Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
FirstPreviousNextLast
Sky_Hopper (548 D)
05:03 AM UTC
Winning target SCs don't work?
I just tried to create a Classic game with the winning number of SCs as 34 and the site just didn't want to do it. Is this a bug, or a system put in place?
1 reply
Open
gman314 (1016 D)
12 Mar 11 UTC
(+19)
Winning
Oli won.
On Imperial Civilization's off-topic thread (link inside), there was a brief stint of Second to Last Person to Post Wins. Now that the thread is closed, Oli won.
7199 replies
Open
ubercacher16 (1585 D)
Mon 03 PM UTC
Chaos Colors
See below
10 replies
Open
tobi1 (1948 D Mod (S) (B))
Sun 01 PM UTC
(+1)
Game processing paused
We are currently having some problems after another WebDip code merge with some deep changes to the codebase. Game processing has been paused until this is resolved.

Sorry for the inconvenience.
38 replies
Open
kaner406 (1259 D Mod (B) (B))
08 Sep 18 UTC
(+3)
Variant Development Thread
This thread is made for the express purpose of cutting down of multiple threads that deal with new variants, ideas, concepts etc...
293 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1614 D (B) (B))
02 Sep 16 UTC
(+8)
New podcast for online Dip games
Hi everyone

Kaner and I have started a podcast about playing Diplomacy online....
227 replies
Open
Devonian (1871 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
(+14)
1v1 Tournament Rules, Rankings, and Challenges
Official Rules for 1v1 Ladder Tournament
1821 replies
Open
LeonWalras (1105 D)
03 May 19 UTC
Chaos!
As I'm sure many of you are aware, we now have the classic chaos variant over at webDiplomacy.net
4 replies
Open
David E. Cohen (1000 D)
13 Jan 19 UTC
Dawn of the Enlightenment Game Forming
I see there are separate threads for game recruiting, so here we are.
29 replies
Open
butterhead (975 D)
21 May 12 UTC
(+11)
Advertise your NON-live games here!
In an effort to compromise the pro-ads versus anti-ads for games: Post here for your non-live games to cut down on the number of ads but still advertise games. Post game link, WTA or PPSC, and the bet. Note: this doesn't count for special rules games.
2612 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Changes to make PPSC better
Currently, the PPSC system rewards points in a solo. It has a number of perverse effects on gameplay. In the subsequent post(s), I will outline changes that could reform PPSC and reduce its detrimental impact.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+4)
There are three changes that, combined, would make PPSC into a much better scoring system. It could potentially improve the fun of playing PPSC games and add to their excitement.

Change 1:
PPSC should award points in a *draw*, not in a solo. Solos would always be winner-take-all. The bonus points currently allocated to the solo in PPSC would instead be awarded to the board-topper (the player with the most SCs in a draw). Accordingly, WTA should be retitled DSS (draw-sized-scoring).

Upside: outside of kingmaking for spite/vengeance, which will always exist, there won't be a numeric incentive to lose to someone else's solo rather than force the draw.
Downside: players that expect all draws to share points equally will have to play DSS (currently called WTA) instead.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Change 2:
Games that have specified endings (number of years / turns) will end in a *draw*, not a solo. Players that want to *solo* in those games would actually have to meet the solo requirements.

For players that already frequently play turn-limited PPSC games, this would yield little change to their current experience, other than to provide a risk/reward element whereby a non-leader helping the leader *too much* could lead to losing everything.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Change 3:
The requirements to solo would be generalized, and the current tiebreaker scheme would be amended.

A. To earn a solo, a player would still require at least X centers.
(with X specified by the variant, or by the settings for the game).

B. To earn a solo, a player would also have to have a clear *plurality* of centers. That is to say, they would have more centers than any other individual player, with no one else tied.

Requirement B would automatically be fulfilled for any game requiring a majority of centers for a solo.

Accordingly, the methodology for calculating a solo tiebreaker would no longer be used for *solos*. If there is a tie for first, no solo has occurred; the game would either move on to the next turn or end in a draw (for turn-limited games).

However, the tiebreaker methodology *would* be used for calculating the board-topper bonus when a game is PPSC-scored. As mentioned in Change 1, this would be equivalent to the bonus granted currently to solos in PPSC. It would apply whenever the game ends in a draw (whether voluntarily, or because turns ran out) where two or more players share the same highest number of SCs.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Overall, I think this set of changes would provide a similar experience to those players who enjoy PPSC games, but it would do more to emphasize the importance of winning the solo for yourself and preventing it for others.

It would also remove incentives for draw-whittling in games where the solo has become impossible, as there would be slightly more incentive to take centers from larger powers rather than smaller ones. The draw size itself would no longer matter.

PPSC, as a system, would become something much more similar to a number of tried-and-tested scoring methodologies: C-Diplo, Carnage, Sum-of-Squares, et cetera.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2454 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Yes. We've been saying this for years. Pretty much everything you're advocating above is a necessary change. It may not be perfect, but it will be much better than the present system.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Finally, as a related sidenote, I would love to see the existing recorded numbers in the Statistics section of each variant broken down such that Solos do not include board-toppers under the above definitions. The existing numbers provided for each variant are far too ambiguous.

It would likewise be useful to provide the average scores of each power in that section, with the following conversions:

Conversions (for statistics only, with no impact on rating points):
- All games would be normalized to assume 100 points in the pot contributed by each power, ignoring all NMR/replacements/et cetera.
- Well-tested maps' power balance could be roughly compared across variants, with more-balanced variants having average scores closer to 100 for each power.
- Unranked games that have no turn/year limit would be scored according to DSS; unranked games with a limit would be PPSC.
- Games where the solo threshold has been manually adjusted in the settings would likely require additional changes to how they are recorded in the stats (to better reflect what the game might have been with an unaltered solo threshold).
- An approximate margin of error calculation might be useful as well, to provide some perspective on how unreliable these stats are for small sample sets.

Future improvements might separate numbers for gunboat, public-press, and standard-press games, but I think this would be a good start.
ScubaSteve (1122 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+1)
The most obvious, clearest, best and easiest fix is to give all points to a win. Because the only reason the game ends when one side gets a majority of the map is because it is assumed that they will go on to eliminate all others.

Not awarding all the points to a winner accepts the assumption for purposes of ending the game, but not for awarding points.

We can all agree on this right? There are many possible tweaks that we could discuss but this is the thing we can all agree on. Am I correct in that?
Enriador (1507 D (B))
Tue 14 May UTC
(+1)
I find all three proposed changes very worthwhile.

Change 1 is the game played as it was supposed to be played - a victory represents supremacy (relative or absolute, but supreme nonetheless) and deserves all involved points.

Change 2 allows timed games to still be scored sensibly, and is far more just - a victory must come through achieving the victory criteria, period.

Change 3 is the well tested '1900' tiebreaking method and would work nicely with every variant that has a <50% of SCs criteria for wins.

@Scuba

>The most obvious, clearest, best and easiest fix is to give all points to a win.<

I wholeheartedly agree.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+1)
@Scuba
"The most obvious, clearest, best and easiest fix is to give all points to a win."
Yes, which is part of Change 1.

"Because the only reason the game ends when one side gets a majority of the map is because it is assumed that they will go on to eliminate all others."

Sidenote, but that actually turns out *not* to be a reasonable assumption. It is easily possible in Classic, for instance, for Turkey, Italy, or Austria to be permanently stuck at 30/34 centers. There are 16-center stalemate lines as well, which mean that an opponent could be held at 18 permanently.

"There are many possible tweaks that we could discuss but this is the thing we can all agree on."
One would *hope* so, but I don't think that's actually the case. Without applying the rest of Change 1 as proposed, all you're basically asking for is "get rid of PPSC", which I'm fairly certain would be unpopular. Any change to make PPSC become winner-take-all in a solo would need to come with some/most other changes described.

G-Man (2188 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+1)
+1 NPI10D
Mr. Finkelmuiyer (1155 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+2)
Instead of replacing PPSC, is there a reason we can't add these changes as a third point system? Many people are going to object if we remove PPSC altogether. Why not simply add this as another option? On a site devoted to variation, sure that isn't too much to ask...
ubercacher16 (1585 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
I agree with everything said. Plus one's all around.

With the small exception of what Mr. Fink says. I will ask you this Finkelmuiyer, at what point is Diplomacy no longer Diplomacy? I would answer that by saying that when the rules are changed such that it is no longer the same game. I believe one of those "rules" is that a solo is the best result with stopping the solo being the next best result. After that players can choose whether they want to get the most SCs or have the fewest people in the draw.
JECE (1466 D)
Tue 14 May UTC
(+1)
"I believe one of those 'rules' is that a solo is the best result with stopping the solo being the next best result."
• A solo is always the best result using PPSC scoring. In PPSC, you will always get more points from soloing than from any type of draw or loss.
• 'Stopping a solo' as the 'next best result' does not exist in the rulebook. You made that up.
• That 'all players share equally in a draw' is in the rulebook. Any points-scoring system that gives more points to some players over others in the event of a draw is manifestly against the rules.
Enriador (1507 D (B))
Wed 15 May UTC
>Instead of replacing PPSC<

>Many people are going to object if we remove PPSC altogether.<

PPSC wouldn't be "replaced" per se; it would merely change from becoming an option for wins to becoming an option for draws. It will still exist, and thank God for that.

> Why not simply add this as another option?

It would be quite nice to have this as an option anyway. But out of curiosity: is making WTA the standard for victories and DSS/PPSC the two options for draws that bad?
ubercacher16 (1585 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
@JECE, I didn't make that up. Decades of tradition did. I put rules in quotation marks because I was not referring to a physical rule book.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
@JECE

"Any points-scoring system that gives more points to some players over others in the event of a draw is manifestly against the rules."

Yes, but any variant on this site is 'manifestly against the rules.' Moreover, draw-size-scoring, wherein different amounts of points are allocated based on the size of the draw, is itself a variant (since the rules provide no guidance whatsoever on points).

Instead of arguing what is and isn't in the rulebook, is there some aspect of PPSC's current implementation that you actually enjoy today?
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+2)
@Fink

"Instead of replacing PPSC, is there a reason we can't add these changes as a third point system?"

The trouble is how the system currently defines the "solo", which is a concept that would need to be altered in order to make PPSC better.

The other consideration is that the proposed new version of PPSC is likely to make those games *more* enjoyable than their current state.

Most importantly, it will remove the perverse incentives that currently exist to throw away the win to another player. It seems ridiculous that a player would prefer a loss to a draw, and PPSC in its current form makes that result not only possible but likely.

These reforms would maintain the hierarchy of W > D > L, which is a basic assumption that you *should* be able to rely on every player making. Without that common assumption, it's like you end up playing totally different games.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
@uber
"that a solo is the best result with stopping the solo being the next best result."

Stopping the solo isn't universal, particularly in games that are so draw-size-focused that no one even comes close to the solo threshold.

I think a cleaner way to put this is:
A win should be better than a draw, and a draw should not be worse than a loss.

W > D > L
G-Man (2188 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
"It seems ridiculous that a player would prefer a loss to a draw, and PPSC in its current form makes that result not only possible but likely."

Exactly. It's happened in a significant percentage of the PPSC games I've played. And from reading the forum, I can see it's happening in a significant percentage of all PPSC games played here.
jmo1121109 (1200 D Mod)
Wed 15 May UTC
We renamed WTA to DSS on webdip a while ago, added Sum of Squares as a scoring method, and removed PPSC. I think the same would work here, just keep PPSC as an option if people want to play it but make the default DSS.
OrdinalSean (1037 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
Apologies if someone has said this already or I'm missing something here, but isn't the point of PPSC to make wins easier? I'd say it's fulfilling its objective fine.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
I don’t think that was the original objective of PPSC.
drano019 (2345 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
Just my $0.02 -

The entire discussion about how sometimes in PPSC it's better (points-wise) to throw the game to a solo instead of draw is the same argument against PPSC that's been going on for years. I agree with nopun and anyone else making the point that a draw should not be a worse result than a loss ever. It's a completely different game when it's "better" to lose than it is to draw.

As to nopun's recommended changes, I'd be on board with all of them. While I'd prefer a strict "rulebook" style scoring (solo = win = all points, otherwise all share equally in a draw), the recommended changes would go a long way to getting rid of the ridiculous situations where someone throws a solo because they get more points that way.

Speaking of "rulebook" style scoring - What's with the name "Draw sized scoring"? I understand what it is, but it doesn't seem very intuitive from the name. Wouldn't "rulebook" scoring be more appropriate?

From the Diplomacy rules:

"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."

This sentence implies solo = total victory = 100% of points.

"However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

Here we have the share equally in a draw aspect.

Put together (solo = 100% of points, draw = split equally), they describe WTA perfectly. So wouldn't "rulebook" press be a more intuitive name for this scoring system? Thoughts from the group?
OrdinalSean (1037 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
I understand that this is not an important point, but what was the original point of PPSC then? The rules of PPSC only make sense to me if they were created with the intention of having more solos.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
@drano
That’s a much longer discussion, and I would rather not get into in this context, as it tends to challenge a number of persons’ deeply-held assumptions about how to interpret the rules.

Primarily, I’m using DSS because it’s consistent with how webDip and others label such a system. Making the changes proposed would likely require importing the webDip code for their scoring systems before making the changes to PPSC.
KingOfSwords (1048 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
@drano019 - As was mentioned, the rulebook doesn't say anything about points at all, so I don't see why a point system should be called rulebook scoring.

Here's how I see the main difference between DSS and PPSC scoring under nopun's proposal. In the event of a draw, under DSS, all survivors share the pot of points equally, thus they get more points the smaller the size of the draw. While under PPSC, the survivors get a proportion of the pot of points based on the number of supply centers they each own, so the board leader(s) get the most, the smallest power(s) the least. I can easily see how each individual player might prefer one of those systems over the other, and that's why I favor the way vdiplomacy works, where players can set up or join games based on which system they want.
drano019 (2345 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
@King -

Of course the rulebook doesn't mention points. The rulebook also doesn't mention variants, changed victory conditions, different length deadlines, pauses, extends, or a myriad of other features we have on vDip. Hell, even playing the game online isn't in the rulebook! No one is arguing that.

That said, while obviously the rulebook doesn't directly mention things, as technology and the game evolve, we can infer certain things via a logical deduction to assess similarities in our new ways versus the original rule book written decades ago.

For example, while points aren't mentioned in the rulebook, it's pretty easy to see how there can be a parallel with the original rules. Imagine every game has a grand total pot of 1 point. When the rules say:

"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."

We can logically deduce that if someone is the winner, everyone else loses, and therefore the pot of 1 point goes to the winner. This point seems to be agreed to by most people in this thread who either support the current WTA model, or who support nopun's proposed changes to PPSC that gives the solo-er all the points.

Similarly, when the rules say:

"However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

We can look at the key words there *share equally* and deduce that the rules as written would split the 1 point pot between all surviving players if they had the notion of points.

So yes, while points aren't mentioned directly, it's easy to see a parallel between how the rules are written and how points would fit into the original writing of the rules, hence my suggestion that we call it "Rulebook scoring" since it parallels the original intent of the rules.

In the end, it's all semantics, since "Rulebook scoring" and "DSS" would do the exact same thing, I just think "rulebook scoring" is a bit more intuitive that Draw-Sized-Scoring. Personally, I'd prefer no points, and all we have are win-draw-loss records, but I know that's not going to happen site-wide.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
@OrdinalSean

I can't speak for Kestas, but PPSC was part of the phpDiplomacy code from its first commit on gitHub. Based on the description of WTA vs. PPSC from his earliest version of the file, it's clear that he already knew the risks of PPSC. The relevant section is quoted at the bottom.

I suspect PPSC was introduced as an attempt to make Diplomacy more friendly to casual play, as webDiplomacy was in its early state a php-based Facebook game.

https://github.com/Sleepcap/vDiplomacy/blob/66247b1d2037821901a15c2d8d99ecbdda70ed9c/locales/English/points.php

=======

>The amount of points you get depends on how many supply centers you have at the end. If you have the 18 supply centers needed to win you'll get most of the points, but if you have more supply centers than you started with at the end you'll
still win something. If you get defeated, or have to leave the game, then all the points you bet are lost.
>For more experienced players who have over 100 points 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!
G-Man (2188 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
+1 Rulebook Scoring (RS). This is a much clearer title than DSS.
KingOfSwords (1048 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
My objection is basically that "Rulebook Scoring" is a value-laden term, which seems to endorse one scoring system over the other.
Enriador (1507 D (B))
Wed 15 May UTC
"Rulebook Scoring"? It makes little sense, since the rulebook does not explicitly reward "scores".

The rulebook claims that all players "share equally in a draw", but never states what exactly they share. I believe it means *positions*, i.e. that no player can be considered as "ranked" above the other. *That* was actually one of Calhamer's concerns, as he disliked the concept of "playing to become a strong second [place]".

The rulebook does *not*, however, make any assumptions on meta scoring in the form of "points". This is a tournament invention made for tournament necessities, not Calhamer's and is never even mentioned by any edition of the rulebook.

Draw-Size Scoring aka DSS is a reasonable term, and represents how draws are often defined by the need to limit its size (since everybody is ranked equally in draws under DSS). It's how our fellow folks at webDiplomacy has called it for a long time; there is little need to change.

How it's called is not particularly relevant if we are not adopting/adapting the webDip system it in first place, though.
drano019 (2345 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
(+1)
@ Enriador -

My entire post was based around the idea that *obviously* the rulebook doesn't mention points, and thus cannot explicitly reward them (points or scores, whatever we want to call them).

I agree with you that "share equally in a draw" refers likely to that no one can be considered as having done "better" than another person in the draw, and that you all share the same "position" - that is, a draw. Doesn't matter if you have 17 SCs, or 1, ou're equal.

My point is that the rules as stated can easily be adapted to points will very little logical deduction. If you "share equally" in the draw and have the same "position" so to speak, then surely your reward for that should be the same - hence, equal points.

To me, Draw-Sized-Scoring isn't intuitive. What does it mean to a new player? Points are divided based on the size of the draw presumably. It doesn't imply if it's equally divided, or if the top SC getter gets more, and smaller powers get less, nor does it imply what happens if someone hits the VC.

And while "Rulebook scoring" admittedly isn't self-explanatory either, it ties in that the scoring is based on the original rules, and is the closest we can get to the original concept, given that we are using points instead of an abstract "victory" and "draw".

As I've said many times, I'd prefer using neither, and that every game stood alone as just win-draw-lose with no points, but that obviously isn't going to happen. Until then, acknowledging that the current WTA style scoring is as close as we can get to the original rules when we're using points by calling it "Rulebook Scoring" seems warranted to me.
mouse (1894 D)
Wed 15 May UTC
Stongly disagree with any system that does not split draws equally (with the possible exception of turn restricted games, though that more comes down to what you call the end-state at turn length with no solo having occurred).

Compared to WTA/rulebook scoring, a draw split based on centres actively punishes smaller players who recognised a solo attempt and banded together to stop it, while rewarding those who defected and did the mininum to assist while whittling down those actually attempting to contribute to the game.

I can understand opposition to PPSC, but any arguments actually valid there for removal or alteration of the system (namely, those concerned about its impact on site culture effecting other games) apply equally to a system like the one proposed that perverts the intent of a draw (forced into it by a stalemate or a concerted effort to stop a solo) by actively encouraging infighting amongst those that should be cooperating to ensure they peg a result rather than a loss.

Sure, if people want such a system, let them play it, but *add* it to the options rather than remove PPSC as all that does is remove options while perpetuating the valid reasons to desire a change.


(as an aside, when it comes to naming, when I first saw 'DSS' I assumed the 'size' referred to number of centres you had when a draw was forced (ie. a draw that split scores based on centre count rather than equally) thus I would argue that calling it such is more likely to promote confusion than the alternate options).
RUFFHAUS 8 (2454 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
(+2)
Mouse, the scenario you present does occur, but it is rare, and you're making some wild leaps in suggesting that larger powers are oblivious to an impending solo. I do not disagree with your preference for WTA games. And in all candor I prefer to see draw rewarded equally regardless of center count. That option is still available, too. However, VDiplomacy is a variant community, and many of the variants have significantly more supply centers than the standard map, which in some respect increases the degree of accomplishment among finishers. VDiplomacy is alos very fixated on maintaining points and ratings, so this isn;t a bad way to go about awarding them. First of all no one is rewarded anything for losing now. Thats a huge improvement on it's own. Additionally I have seen the type of system nopun is describing implemented at previous Dip sites, and seen it work very well over several years of accumulated results.

All nations in a draw succeed in preventing a solo. This system merely proposes to reward it proportionately. There is no vehicle to quantify the specific importance of this behavior on the map. And sometimes it is the smallest nation left doing the most work, as you suggest, but not always. In my experience this type of scoring system will encourage players to explore diplomatic relationship with former enemies in an effort to stop the solo because they have tangible incentives to do so. It is not at all more likely to promote confusion. It is more likely to point players to the objective of the game, which is to solo while stopping others from soloing against you. The PPSC system was a perverted concept from the everyone gets a trophy school of thought.
mouse (1894 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
(+1)
To pick out a single point purely from lack of time in which to post extensively - 'well you can still play rulebook scoring games' is not an argument for swapping out a ranking system that distorts win-based results for one that distorts draw-based results. It is, rather, an argument to simply *add* the new system as a third option (4th if you count unranked) for people to customise how they wish to play the specific variant they select for that game.
ubercacher16 (1585 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
(+1)
I think I have to agree with mouse on this one. As terrible as PPSC is, I think it would be easier, if not better, to simply implement a fourth scoring system for people to choose from.
CCR (1671 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
Mouse, Uber16, all. Do not forget ppsc itself must be fixed. As far as I understand, under the current system, it is only ppsc in the case of a solo result; otherwise the ppsc game grants equal points to all, effectively working as a DSS game. It is perverse because it turns to rational the following behaviour: players are rewarded allowing a solo while trying to get more SCs, *especially the larger powers*
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
So, I’m worried that this thread is devolving into a debate about whether all scoring systems should be held to the “all players share equally in the draw” standard, which was not my intention.

My hope was to bring vDip’s scoring and solo-determination code more into line with webDip’s. The term “Draw-Sized Scoring” (DSS), for instance, is not a term I made up on my own, but rather one that has existed (in one form or another) in the wider Diplomacy community for some time now. You will already see it on this site’s help page, which appears to have been hastily copied from webDip already. While vDip clearly has more variant development, the core code of this site largely relies on development updates from webDip. Until this site has a reliable team of developers, I highly suggest you keep its core systems as similar to webDip as possible.

Almost all of the changes to PPSC I described would be in line with that goal. Some additional work would be required to preserve a version of PPSC rather than solely implementing Sum-of-Squares scoring (the question of whose inclusion on this site should be handled separately, IMO).

As for having two versions of PPSC, that might be necessary at least in the short term simply to ensure games already-in-progress retain the status quo. However, it might not be possible to implement without some exceedingly messy hacks. Whether such backward compatibility can be cleanly implemented is therefore an unanswered question, so some other solution might be necessary (like modifying PPSC games currently in progress during the transition to be unrated instead).

Because this site is so dependent upon volunteer coding efforts, I must reiterate that keeping its core systems as similar to webDip’s as reasonably possible is currently the only sustainable path for future maintenance.
KingOfSwords (1048 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
How did webDip handle the issue of current games in progress when they implemented these changes?
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Thu 16 May UTC
I’ve posted a thread on the Development forum on webDip to ask that question.
mouse (1894 D)
Fri 17 May UTC
nopun - you did start the thread by saying "let's improve PPSC by making it into an unequal draw split instead", with no mention of the motivation being primarily to maintain ease of the codebase, so discussions as to the validity of the result of the proposed change should be somewhat expected...

If it's a purely codebase decision - well, I disagree, and would likely stop participating in PPSC games (a setting I currently enjoy from time to time for a 'lighter' game), but you have to do what you need to to keep the site running :/
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Fri 17 May UTC
That’s fair, Mouse. I guess I’m just surprised at finding people holding so tightly to equal-draw-sized scoring that aren’t also believers in winner-take-all scoring.


42 replies
Zybque (1000 D)
Mon 13 May UTC
Cold War tournament
That cold war tournament I talked about: Subscriptions are open!
The first 64 players that sign up will participate. You do need to sign up to the discord server as that's the place where we try to mingle the diplomacy crowd.
2 replies
Open
Grahamso1 (1513 D)
Fri 10 May UTC
Two winners in a game?
What happens if a game is set with winning conditions lower than 50% of all SCs and two players reach that goal in the same season? Is it a tie? Does the game continue until one has more?
5 replies
Open
Grahamso1 (1513 D)
Fri 10 May UTC
Two winners in a game?
What happens if a game is set with winning conditions lower than 50% of all SCs and two players reach that goal in the same season? Is it a tie? Does the game continue until one has more?
3 replies
Open
AJManso4 (1008 D)
Fri 10 May UTC
Builds
Can you build in your main SC if you moved out of it in autumn?
2 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (548 D)
Wed 08 May UTC
Illogical Rating Assignments
Take a look at the following link:
https://vdiplomacy.com/hof.php?gameID=37006

Now, you can see the "brains" of the rating system. As you can see, the system deducts less from a player who CD'd than a player who kept playing and survived. Why? Shouldn't players be held accountable for their CDs?
2 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
Tue 07 May UTC
(+1)
Ready Button Retreat Bug
I'm Britain in this game:
https://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=37793

I have a retreat due. There is only one valid retreat location. I click the "Ready" button, but it's not saving the retreat. We're playing with rulebook press, so there is no "save" button currently.
2 replies
Open
Zybque (1000 D)
Tue 07 May UTC
(+1)
Nexus Tournament final is about to start
Hi all.

You might or might not have been aware of the tournament going on discord. (Here is a website: https://diplomacynexus.com) I saw some of you in there. But nobody made it to the finals I think.
2 replies
Open
Dingus Supremus (983 D)
03 May 19 UTC
Rip Chewbacca
The voice of Chewbacca Peter Mayhew passed away April 30 at the age of 74. Press F to pay respects
13 replies
Open
Dingus Supremus (983 D)
18 Apr 19 UTC
(+1)
Bone related things
This is for bone related things
42 replies
Open
Carlo (1000 D)
23 Apr 19 UTC
Move-question
Hi!

Does anybody whether you can move with an army from Morocco to Gibraltar in variant World War II?
9 replies
Open
Flame (1052 D (B))
24 Apr 19 UTC
(+3)
Lepanto6X
This variant was installed several years ago. But I didn't remember who developed it. variant got several bugs. Who will fix it and give us a final release of a map? ;-)
http://lab.webdiplomacy.ru/variants.php?variantID=97
8 replies
Open
Flame (1052 D (B))
24 Apr 19 UTC
(+2)
Classic 1898 & Classic 1898 FoW
Classic 1898 & Classic 1898 FoW -
Start with one unit for each power. Very interesting and dinamic variants.New variants are already installed at Webdiplomacy.Ru.
If VDip community wanna try them I will send you the files...
2 replies
Open
vixol (1601 D)
10 Apr 19 UTC
Caucasia
I think the variant Caucasia would benefit from being played with a set end year and winner takes all. One could think of Caucasia as a tight C-diplo scoring variant.
22 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (548 D)
07 Apr 19 UTC
(+1)
Site has new PHP stuff
...that I'm still getting used to. For example, the font is now Trebuchet MS, the forum has gotten a renovation, etc.
49 replies
Open
Bone
My friend group and I have decided to shift all of our games from WebDiplomacy to VDiplomacy after the "Incident". Apologies for all of our bone games that will cloud up the search bar. However feel free to join any of them that you want, the password will always be the same, bone (unless we actually want it to be just us, in which case the password would be something else). Language may be offensive because some of my friends don't understand common decency.
58 replies
Open
Sky_Hopper (548 D)
10 Apr 19 UTC
Block/unblock a player
How would you go about blocking or unblocking a player in the new site setup? The button seems to be gone.
15 replies
Open
Mercy (2091 D)
31 Oct 18 UTC
Newspaper Game
A while ago, some players in threadID=80668 discussed playing another Newspaper game. Meanwhile, more than 7 players have shown their interest to participate in it, but no consensus on the specific settings of the game has been reached yet. I have created this thread to set up the next Newspaper game and discuss its settings.
68 replies
Open
limited number of games
I can only be in 2 games at once since I'm a new player on vdiplomacy, however I've played a lot of diplomacy and know how to play the game. It should include the number phases you have taken on normal diplomacy while determining how many games you can be in.
35 replies
Open
AJManso4 (1008 D)
03 Apr 19 UTC
World war IV Sealanes Match Open!
We need 33 more players
2 replies
Open
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top