Enriador - Where did you survey those players? I don't think I've seen that strawpoll before.

Also, I have a hell of a lot more to say on the subject of scoring, but it'll have to wait until I'm at my PC :)

72 votes is hardly a representative example of the Diplomacy community at large. Hell it isn't even representative of the vDip community. The sample size is just too small.

GOD: Threads are not so easy to find when we don't have the Replies and Threads links in our Profile pages anymore (and many years of the Forum were taken off-line completely). But I'll try to take a look.

@Captainmeme

I posted here on vDiplomacy (http://vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?viewthread=71959#71959), webDiplomacy and the Diplomacy Reddit.

@YCHTT

72 is a small sample that's true, yet:

1) It represents over 15% of the actual vDip playerbase, which is not a lower percentage that most surveys anywhere.

2) The huge sway in votes opting for the early game shows that, at the very least, early games lovers are either a majority or are close to it.

Is it that hard to believe? I mean, look at the literature around the hobby: for every article on a stalemate line there are forty about the perfect French opening.

Anyway, the point is, there are some folks that love shorter games with a set end date - Allan Calhamer himself made a rule allowing those - and we deserve to be considered in such a key discussion.

@JECE - I know you have had substantive response on webDip, because I was one of the people who responded to you. You just have a tendency to dismiss the opinions of everyone who argues with you on the subject.

Anyway...

There are two main reasons to dislike PPSC. The first is the one that's oft-debated, but it's not the reason PPSC is bad. It boils down to:

REASON #1 - PPSC IS BAD BECAUSE WTA IS RIGHT

Essentially, games should be Winner-Takes-All because that's the way it was written in the rulebook, and we should stay true to the rulebook. In competitive Standard play, I definitely agree with this - the standard board is specifically designed around this being the case - but in a more casual setting I don't think there's a massive problem with having a non-WTA setting, especially considering the imbalance present in many of the variants here.

A huge problem with PPSC debates is that both sides assume that's the crux of the issue, and because it's something of an ideological difference neither side will ever be convinced by the arguments of the other. I've tried to raise other reasons in threads about PPSC on webdip, and they're always completely ignored by everyone while they continually talk about the above point.

The real reason to dislike PPSC is:

REASON #2 - PPSC MAKES NO SENSE AS A NON-WTA SYSTEM

Let's assume that we're okay with non-WTA scoring systems. We're looking for a system that specifically encourages you to go for Supply Centers, and we want it to reward you based on the number of centers you achieve.

Would we ever choose PPSC as that scoring system? The answer is no. PPSC doesn't reward players based on center count in all cases - specifically, it splits the pot equally in draws - and that's a massive problem, because it completely screws up the objectives. For players with few centers, a draw will award them with more points than a survival to a solo would, and for players with high center-counts, a survival to a solo awards them more points than a draw.

This means that instead of the aim for all players being to gain centers, which is the idea behind the system, the aim for large players becomes 'force someone to solo' and the aim for small players becomes 'stop anyone from soloing'.

Of course, the large players, being large, have much more strength and are easily able to force *someone* to solo. However, this someone often isn't them, which results in a conflict of interest - they're supposed to be playing to maximise their SC count, but they often need to maximise someone else's SC count to ensure the PPSC scoring, which means less SCs for them.

C-Diplo would solve this issue. C-Diplo is what PPSC should have been from the start - regardless of how the game ends, the points are distributed according to center-count. This means players are always playing to maximise their own center count, instead of having to throw the solo to someone else to attain that result.

@Captainmeme

It's embarassing, but I never thought about the matter from this perspective.

I can only agree with you: it doesn't matter if we keep PPSC or put SoS or even C-Diplo, as long as the non-WTA result is awarded exclusively through solos, there will be someone giving up a couple of centers to ensure the solo.

webDip *always* award the soloist with all the points, but offers either equal score (aka Draw-Size Scoring or DSS) or per-center score (Sum-of-Squares). Perhaps that's the way to go?

Even if we keep PPSC, by making it only work in draws instead of solos everyone *will be keen to either solo or avoid a solo*. I wonder the effect it would have on draws though: would larger powers seek to win extra centes off the smaller ones to keep growing and aiming the solo, or would they rush to draw as soon as a reasonable center count (and thus points) has been reached?

Two extra questions for you guys:

1) If C-Diplo is considered as an option, how would points be divided over variants? After all, out of its 100 points, C-Diplo gives (in draws only; winner takes all 100!) 7 points over the 7 players and 34 points per center. Do we simply convert it to percentages (7% of pot goes equally to every player, 34% of pot is divided per supply centers and then given to players proportionally)? Sounds complicated, but it does maintain C-Diplo's fairness.

2) That's for those who enjoy shorter games: why on hell does vDip award an outright victory to the one who tops the board in timed games? It should end in a draw, since no one got the required SCs to win! Games that only tweak the number of SCs to win (e.g. 12 centers to solo in Classic), but not the time, should remain as victories however.

1) I think it would have to be percentages either way since the system is bet-based, i.e. with a pot of 50 points, the final scores would be half of what C-diplo prescribes. :

To distribute the points, use the following algorithm:
If solo, winner takes the entire pot.
Else each player gets:
1 point for completing the game (even if eliminated, but not if s ).
1 point per SC owned

3rd place bonus: The highest SC count that can you can have and still be fourth place finisher (in standard this is 7 which is also the 3rd place finisher bonus)

2nd place bonus: The bonus should be just high enough to make sure that a 2nd place always scores more than 3rd place. (In standard C-diplo a 3rd scores 8-17 points while a 2nd scores 18-30 points).

1st plance bonus: The bonus needs to make sure that a 1st place always scores more than a shared 1st place (In standard C-diplo a shared win can score as best 43 points while a non-shared win scores 44-55 points)

The total number of points distributed was #players + #SCs + 1-3 place bonuses. Divide each players total score by the total number to get the percentage of the pot that the player wins.

2) We've reported this as a bug to Oli a while ago. It's in fact even worse since shared wins (even 17-17) still rewards one player as a "win". Oli replied that this has something to do with builtin limitations in the platform. We didn't bother investigating further. It affects our win/lose ratio, but when distributing points PPSC or playing unrated it really isn't such a big deal.

C-D is the best for tourneys (& FtF); WTA is the original game (Draw-Size). Period. :)

@CCR

Care to elaborate? Didn't ABC create a scoring for tourneys (Calhamer Scoring) which *is* WTA/DSS? Also, didn't he create a specific rule allowing regular Diplomacy games to be played with a time limit - and thus receiving a different score like what C-Diplo offers?

LoL, nothing gets vDip rilled up like a good ol discussion about the scoring system...

I love you guys.

Captainmeme: If I recall correctly, in our latest discussion of PPSC you misinterpreted what I wrote and then ignored or missed a long response I wrote explaining myself. I may be caustic, but it is hardly dismissive to try to engage . . .

Captainmeme: You knew I was going to dispute your assumption behind REASON #2. (And you know I have other reasons to prefer PPSC beyond rulebook arguments and win/draw incentives. PPSC, for example, encourages many CD takeovers that no one would take consider in a WTA game.)

When you have two large powers in PPSC, they both always have a point incentive to win the game. For you that incentive may be too small, but it is always there.

In WTA, on the other hand, when you have two large powers, the risk of pushing for a win is often to risky for both parties, so premature draws are more likely.

C-Diplo and SoS explicitly break the rules of the game by not sharing draws equally. They're a non-starter for many for this reason.

too risky

JECE, you can't say that C-Diplo is a non-starter because it breaks the rules of the game, and then support PPSC. PPSC goes against the rulebook by rewarding players who lost. If you're talking about non-WTA scoring systems, you've already ditched the rulebook.

Captainmeme: I thought you said you preferred to set aside the rulebook argument? The way many of us read the rulebook, PPSC is perfectly compatible. No one would interpret C-Diplo or SoS as compatible.

PPSC is not compatible. The rulebook states:

"As soon as one Great Power controls 18 Supply Centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner."

Why do you reward players who lost if one power is considered to have gained control of Europe?

Additionally, the creator of Diplomacy, Allan Calhamer, wrote a book called Calhamer on Diplomacy in which he talked at length about why losers should never be rewarded, and how playing for second place to a solo victory was against the spirit of the game. I can find the section for you if you want, but I'm fairly certain I did so last time you talked about this too and you ignored it.

Rulebook compatible? The rulebook deals with ONE game. All scoring systems are pointless (pun intended) when considering only one game.

Captainmeme: No, I think you pulled out that Calhamer quote on a thread here while I was dormant. Feel free to post it again if you're interested in my reaction.

The quote you pulled from the rulebook merely says that controlling 9/17 of the supply centers constitutes a win. PPSC recognizes that win, granting 9/17 of the pot to the winner and returning the remainder of the pot to survivors proportional to their performance.

But I don't understand why you're harking on the rulebook argument when you clearly consider it inferior and consider that "neither side will ever be convinced by the arguments of the other." I already challenged the crux of your argument, "REASON #2", to no response.

@d-ice ''The rulebook deals with ONE game. All scoring systems are pointless (pun intended) when considering only one game.''

I strongly disagree. I would even argue that the scoring system is an *essential part* of any game, because the scoring system determines what the objective of the game is.
In WTA, the objective is to control more than half of the supply centers on the board, and if that isn't possible, get into a draw as small as possible.
In PPSC, the objective is to have control over as many supply centers as possible at the exact moment that any one player gets control over more than half of the supply centers on the board.
Hence, PPSC Diplomacy and WTA Diplomacy are two *entirely different games*. So even if I don't care about ratings, I would still play PPSC Diplomacy and WTA Diplomacy differently, because in any game I play, I base my strategy around the objective of that game.

I see WTA Diplomacy as a far more enjoyable game than PPSC Diplomacy because of several reasons pointed out by other players - my post isn't about repeating them. On top of that, WTA *is* Rulebook compatible while PPSC is not, because the Rulebook speaks of only one winner, which can be interpreted as that one winner 'getting the whole pot'.

One argument for the removal of PPSC is that it can be confusing to have two different games that yet appear similar on one site. One would inevitably get players that are used to play PPSC join a WTA game and play that WTA game as if it is a PPSC game.

To paraphrase Mercy - 2nd place is first loser. And I agree completely. That's why I prefer WTA if I am playing a rated game (I prefer unrated and to let my W/L/D speak to my skill). The exception being Tournaments where there is a second layer to the game (the greater game) in which case my standing in the tournament may affect my play in game. But then that would sort of qualify as a third type of game.

Mercy: In PPSC the objective is also "to control more than half of the supply centers on the board". Winning will always get you the most points.

YouCan'tHandleTheTruth: W/L/D/Survived/Left statistics are heavily corrupted by games joined in progress. When you join games with a couple SC's surrounded by giants, the statistics count as if you played that game from the beginning. You can manually correct that mistake in your Comment, as I did over on webDip, but the unamended statistics can be quite misleading.

I don't get why people keep mentioning the Rulebook as if it was the Quran or the Bible or something. It's crystal clear that the "standard scoring system" is Calhamer Scoring (Winner Takes All, Draw is perfectly equal among survivors). Yet, the rulebook does NOT cover many situations that happens over in websites or tourneys.

The rulebook is strictly about *a single match of Face-to-Face Diplomacy* with no time limit whatsover. If you take Diplomacy out of its purity to another sphere, like a time-constrained tourney or a ranking-hungry internet website, it's obvious that some degree of conflict with the rulebook will happen.

Classic example: the rulebook *explicitly forbids* negotiations in Retreats and Builds - probably to speed an already-slow game in FtF. But does it make sense to outright forbid in internet games, where time is a cheap commodity? No, of course not: so we do the right thing, we say "screw your Rulebook!" and we allow negotiations nonetheless.

In a website, or a tourney, perhaps people want to further discern those who drawed. Internet Diplomacy is kind of its own beast anyway, so *let people decide* what they like.

Humble suggestion:

1) make WTA the only possible result in solos.

2) make Draw-Size, PPSC and Sum-of-Squares as optional scoring systems in case no winner stands out.

If someone believes WTA is unfair for certain variants or pot sizes, simply use vDip's own resources and either reduce or increase the required number of SCs to win as you see fit.

@Enriador - Actually, strict rule book negotiation is one of the options for press. It will prevent negotiation during the retreats and adjustments phases.

@JECE - Yes, I know. I have a few defeats and survives on my record from positions I was nice enough to take over. I wish they weren't there, but my overall is a fairly accurate representation of my skill (mediocre at best, crappy most of the time).

Also @JECE - Mercy's point is that when one knows they can't get a solo, but are in second place, they are more likely to throw the game by helping the leader to the solo than risk either losing SCs to third place or being part of an equal share draw. PPSC alters game play in the end game significantly this way.

@YCHT, I know the "Rulebook press" option well. The point is, it's an *option* instead of the only possible choice - and an option most people disdain.

We don't have to be slaves of the rulebook.