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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

@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.

+1 NPI10D

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...

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.

"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.

>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?

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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

"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.

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.

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.

I don’t think that was the original objective of PPSC.

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?

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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!

+1 Rulebook Scoring (RS). This is a much clearer title than DSS.

My objection is basically that "Rulebook Scoring" is a value-laden term, which seems to endorse one scoring system over the other.