you agreed to let them in the 3 way draw when you could have soloed by taking their sc. THIS type of behavior needs to be curbed.



To Amwidkle - In situations like you have described, where a stalemate line is met, and all power of the "grand alliance" have voted draw, if, after a couple turns no moves have changed, and the last power refuses to draw, you can contact the mods to force a draw. It helps if all powers in the "grand alliance" post on global that they support the draw and have no intention of stabbing.

I like the idea of making neither the default, but I do wonder why WTA is so obviously the true spirit of the game. Is it impossible to feel satisfaction at having survived with 16 SCs in the board game? Is everyone's spirit so thoroughly crushed unless they solo'ed or drew? Maybe this is just how I am, but I consider PPSC closer to how I feel when I play games, where even a good second place still makes me pretty happy. I understand that, when playing the board game, there's one winner if someone solos, but that's true of PPSC, too. What are you playing for in real life? If it's just victory, then I suppose that WTA is truer, but isn't there also fun and trying your best, that makes PPSC closer? I just don't think it's as one-sided an argument that WTA is the "true" version as people think.

Drano,

here’s my point of view on you issue:

I don’t think it’s a matter of a “prearranged” deal to 2-way draw.
In this case, if someone can demonstrate it, you can accuse your opponents of metagaming via-Mods.


The reality is that, because of the logic behind the pot split under the two different settings, a 2 way draw is a stable outcome in PPSC (low risk in terms of Dpoints), while it’s an instable outcome in WTA (high risk in terms of Dpoints) .

Here’s why sometimes you can see it happening in PPSC and almost never in WTA.

Drano, I don't think winning is the most important thing, because as you said, winning can mean different things to different people. The problem with PPSC is that winning can almost become irrelevant. That's what I mind.

Mertvaya, The rules state how to win, and that players can end the game before a winner is found by agreeing to a draw. The rules reward wins and draws only. WTA only rewards wins and draws. PPSC rewards wins, draws, and survives. That is why surviving with 16 sc's is not in the spirit of the game.

I have no issue with someone taking personal satisfaction to surviving with 16 sc's, but I don't really like that the scoring system rewards it.

"The reality is that, because of the logic behind the pot split under the two different settings, a 2 way draw is a stable outcome in PPSC (low risk in terms of Dpoints), while it’s an instable outcome in WTA (high risk in terms of Dpoints) ."

This effect is what really makes WTA more exciting. The risk, and excitement escalates the more players are eliminated. A 2 way draw is very exciting in a high stakes WTA, but rather bland in PPSC.

Decima -

I am not referring to prearranged as in pre-game (which woukd be metagaming) but rather, prearranged in year 1 or 2. Which is technically legal, but defeats the entire purpose of the diplomatic interactions, as you know you have 2 people who wont betray each other (or more than that.)

I am sure we'v all seen it: keeping a useless ally alive behind your libes just because you promised them part of the draw. Drawing when you can easily solo. How is that not against the apirit of the game? Even in posc, the "goal" is to kaximize your sc count! So why woukdnt you solo if you can?!

The problem is, people are changing the end game objective. Im sorry, but i cannot accept that some people have no intention to try to solo. If someone goes into a game, and in year 1 makes a pact to 3 way draw, theyve just changed the game. Then you have 3 people playing one type of game, and 4 people playing another. The rules have changed, but only 3 people know it. Ibcan accept the notion (as much as i hate it), that a survive is better than a draw sometimes in ppsc. But when people decide that a 3 way draw is better than a solo and willingly choose not tonsolo when they can, i find that unacceptable. That is a completwly different game. The core objective in diplomacy never changes: be the first to 18. It just so happens than in ppsc you get reqarded differently if when someone solos.

I would like to clarify a statement:

The reason that the obective in ppsc is stiol to solo (and not to draw or come in a strong second) is that the "win" condition is to maximize you dip points. How do you do that? By soloing. Therefore EVERYONE shoukd try to solo EVERY gane, whether wta or ppsc. It is only once you cannot solo that ppsc shoukd be different from wta.

My beef obviously is when people do not try to solo, therefore not even trying tonachieve thebmain objective.

Everlasting alliances are an occurrence related to individual users, not to pot-setting IMHO

@drano: If you draw with a small ally it's bad for your score in both systems.
A 15-SC-country drawing with a 3-SC-country basically gets the points like a 9-SC-country (discarding 6 of his SC).

Also both systems are not more to the spirit of the original version, because there is no points or scores to rate players based on their past performance in the original rules.
Once you apply some kind of "score" to rate the players success you can apply any rating system you like (we had this conversation before with the new HoF). For example you can just award 1 point for a win and done. It's a valid rating system.

Adding DPoints already change the nature of the game. The split between WTA and PPSC is more a historical one (and it's one long before I started looking at webdip).

Oli -

I adisagrew that adding points changes the nature of wta. In the board game, a solo means one winner and everyone else loses. In wta, a solo means one person wins anll the points and everyone else loses. Same result. In the board game, if someone draws 4 ways, there ware 4 people who share the "win" and 3 who lose. In wta, a 4 way draw has 4 people who share the "win" and 3 whoo lose. Same result.

However, since i am not advocated abolishing ppsc, that is neither here nor there.

The probkem is, people are playing different games. We need a stated objective. Whether its to maximize dip points or solo, i care not. Because some people are playing games to solo, others tobmaximize dip points, and others are playing to 3way draw, which makes no sense to me as you arent maximizing your points OR trying to solo. Its hard to play a game when people are playing different games. Hiw is it fair when 4 people athought the objective was to be the first to 18, but 3 people change the objective to simply a 3 way draw? Youre playing a different game and not telling anyone.

I have nkthing against draws, but when people dont even try to win, it strikes me as a completely different game.

I agree with the proposal of having <choose> as the default setting.

I think both systems have merits and problems: for example, I like the fact that PPSC "recognizes" a good game even when you lose it, but this very fact sometimes (often?) leads to people being more concerned with getting extra SCs rather than trying to stop a solo. The opposite is true for WTA.

Personally, I'd like to see a "hybrid" solution like the one proposed by chilbo (half the points assigned on a PPSC base, half the points assigned on a WTA base): it would "recognize" the difference between the defeated players, while giving a much stronger incentive to stop solos than PPSC.
However, given the (lack of) response to chibo's post, maybe the idea is too complicated to be popular.

If you award half the points to the winner and distribute the rest as PPSC the winner would get 50% of the points and 50% of the remaining points. So he will always get 75% of the pot, the rest (25%) would be distributed between the survivors.
In a 100Point-Pot game with 4 survivors, the winner would get 75DPoints, the 2nd 15 and 3rd and 4th 5 each. With so many points difference this looks very much like WTA.

That said maybe a "default" hybrid to be discussed is a viable solution.

Another option could be to make 1 (or 2) new options for default. Maybe an "Auto" option, that sets WTA or PPSC based on player experience or "Random" (as default).

I like that idea of having a <random> option as well would this then be displayed when players begin the game? The anarchist in me thinks that it would be very interesting for the <random> choice to be hidden and only displayed at the end of the match.

But if the default was <choose> then this would force players to make their mind up re: PPSC or WTA when they start the game. I think that much angst comes from the WTA purists who believe that their preference is discriminated against by having PPSC as the default option.

At the moment we have 11 from 20 new games as WTA.

I like most of the suggested options above, but it seems that, in the way this thread began, we aremainly looking to solve a principle clash regarding the two systems more than what should the corresponding technical adjustments should be.

Going into that, personally I do not see any legitimate justification for either system's supporters to see inferiority in the other system. There is no such thing as 'discriminating against' a particular system, because:
a) Discrimination and the sense of super/inferiority are subjective notions per se; and,
b) There is reasonable notice given to players to refer them to 'advanced settings' to explore more options in case they do not like the default setting. Default does not mean we are bound to it whatsoever - players are making a fully-informed choice here.

Moving onto the issue of gaming objectives (I will switch to the word 'goal' to avoid confusion below), I do agree that there may be an expressly-stated 'goal of the game' for Diplomacy, just like other board games. However, this is only an objective goal of how the game is recommended to be played, but we should recognize that players have their own subjective goals. The goals are different from rules in the sense that if you go against the rules you should get penalized, while you won't if you deviate from the recommended goal of the game. Rules are an absolute, legitimate authority in the scope of the game while the goals are subject to every player's own consideration. I do not quite like the picture here where people having one kind of goal in the game is criticising other kinds of goals as wrongdoings.

Lukas +1

Lukas -

So are goals equivalent to objectives then? If so, what's the point of saying there is an objective if anyone can just say "well j have my own goal so I don't care about the objective."?

I have nothing against personal goals (such as no lying, no stabbing, etc) as long as they are secondary to the objective. Else there is no reason for an objective since it will always be super ceded by goals.

So if you want to play a game with a game long ally, I have no issue with it, provided you still try to solo. As soon as you cross the line into "I choose to play this game to a draw with my ally or allies " without trying to solo, I feel you are no longer playing the same game as me.