Right Ruffus right: and could we then have a straight win/lose/draw; or the latter should always be evaluated as n-draws, as is? Would that better reflect the spirit of Calhamer?

FYI: I’d avoid invoking the “spirit of Calhammer” in any scoring discussion. He was never a particularly good authority on scoring, and it took some time after the game grew in popularity to realize that stalemate lines even existed.
It’s questionable whether he initially thought of the draw as an end unto itself; that’s more of a dynamic that has emerged from players.

I personally would love for sum-of-squares scoring to be an option for vDip games. I find that WTA games, especially on larger variants, tend to devolve into a question of who gets eliminated completely and who survives until the draw, while PPSC is only relevant on variants where solos are more common. SOS has the advantage of incentivizing players to haggle over every supply center in their possession in the end-game rather than just focusing on who is in the draw or not while simultaneously giving players just as large of a reward for going for a solo as in a WTA game. It makes for much more intense and interesting late game.

PPSC, however, shouldn't be removed. While SOS is great for variants where everyone starts with an equal or close-to-equal position, it fails to represent player success on variants such as Imperial 2, Colonial 1885, Gobble Earth, and Rinascimento, where powers start with vastly different amounts of supply-centers. PPSC works well for these variants because a power that starts with a severe board disadvantage (such as Colombia in Gobble-Earth or Turkey in Colonial 1885) and is therefore unable to prevent a solo yet still grows immensely in size is still rewarded for their efforts.

And if neither of those options appeals to you, there are always WTA games to play.

It is nice to see players being so engaged in this discussion. :)

I agree with RUFFHAUS that scoring drastically affects player decisions, since the scoring system determines the goal of the game. In my view, WTA/DSS Diplomacy and PPSC Diplomacy are just two different games with two different objectives. Even players that don't care about scoring systems are drastically affected by it, because the scoring system will determine what kind of meta strategies will evolve in a community, and hence will, over time, determine the way everyone is playing.

I disagree with RUFFHAUS that scoring systems are an 'abomination'. In fact, I think that scoring systems are a necessity and I wouldn't want to play a game that didn't have a scoring system. Without a scoring system, the goal of the game is unclear, which will lead players to play different games, and that can lead to frustration. For example, one cannot argue that a 1 SC draw is better than a 16 SC survival if there is no scoring system. The whole notion of 'win' > 'draw' > 'everything else' becomes purely subjective and there will be players who will throw games because they are not playing according to this notion. And even if everyone was, suppose that you are considering to follow a risky strategy that slightly improves your solo chances, but increases the chance that you will be eliminated, too. Should you do it? Without a scoring system, there is no objective way to answer this question.

A scoring system should reflect how a community wants people to play a game, because the scoring system will determine how players will play a game. Hence the importance of having a good scoring system. I am not exaggerating when I say that to me, the scoring system is the most important factor that defines a community.

I agree with everyone who says that PPSC is an abomination. I will not go into details why, since this has been argued countless of times before. Instead, in this thread I have seen two arguments in favor of keeping PPSC as an option and I want to address both.
1) Some people are saying "If you don't like PPSC, just don't play it". I wish it were this simple, but it isn't. By having PPSC as an option, many players on this site will learn not to play Diplomacy, but to play a watered down version of Diplomacy. This will affect the way they play, even if they start playing WTA games and meet me.
2) I have heard people argue that PPSC is the best scoring system we have for games with a time limit. I agree, and I don't dislike games with a time limit, too. I do think this is a very niche application of PPSC, though, and there are easy solutions. For example, why not make a separate scoring system specifically for games with a time limit? Or why not let the game end in a draw instead of in a win when the time is up and design a scoring system for that? In fact, since PPSC was here since the beginning, I suspect that the reason that time limited games were chosen to end in a win by the player with the most SC, and not in a draw, is because there was a good scoring system for the former and not for the latter.

Removing PPSC and replacing it with nothing else would, in my view, already be a great improvement to the site. However, I do think that there are some problems with WTA/DSS scoring that could be looked at. I will name two:
1. If you play to win, it is often handy to keep many small nations around. If your win attempt then fails, you are forced to draw with multiple small nations, and you get rewarded less than when you would play for a draw from the get go. Thus, WTA/DSS scoring doesn't reward win attempts enough.
2. If a stalemate line is formed and there are still some small nations around, the solo threat can move back a bit so that the small nations will be defeated. This is known as draw whittling. This is no fun for the small nations that have put great effort in becoming vital to the stalemate. Furthermore, many if not most (!) wins on WebDiplomacy are achieved in approximately the following way: player becomes a solo threat > other players form a stalemate line, the solo is stopped > solo threat moves back to give the rest a chance to eliminate the small nations > small nation(s) get(s) angry and say(s) he/they will throw to the solo threat > solo threat moves to the front lines again > solo threat wins.

I expect players to argue that point (2) doesn't happen that much vDiplomacy. I suspect, though, that the only reason for this is that on vDiplomacy, most players play for a draw since the beginning anyway. And this is, I think, solely due to problems with vRanking. See, if you draw with players whos ranking is significantly lower than yours, you will lose ranking if you play on WebDiplomacy or PlayDiplomacy. Not here. I think this is a serious shortcoming of vRanking (but not as serious as some of its other shortcomings). If vRanking worked better, I predict we would slowly begin to see more aggressive play on this site. But we can discuss vRanking separately.

Scoring systems like SOS and the one proposed by nopunin10did solve both the aforementioned problems of WTA/DSS scoring. They introduce some of their own problems, though:
1. There is no clear point at which the game should end. I have played and spectated SOS games on WebDiplomacy and have noticed that sometimes, games end way too early, even before a single elimination, especially when there are no hidden draw votes, and at other times, games go on for a long time even after a stalemate line is formed, because players are haggling over a few supply centers behind the lines. Neither do I find to be desirable.
2. Small nations that are vital to the draw get almost no points. (At this point, SOS isn't better than DSS, since in DSS, the solo threat can just move back so that the other players can defeat the player that was formerly vital for forming the stalemate line, as I previously mentioned. In SOS, the solo threat doesn't want the elimination of the small nation.)

Quite some time ago I suggested a new scoring system in a WebDiplomacy thread. Since people here seem to be quite keen to discuss this topic, let me do that here, too. My idea is to have a scoring system that distinguishes two types of draws. If there is a draw because of a mutual agreement between players, the points are awarded according to DSS, so every player in the draw gets an equal share of the pot. If, on the other hand, the game ends because there is a stalemate line against a solo threat, the solo threat gets half of the pot, and the other half is evenly distributed among the other players. This scoring system has none of the disadvantages I mentioned earlier.

Differentiating actual (stalemate line against a solo) draws from people just deciding they don't want to stab anyone left or otherwise collectively giving up on a game, while a really neat idea, would be almost impossible to do without direct, human intervention for every game that is believed to be genuinely stalemated.

(on the other hand, I'd tend ti disagree with your proposed score distributions there, Mercy. I'd say DSS for games that are honestly drawn, in that the only options available are holding stalemate lines else a solo occurs, while for any game where people decide they can't be bothered to keep going to reach such a point is treated as what it is - a cancel.

@mercy

By what calculation or objective measure would you distinguish a “normal” draw from a stalemate-line draw?
And even if it could be done for classic Dip, where stalemate lines are well-known, how would you even begin to handle that for variant maps?

I don't have the time to read all that, more's the pity. There are two reasons I play here and not the other sites - firstly that I love variants and have since before I was elected NGC Variants Secretary in 1976; and secondly I like PPSC. I'm solely here now because PPSC was removed from the scoring options in WebDip. If it is removed from vDip then, I'm outta here

@chumbles

I guess the question is, what about PPSC do you like? If you could see those qualities in a similar scoring system that corrected some of PPSC's downsides, would that be such a problem?

@mercy, a couple more notes

"There is no clear point at which the game should end... and at other times, games go on for a long time even after a stalemate line is formed"

This is one area where rank-based scoring like the one proposed (which is derived from Carnage) has some slight advantage over Sum-of-Squares. While the point of both systems is to encourage some amount of infighting even in the presence of a stalemate line, SOS is _directly_ scored based on SC counts, while rank-based scoring is _indirectly_ calculated based on SC counts.

In SOS, a single dot always has a mathematical effect on the final score in a draw. In rank-based systems, that dot only has a tangible effect if it alters the pecking order. It's not nearly as fatalistic as DSS / WTA, but there's more likelihood that a board will settle down than in SOS.

"Small nations that are vital to the draw get almost no points."

This is also a difference between rank-based scoring and SOS. For SOS, this is definitely the case. For rank-based scoring like Carnage or Fibonacci, there's more possibility that a small power can still receive a tangible sum of points. It's all dependent upon where you land with respect to your opponents. A two-dot power that's the smallest power of all seven is worth zero, but a two-dot power on a standard map where three opponents have been eliminated might receive enough points to break even on their original bet (or nearly so).

I like that survival is rewarded ... it keeps weaker players interest in playing, because there is a minimal recognition of having fought to the end... I've seen more and more guys in WTA games just log in and ready up without ordering or actually facilitate their own doom. I'd actually be even happier with PPSCwta where half the pot goes to the winner, who also gets his sc share of the PPSC half of the pot.

But most of all I'd like a single rating system with everyone starting from scratch. Why? Because atm we're trying to equate games played with different incentives both in parallel (as is the case now and where adjustments are made within a method).

It's like trying to compare two races where in one the winner is the first past the post and in the other the

...winner is the first past post having solved all the clues on route...

Without comparable incentives, comparison becomes a meaningless statistical game within a game that has bugger all to do with Dip and even arguments like this tend to be covert or less so attempts by some to enforce their view and value judgements on how the game 'should be played'.

I think after 50 years I've pretty much worked out how I want to play, and I'm OK with other people having a different view. What gets me pissed is when someone else wants to impose their philosophy on me! Gotta go!

@chumbles
Do you see more players "facilitate their own doom" because
1) the solo is imminent, and they see no way to block it?
2) they're about to be eliminated by the players seeking a draw?
3) they're convinced that no matter what they do, they'll get zero points?

Problem #1 is tricky in any scoring system, and PPSC may be the best bet there (though it comes with the side effect of people not caring enough to stop the solo). Problems #2 and #3 can be alleviated, however.

Though the title of this thread says otherwise, it would seem there's enough interest in keeping PPSC for the time being that to "replace" it is now off the table.

I'm just a volunteer developer; I don't mean to take away functionality that people actually like. I do get the impression that some of the interest in PPSC is due to either imbalanced maps or the fact that it's the only alternative available to WTA/DSS, and I wonder whether that would still be the case if a third non-draw-sized system was made available.

@nopunin10did -

Honestly, I think a lot of what we see with people "facilitating their own doom" is caused by one simple thing: people not caring enough and moving on. Far too many people on here (and other sites I"m sure) simply give up on a game once it turns south for them, and move on to the next one. It's somewhat of an "instant gratification" thing, where if it doesn't go their way right away, interest is gone, and so they move on to something new which has better opportunity.

This problem honestly isn't something that a scoring system can fix, it's something much deeper that can only be fixed by "retraining" people as to what the game of Diplomacy is about. It's not about playing 12 games at a time and devoting a few minutes to each a day. That causes poor play. Diplomacy was meant to be a game where you put a lot of time and effort into one game in order to facilitate a good game. The fact that people can just up and leave because they've got 5 other games that are going better for them is a major problem.

There's a reason a lot of people don't like playing with n00bs, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they aren't "good" at Diplomacy. Most people I've discussed this with have had the same thought: people just tend to quit when things go bad, and stop trying. I'm not sure what it's like on the other Dip sites, but some people view it as something of an epidemic here on vdip. We get a lot of new people intrigued by all the variants, sign up for a bunch of games, and then do poorly and stop caring. That doesn't make for good Diplomacy.

@drano,
I'm sad to hear that you have such a problem retaining new users here. You're right in saying that no scoring system can fix that particular problem.

PlayDip has its share of such players as well, though it has a number of features and community-organized structures to help reduce the problem. Its (understandably controversial) cost model yields more player investment, but it's not a silver bullet. PD's forum community is quite vibrant, however, and I can HIGHLY recommend playing Play-by-Forum games, especially if you want to try some of the more experimental variants.

webDip, I've got no idea about reliability. I know that the last data I saw showed they lead in active players while PD is 2nd. They seem to have a core following that's devoted to the classic game and not much else.

Backstabbr has very little community in its own right. It is a great _tool_ for playing with a prearranged group of friends, and it's the interface of choice for much of the face-to-face segment (for games they play between tournaments). Great place to play Dip if you already have most/all of your opponents picked out, but probably not otherwise.

vDip is a really great sandbox for new variants with mostly vanilla rules, but I'm getting the feeling that the core group of reliable players is really small here. I honestly don't know what would fix that. I would say that you need some more contributors dedicated to new types of rules and systems rather than solely new maps*.

*no offense meant to Enriador, who is doing some impressive work porting over variants

+ Ruffhaus on scoring systems being detrimental to the game.

I disagree with Mercy on surviving. A 1-supply center draw is waaay better than a 16-supply center survive. Surviving is meaningless. A solo awards a win, so all remaining players lose, whether they survive or not. Rewarding survival incentives players to help others solo, which goes against the game's priorities of playing to 1) win, 2) draw, and 3) prevent a solo. You should only want to help someone solo if you're using it as a tactic to be a part of the draw.

I do agree with Mercy that PPSC trains players to play a watered-down version of Diplomacy and is detrimental to the game. In fact, it rewards players to play to survive, which as I just said, is not a good thing.

As for time-limited games, I'd like to see optional victory conditions.

While I agree with Mercy that there are issues on WTA/DSS scoring, I don't think points are so important or so out-of-whack that a winner should get more. Scoring the win is enough, and what it's all about.

I agree with Mercy on issues with vRanking. This could be improved to de-incentivize playing for a draw too early in the game. And I agree with Mercy on the issues with SOS scoring and the one proposed by nopunin10did, and don't want to see those problems here.

However, I agree with Mouse on Mercy's proposed scoring system. Differentiating draws that end in mutual agreement vs. stalemate line situations would be incredibly difficult without human intervention for every game believed to be stalemated.

+ 1 Drano re. retraining players on how interesting playing the game is even when you're not winning, i.e., playing to try to get a spot in the draw and playing to stop an elimination, trying out new tactics, observing and learning from the strategy and mistakes of others... Diplomacy is fun to play whether you're winning, drawing, or losing. And any reasonable player has to expect they will have all of these outcomes regularly.

Great discussion!

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

First of all you're wading into semantic here, nopun. Secondly I didn't make a distinction about real time vs. actualy number of turns in tournaments, but the reality is that only so many game turns can be effectively played in tournaments, resulting in a 9-10 year cap. In such games, a scoring system is necessary to determine which players should advance to the next round. These systems have been argued about for decades by purists, who complain that they affect game play. While is true, the 9-10 year time limit limits the effects of scoring influence, and generally advances the best performing players. These days Sum of Squares is all the rage, but in my view it's overly complex, and adds unpleasant points hunting dynamics that stray too far from the actual board. When you take scoring systems to the online community, all you are doing is invite needless drama.

Those of you doubting whether or not scoring systems "drastically affect" games are either too inexperience to know the difference, or in complete denial. I've played in the hobby for over forty years, and remember the early online communities before adjudication software rule the landscape. In these days of hand adjudicated results, games took easily 6-12 months to complete, and the only scoring anyone took notice of was victory, draw, or defeat. No one bothered counting how many of each, and no one measured their skill by it, chiefly because every game was uniquely individual.

Sure it's fun to measure yourself against other players, but the best way to do this is to play against them in a game, preferably one unaffected by outside factors such as points, and ratings. Since the unrated game option has been introduced at VDiplomacy, I have personally seen a major decrease in the amount of player targeting/headhunting/crossgaming. People are frree to focus on the game at hand, and are unconcerned about outside facts such as 'how many points will I get if I kill this guy?' or 'how many points will I lose if I screw up and get eliminated?' I've also seen players continuing to play for pride, and for fun even when all hope is lost. Players do not do this in points and ratings driven games.

At the end of the day ratings are inaccurate reflections of talent/skill, while inserting a detrimental virus into to the games and community. There are great players here with modest points and ratings totals, and mediocre players with high totals and scores. But sadly what we have the most of here is games destroyed by a lust for points rather than victory/stopping solos. And the end result of that is that scores of players are learning the game under these conditions, and ill-prepared to improve and/or take the game to new levels. This is bad for the hobby in general.

@Ruffhaus

Couple of corrections:
"the reality is that only so many game turns can be effectively played in tournaments, resulting in a 9-10 year cap."

The North American tournament scene is largely un-capped. A typical face-to-face tournament happens over the course of a weekend, 3-4 rounds are played total, and only the final round includes any sort of hard time limit (though its exact measure is kept secret from players so that they don't know how many years they have remaining).

In reality, players get exhausted from playing the earlier rounds and will terminate them earlier than they might go in an online environment, but that's still the players' choice.

"These days Sum of Squares is all the rage"
It seems a bit more evenly split in NA between SOS tournaments and Carnage (rank-based) tournaments at this point. In Europe, there's still a huge following for C-Diplo (which is rank-based and center-based).

As to your assertion that ratings are "detrimental" to the game? Well, they can definitely change the game, but I think that might be a bridge too far. Robust rating and/or progression systems are the lifeblood of any online competitive game. They always come with caveats, but the feeling that you can win _something_ (even if it's just a rather meaningless "something") is one factor that drives players to keep playing. It's only one factor, but it's an important one.

"games destroyed by a lust for points rather than victory/stopping solos"
This strikes me as an issue with specific points systems. Both of the systems implemented here have solo-related issues.

PPSC - While there are certainly people who like this system, and for some maps it might be a necessity for this site, it doesn't create a strong enough incentive to encourage solo-stopping. Some players might actually stand to benefit by losing to a solo in this system, which seems a tad... off.

WTA - The risk/reward equation is in place for WTA/DSS, but the manner in which draws are scored actually encourages players to pursue stalemated games rather than games where a solo is even a possibility. DSS systems encourage player elimination as the primary path to points, but player elimination is typically antithetical to achieving a solo. It also encourages drastic kingmaking behaviors from players that see themselves as having nothing to lose.

All systems have their relative merits and downsides, and I'm not a regular enough vDip player to have a strong opinion about what the right system for _this_ site should be. I do think an alternative scoring system (whether SOS or rank-based) might open up more possibilities for players to play more engaging games, with points directing them to a more intriguing risk/reward equation, whereby winning a solo is _always_ a hefty reward and losing to a solo is _always_ detrimental, but late-game betrayals of your "allies" might be worth the risk.

Nopunin10did, you're still missing the point, apparently intentionally so too. Here's how a FTF tournament works: Players arrive in the host city, and settle into their hotel on Friday afternoon/evenine. First round games are played with time limited turns. While games are not specifically limited by number of turns, the time per turn places and effective cap on the number of game years that can be played Friday evening. The overarching point here, which you continue to cloud up is that some for of scoring is necessary for deciding which players move on the the final rounds. Thus Friday games are scored by the applicable scoring system prescribed by the tournament. Everyone understand why this is done, but since I have to explain it to you in detail, I'll do it again. There is not enough time Friday evening to play and entire Diplomacy game. The games are therefore limited or capped. Whether the cap is actual time or number of turns is completely irrelevant to the conversation. The chosen scoring system measures the Friday games results.

For the sake of consistency, Saturday games are typically set in similar time windows, even though more time is available. This allows for other game play, socializing, drinking, and tourism of the host city. Saturday games are likewise given score, which when added to the Friday scores, determines the final table. Termination of games isn't made for exhaustion as much as practicality. People need to sleep, eat, and travel. Players also like to meet one another, and talk about stuff other than Diplomacy.

Once again all of this talk about a scoring system in a tournament is a necessity because of time constraints. There are no time constraints in the on line community for general games. There may be for certain online tournaments where limits are instituted, or concurrent game play is established. But for the run of the mill, let's get seven guys and play Dip game, there's no need for any scoring other than win/lose/draw.

Ratings systems are not the lifeblood of any Diplomacy game. Ratings systems are in fact a form of metagaming, which manipulates the individual games into a running contest where feuds, and rivalries develop. This prevents each game from being individually explored as it was meant to be. This in turn makes any ratings taking from said game result garbage. Now, I'm willing to accept hat my opinion on this is jaded by the present system at VDiplomacy, which you do not appear to be very familiar with, something that I'd said weakens your perspective on this. And maybe there are rating systems that do not encourage playing outside the game, headhunting, targeting, revenge, running alliances, etc. I doubt it, but maybe you can show me one. The present one here, which is really what this conversation is about, is ruining games. You simply cannot state with any level of credibility that it is not, because you don't play games here. I've experienced it here first hand for years. I used to be the top ranked player until numerous headhunters knocked me down a bit, and a couple of fluke solos vaulted two players ahead of me. Those players immediately stopped playing because losing any game for any reason would drop them from their perch, and the rating became more valuable than playing. If that not ruining the gaming experience for you, then I don't know what would be. Furthermore, I never felt that my top rating was deserved because it was skewed with results from larger player roster games, which awarded more points. Likewise though now, should I lose a game I am penalized five or more times more than if I do well in the same game. Compounding this factor is that now many/most players are aware that knocking me out of a game as opposed to player B will earn them more ratings points because I am the top rated active player. I don't give a damn about my artificial rating. I know what my level is, and what my strength and weaknesses are. All I wan't is a straight up game, which I cannot get in this community because it's more profitable for everyone to kill me every single time. It's not just me either. Dozens of top Diplomacy players leave the game in their prime because they are unfairly targeted everywhere they play. The VDip scoring system puts that effect on steroids.

The are no merits to the scoring systems here. They are unnecessary in the first place, and arbitrary at best in terms of proper evaluation. They also directly lead to metagaming, bitter drama, and player/hobby attrition. Your point that there are merit to scoring systems is misplaced. in tournaments or prearranged metagaming scenarios, scoring systems may be necessary and desirable. In regular community play they are as useful as putting training wheels on a Harley Davidson.

Finally your criticism of the WTA method further demonstrates how removed from the essence of the game our position is. Diplomacy is inherently a winner take all game. That is what the magic of it is all about, and arguments such as those you are making in favor of scoring systems are bastardizing the game.

The best way to make this work would be two systems in parallel. One that played to the WTA style and one to the PPSC style. Not points, though, and an all or non game selection so the game either counts for both or is unrated. Then the player highest on both systems, even if not #1 on either, would be considered the top site player. If two players swapped positions within a reasonable variance, they would co-hold whatever position. But if #1 on one chart was way down on the other, then they would hold the *lower* ranking. So Ruff has 3000 points on WTA and 2900 on PPSC, Amby has 2950 on both and Caerus has 5000 on PPSC but only 1100 on WTA, Ruff and Amby would co-hold whatever place and Caerus would be ranked wherever his 1100 fell

Simpliat way would be to take the average if the across were within 5% (150 on the 3000 high) but take the lower one on outliers.

I'll remind everyone in this thread that in PPSC games, you always get more points for winning. Players how throw PPSC games are not playing based on points-incentives.

RUFFHAUS 8: There's no need to be rude. You're ignoring the facts yourself by claiming that Kestas introduced webDip points to imitate tournament scoring systems.

@JECE -

We are referring to people throwing a PPSC game for a couple extra SCs instead of getting a draw, not referring to throwing a PPSC game instead of trying to win.

It's the person who has 13 scs that could help force a draw, but instead stabs someone to get to 15 and allows a solo that is the problem. They likely gain more points by having 15 scs and losing than 13 and drawing 4 ways for example.

Exactly Drano.

drano019: I've written about this at length several times. Basically, if you're at 13 SC's and facing a solo threat in a PPSC game, you can still solo yourself or at least work towards a risky 2-way draw. Both options are better points-wise that throwing the game.

The real complaint with PPSC is that the points-incentives can be perceived as minor. Nevertheless, the incentives do work properly.

This requires a different frame of thinking for the powers with only a couple SC's too. If two major powers, each with a solo threat, are steaming towards a stalemate line, then neither is going to win the game. The small powers can play one superpower off the other and grow in strength after pointing this out. Few small powers are going to put in that sort of effort in a WTA game.

Players can also be better at avoiding stalemate lines to begin with.

The problem with PPSC is one of risk versus reward. Points alter the game by rewarding performance with something other than a notch in the win belt. In PPSC, the strong second can choose to risk it and try for a solo (high risk with possible reduction in reward), take the minimum points with a draw (risking someone else throwing the game) , or throw the game for a greater reward with minimal risk.

@JECE -

Can you point me to some of your old posts on this? Finding people's old posts can be a pain in the ass at best without a search feature, and I'd like to read your comments on it from other threads.


"This requires a different frame of thinking for the powers with only a couple SC's too. If two major powers, each with a solo threat, are steaming towards a stalemate line, then neither is going to win the game. The small powers can play one superpower off the other and grow in strength after pointing this out. Few small powers are going to put in that sort of effort in a WTA game."

I agree with the concept behind this paragraph (that neither power will win because the small power plays them off on each other), but with all respect, I think you have it back asswards. In all my experience, WTA gives the small powers every incentive to try to play people off on each other, as the alternative is ZERO reward, whether they are eliminated, or end with 10 SCs. PPSCon the other hand, has a reward for small powers simply surviving, giving them the incentive to throw the game in order to ensure they don't get eliminated in a draw whittling, because no matter what happens, they get a reward if they stay alive. I feel most people who have an issue with PPSC have seen this exact situation play out at least once, where someone allows a solo because it's more beneficial points-wise for them to do it, or they're afraid of standing up to the solo threat because they'll get eliminated otherwise. In WTA, you have to stand up to the solo threat, because otherwise if they solo, you get zero, no matter how big you are.


"Players can also be better at avoiding stalemate lines to begin with."

Entirely true, but saying "people should play better" is no justification for saying a scoring system works. The facts are, lots of players simply aren't that good at DIP to know all the nuances of stalemate lines and things. And those are the players who can be convinced to throw games for a few extra points with PPSC. With WTA, any and all arguments for throwing a game are basically gone. Theres no reward for it, period, whereas in PPSC, there might be. Is WTA harsher in terms of people feeling they "lose" more than PPSC where you can gain points for allowing a solo but ending with 14 scs? Yes it is. But it also encourages people to play to stop solos (even if that means turning on allies and making nice with enemies) instead of just coasting through the game.

RUFFHAUS:

If your argument is, "GET RID OF ALL THE RATING SYSTEMS!!!!!1!!!" then I'm afraid you're probably arguing for a non-starter. I seriously doubt anyone with the power to implement the abolition of the ratings points will actually do so.

What I offered at the top of this thread was to build an alternative system to what's currently in place.

Additionally, you've gotten some details backward about F2F tournaments. Early rounds play until the end, not until a predetermined time. Only the final rounds have time limits because people have to go home. Some tournaments (like Dixiecon) only count a competitor's best two-out-of-three scores, meaning that the time-limited round might not even matter.

The following are Dip tournaments that are part of the North American F2F circuit...

Cascadia: SOS. Round 1 unlimited. Round 2 real-time limited.
Whipping: SOS. Rounds 1 & 2 unlimited. Round 3 real-time limited.
Dixiecon: Its own scoring system. Rounds 1 & 2 unlimited. Round 3 real-time limited.
Boston Massacre: Carnage. Rounds 1 & 2 unlimited. Round 3 real-time limited.
Weasel Moot: SOS. Rounds 1-3 unlimited. Round 4 real-time limited.
Philadelphia Massacre: Carnage. Rounds 1 & 2 unlimited. Round 3 real-time limited.
Tempest: SOS. Rounds 1-2 unlimited. Round 3 real-time limited.
(Tempest is hosting WDC this year and will probably do things a little different in order to fit more rounds in)
CarnageCon: Carnage. Rounds 1-2 unlimited. Round 3 real-time limited.
GenCon: Its own scoring system. Both rounds real-time limited.

^^^^^^ +1.

There is no point in talking about getting rid of points altogether. One reason is that most people enjoy them.

Another reason is that people that *do not* enjoy them can just play 'Unrated' and 'Anonymous' without any kind of penalties whatsoever.

Credit must be given where credit's due. vDiplomacy.com has a shitload of options for (almost) all visions and playstyles, and the scoring system proposed by OP would be a wonderful addition to the family of scoring systems.