They have SOS-scoring as an option on webdiplomacy. I am not a huge fan of most alternatives to DSS-scoring, as in these alternatives, there is no clear point at which every player would want to draw the game, though I admit that DSS-scoring has its own downsides. I am all in for getting rid of PPSC though.

SOS is a reasonably fine system too; mostly scoring systems are about what type of gameplay you value and the extent you want to value the solo as compared to a draw as compared to different degrees of loss.

SoS is a superb system, but some folks pointed out that it doesn't go well with large variants.

I really enjoy your idea @nopunin10did. I wish it replaced WTA though. I play many timed games (where the top-board gets a win) and gettind rid of PPSC would screw point-awarding in these.

Rank-based scoring works actually quite well with timed games.

nopunin10did: I skimmed the proposal. I don't think it competes with PPSC and WTA pot-based scoring systems, does it? It seems to me like a competitor to alternative rating systems such as the GhostRatings.

I mean, I could just implement it for you all as a third system. It doesn't have to replace anything.

The PlayDip Elo system is convoluted and not really part of the conversation. Fundamentally, Fibonacci-Diplo is a system for splitting up the pot of point in a draw that values relative SC counts (rather than absolute SC counts).

1° The fact that some players want to introduce a new scoring system could be a good idea for some players who would want to experiment another way of playing. But would that be concomitant with the suppression of another scoring system ?

2° If you do not like PPSC, don't play such games but don't prevent other players from playing these games.

3° The rank-based scoring system for draws has at least two mains problems :
3.1. All player ending in a Draw are all equally part of the Draw. A player with only 1 SC could be the one who prevented a solo from happening : why would he be less rewarded than the other drawing players ?
3.2. Giving more points in a Draw according to their "rank in the Draw" will have the consequence that larger Draws will happen more often than they do now. Indeed, with the proposed sytem, why would players with the most SCs in a game want to eliminate players who have very few SCs ?

Actually, making draw rewards be based on SC count results in more solos as players attempt to better their position before the draw and the big nation in uses that to get their last couple SCs and the solo. Just look to the current WWII tournament where you get points based on your position assuming you aren't eliminated.

1. It wouldn't have to be. I just remember seeing a lot of complaining here about the way that PPSC games play out.

3.1:
So, as with other non draw-based systems, players do not share equally in a draw. Rank-based scoring, just like PPSC and SOS, does not follow this rule. Most scoring systems in face-to-face tournaments have dropped WTA / DSS and have decided that sacrificing the original "share equally in a draw" language is worth it for the quality of the games played.

3.2
I suspect there will be just as many draws in rank-based games as in WTA/DSS games if not more (at least those not on a timer).

"why would players with the most SCs in a game want to eliminate players who have very few SCs?"
That's actually the point of rank-based scoring systems, to shift the focus of a game away from wiping out the small fries and focus the competition on one-upping your peers. Solos are more easy to achieve (in the general case) when you have lots of small, divided opponents. It's more easy to get them to bicker and shatter the anti-leader alliance.

There will still be player elimination in any scoring system, but the point with rank-based scoring is to not reward elimination for its own sake.

Sorry, this should read:
"I suspect there will be just as many SOLOS in rank-based games as in WTA/DSS games if not more (at least those not on a timer)."

Is 'more solos' actually a good thing, when the only way you're getting there is because those who should be joining forces to prevent such are instead bickering amongst each other for position?

Seems to me all that does is encourage poor play :/

Once again, I'm with Mouse on this. I mean, the entire idea of Diplomacy is that when someone "solos", they theoretically conquer the entire board, vanquishing their foes. Therefore, stopping the solo should be of paramount importance, and realistically, solos should be rare, as people will band together to stop it. Having lots of draws is not a problem. It's only a problem when people play for a draw right from the start. Changes that would make solos easier due to people trying to gain more SCs for more "points" in draws just seems *wrong* to me.

"Most scoring systems in face-to-face tournaments have dropped WTA / DSS and have decided that sacrificing the original "share equally in a draw" language is worth it for the quality of the games played."

Just because most scoring systems have done it doesn't make it right. As I think has been mentioned before, why should a 1 or 2 SC power that made all the right moves diplomatically and militarily to get themselves into a position where they are critical to a stalemate be rewarded less than someone who has 14 or 15 SCs? In a way, you're making it so that people when they start losing, have no incentive to try to stick around. If I'm losing, but can make myself critical to a stalemate, right now I am equally rewarded with everyone, giving me a large incentive to try my best. In this change, once I start losing, I might be rewarded more for letting someone solo than for trying to draw. Which is just plain against the entire idea of Diplomacy.

Not "poor play" but definitely *different* play from what you might be used to in a DSS environment.

Overall it makes for a less predictable endgame.

@drano
I'm not suggesting getting rid of your WTA / DSS system. I'm just stating that similar to PPSC (and webDip's SOS implementation), there are many popular scoring systems that *don't* award draws equally to survivors.

I have very little skin in this game for this particular site. I just thought I'd offer up implementing rank-based scoring as a means of providing something better than PPSC but still less prone to draw-whittling than DSS.

"In this change, once I start losing, I might be rewarded more for letting someone solo than for trying to draw."

To be clear, this is not the truth. In a solo, every player other than the soloist gets zero points. The rank-based points only apply when the game ends in a draw.

The point of encouraging infighting is to create a more difficult risk/reward calculation in the anti-leader alliance.

Instead of "Can I fully eliminate my ally to shrink the draw pool but still hold back the solo?", the answer to which is nearly always "no," it instead becomes "Can I swipe a few centers to one-up my peers but still hold back the solo?"

Only the last-ranked power (who is likely already eliminated or NMR'd out) might have no points-based interest in blocking the solo, since he/she gets zero points in either case. Everyone else has reason to maintain the stalemate lines if at all possible, though with the caveat that there's more temptation to screw with your allies.

@nopunin10did -

I'm not sure where the idea of PPSC not awarding draws equally comes from. AFAIK, PPSC and SOS are completely different. PPSC is basically WTA, except when someone solos, points are not given 100% to the solo-er. They are split based on SCs. In a draw, in PPSC, everyone is still given equal points. See the link below for an example:
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=33646#gamePanel

So this option of ranking would introduce a concept, that, while used elsewhere, is completely foreign to vdip.

I will admit I like that it always gives full points to the solo-er. That's the biggest issue most anti-PPSC people have about PPSC.

To me though, I don't see the need for it. Perhaps I'm somewhat "old-fashioned" with it, but Diplomacy is either win, draw, or lose. If you solo, you win. If you draw, you drew, doesn't matter if it's 2 people, or 27 people. If you get eliminated, you lose. This mentality is backed by the original implementation of the game, and while I admit things change when you're in an online forum and people naturally want to rank themselves, saying I did "better" simply because I swiped a couple SCs from an ally on the last turn before drawing just sits wrong with me. I didn't do "better" at all, I still drew with everyone left on the board. What does it matter if I went from 10 to 12 SCs? I did not win. Period.

"If you get eliminated, you lose."

Let me add in something very important I forgot. Not only do you lose if you're eliminated, but if someone ELSE solos, you lose too, as the idea behind soloing is that that person would go on to conquer the board and eliminate their rivals.

Okay, that's strange. I didn't realize your PPSC system was basically DSS with a twist. I was under the impression that it gave points almost entirely on the basis of the proportion of SCs that the player holds, regardless of whether they win, lose, or draw.

That's fascinating, though, that the system awards draws equal to WTA but devalues solo wins. Highly irregular, but I guess that's how you roll here.

Have many of you had experience playing on webDip's SOS implementation, which also nixes the equal-draws provision?

@enriador
So in PPSC games with limited turns, if the time runs out, it's considered a full win for the leader, rather than a draw-including-all-survivors?

I'm going to be the first to admit now that I know very little about the subtleties of how you guys handle scoring here. I'm starting to see why PPSC might be so popular, though I imagine there are probably better scoring methods that would provide a similar overall experience without creating perverse incentives to throw the match to a solo.

+1 Drano

@nonpunin10did, indeed, in timed games the player with most SCs is considered the winner (as if he got the required SCs for victory). Ideally we would have a DIAS, but:

1) Both scoring systems (WTA & PPSC) give points equally for all survivors, which sucks. A webDip-like system (where unequal draws can happen under SoS) would be best.

2) It follows the logic of the pre-2000 rulebook's Section III ("The Short Game") where in timed games the one topping the board is considered the "winner".

I don't think PPSC is really "popular" as in "beloved". Most folks here actually hate that (plenty of threads bashing PPSC lying around). However PPSC has a key redeeming quality: its flexibility. Until we have a reasonable alternative (which yours seems to be) we are stuck with it.

@enriador

Thanks, that explains a lot. In a rank-based system game or an SOS system game, there would be no "winner" in a timed game. The game would end in DIAS, but members of the draw would be granted points unequally.

Additionally, I don't seem to see an option on the site to require that draws be DIAS. Was that ever available here?

to clarify, there would be no "winner" in a timed game _unless_ someone solos before the clock / turn limit runs out.

When people say things like 'most scoering systems...' it's important to recognize that scoring systems in Diplomacy are an abomination. The only relevant score is win/lose/draw. The only reason that we have this litanny of scoring systems is from tournaments (sprecifically) face to face tournaments where there are multiple game necessary in a 3-4 day window with a need to determine player advancement to the next round. These games are timed, and scored to see who plays in the next round simply because it's impossible to play a full game of Diplomacy in the available time/round. Somehow this concept has spread to the online community in casual game unrestricted by time. This has ruined the game because scoring drastically effects player decisions, and drives the focus away from solo/stop the solo priority. We have generations of players learning the game base upon the priorities of scoring systems, and sadly many of these systems *cough* PPSC *cough* awards points for losing.

@Ruff
Not all tournaments have timed rounds. Most North American tournaments only have a time limit (real-time, not game turns) for the final round.

I agree that any scoring system is a variant, but scoring systems are popular. They're embedded in this site itself: even an unranked game requires a potential sacrifice of points if you NMR out.

As such, the question then becomes *which* scoring system or systems provide value to the experience.

WTA / DSS is a system that many players online seem to adhere to in part because, for a while, it was the only game in town. It's a variant too, and it has some downsides in the sorts of games it leads to.

SOS and other rank-based scoring systems avoid the problem of awarding points for losing, but in order to do so, they have to sacrifice the "all players in the draw are equal" stipulation. It's definitely a change from the original rules, but it arguably has a positive impact on the variety of diplomatic tactics in use and can make games generally more fun (though convincing the online crowd of such is an uphill battle).

Face-to-face tournaments, including both with and without time limits, have largely adopted SOS and other systems because they provide more distinction and variety among game results. They also lead to less focus on draw-whittling; player elimination has far less value in SOS, Carnage, C-Diplo etc. as compared to in a DSS/WTA system.

RUFFHAUS 8 : + 1

RUFFHAUS 8 +2

PPSC is an abomination to begin with. Personally, I'm fine with it... but discussing ways to "improve it" in any practical sense should come to the conclusion to "eliminate it".

Again... I'm fine with it because I'm not forced to play it... but what a weird discussion...

I agree with some of @Ruffhaus points but ultimately, I think he exaggerated a good bit.

I mean, "the scoring systems" are "ruining the game"? That's far too dramatic. Scoring systems for Diplomacy have been around since the 1960s and the hobby is still alive and kicking.

Point #1: "Scoring systems drastically effects player decisions"

They do affect player decisions, but "drastically"? I doubt it; even in casual FtF Dip there are many factors, some idiotic (like little time) that can seriously affect the game but without ever hurting its ultimate essence. And even if scoring systems *did* influence decisions to such a high level, so do many other meta-stuff (including benign factors like Reliability).

Point #2: "Scoring systems drives the focus away from solo/stop the solo priority"

Certain scoring systems (hello, PPSC) do drive focus away from a victory, I can agree with that, but they are far from being the only factor. I believe a major reason draws are so common - even in goddamn WTA games - is that, like in FtF Diplomacy, we have 1) stalemate lines 2) endgame boredom 3) a decades-old tradition that (wrongfully) repudiates winning and prefers 2/3-way draws.

So I don't see scoring systems as having such a huge influence on the game. Honestly, go play Diplomacy with your family and friends - reserve an entire afternoon for it, every Sunday - and you will see many more draws than victories.