and speaking of that tourney. I mentioned Vdip to maybe a dozen people and not one heard of this site, not ONE. If you want a decent reputation then you need to adopt standards the rest of the community has. Otherwise you remain in obscurity and/or known as the site for beginners and/or carebears.
To be honest, I have NO problem not aiming to be the premier Dip site, I like a more laid back atmosphere and less kill or be killed intense mentality, but I also don't much care for obscurity/disdain either.

I certainly agree that WTA should be the default setting. It is by far the game I prefer to play. But that is not what the discussion about.

Raro, I'm not trying to hijack the conversation. You're correct that the WTA/PPSC debate is one that needs to be addressed more exclusively and probably elsewhere. However, this discussion is related to the WTA/PPSC setting because that appears to be one of the factors that lead to the pleasantries in conversations between the principles, or at least a misunderstanding between them on how the game should be played. My point is that if we set WTA as default, and had PPSC reserved for special circumstances much of this rancor would go away. That's not the catch all for lovey-dovey, kum-ba-yah, group hug happiness here, but it is important to keep in mind that Diplomacy is a war game. It's a highly competitive ware game involving conspiracy, backstabbing, plotting, lying, intricately woven betrayals, bullying, and dozens if not hundreds of other mind manipulation tactics. This behavior hurts, and humans react in different ways to hurt. People getting bent out of shape about a few cross words here, or those claiming offense at everything under the sun are doing the situation no good.

I am pleased to see you weighing in favor of WTA as the default setting. For the sake of everyone's enjoyment of the hobby here, we should continue to press Oliver to implement this, and encourage players to create and sign up for WTA games only. This will require patience though because until the default changed to reflect WTA as a baseline (rather than expert) setting, a majority of games will be created as PPSC. That means if you want to play at all, you have to suffer through PPSC games where players dump solos without consequences.

Amarcord:

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?threadID=43542&page-thread=1#threadPager

now that we're discussing PPCS vs WTA again (there's this locked thread from last year above) I just have to made a quote from an anonymous: "History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time"

Having a default has a larger psychological influence on choice than most people appretiate. Unless one option should be promoted before another, the answer is to not have any defult at all.

(Example of importance of defult: In some countries you have to say if you want to become an organ donor when getting a driver's licence. To have defult as out or as in is the difference between 30% and 90% joining the program).

Yes, having a default definitively influences the selection since the lack of a selection (the default) because the choice. In this case one option, WTA, is basic Diplomacy. The optional choice, PPSC, is a VDip creation, which may or may not have it's uses in special rules games, but it has no value in the majority of games. It's not a basic setting. It's a welfare setting which assures that new players to the game will learn to play it improperly and never improve. As players like Retillion realize newer players can be motivated and manipulated by acquisition of VDip points in return for their surrender. This is all rather amusing in the context of his outrage over any criticism in other conversations about the WWII era French. It seems that Retillion and other PPSC players have great admiration for the Vichy government.

Actually PPSC is not a vDip creation - it was developed as part of the webDip code that this site is based upon.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

Once again, your message is rather entertaining.

Very often, your point of view is interesting but please do not forget that you do not hold the truth : your point of view is only a point of view.

One last thing, when you write :
"It seems that Retillion and other PPSC players have great admiration for the Vichy government. "
[YOUR EXACT WORDS],

do you realize that you are making a terrible fool of yourself ?
Can anybody believe that there might be a link between a preference for PPSC and any admiration for the Vichy government ? Can you ?
RUFFHAUS 8, you are welcome to keep the vdiplomacy community entertained with your incredibly imaginative comments.


@ Everybody :

NO : Diplomacy was NOT created in a WTA spirit. Nor was it created in a PPSC spirit.
Actually, Diplomacy was NOT created in relation with any points system at all.

It is the fact that a point system exists - and why not ? - that had the consequence that some points distribution systems had to be created. And that is why PPSC and WTA were created.

It is well known that there are several ways to play a Diplomacy game and that it is one of the richest aspects of our beloved game : all those different players, with all those different playing styles, create each time a new game with a totally new scenario.
Back in those days when the internet did not exist yet, there were already many articles written about the different playing styles of the different  players : the soloist, the strong second, the survivor, the balance of power oriented, etc.
By the way, most of you know what a "vassal agreement" is, don't you ? How could such a thing exist if survival really had no value ?

It is interesting that some players - who interestingly are, most of the time, those who claim to have a "thick skin" - repeatedly whine about other players playing Diplomacy with a style that would be, according to those complaining players, unorthodox. And that is how those players explain their defeats : they claim that when another player achieves a solo, it is undeserved because the game was PPSC, or full of unexperienced players, or whatever excuse that they can think of.

Gentlemen, and ladies, please think about this : some players claim that a PPSC setting makes a solo easier. Please answer this very simple question :
If that was true, FOR WHO would the solo be easier ?

I mean, if a solo was easier, wouldn't it be easier for everybody ? If it would not be easier for everybody, then FOR WHO ? Can anyone really believe that it would make a solo easier only for weak players ? That would be extremely surprising that the best players couldn't use a possibility than some weak players could use.
Please think about that simple question.

Here is my point of view if not already understood.
Retillion, diplomacy is a WAR GAME, not holding hands singing we all love each other. And who is the solo easier for, simple answer to your simple question, the clowns that think, hey I just survived, i am so happy. They don't even attempt to stop a solo, WAR GAMES are WTF by nature, that should make some sense. In the nature of the game diplomacy do you think, france would say wow, controlled by germany, but I am so glad I survived, or do you think they would want to keep their nationality intact with their nation. Think Germany would have just settled for a draw, how did that work out, looks like Germany went for the solo and got squashed by the allied powers. so again, WAR GAMES are meant to be soloed and the rest are to stop the solo, not that difficult to figure out, all diplomacy games should be WTF by nature. If you want the game to be "why can't we all get along" then you change the default to PPSC and envite your minions singing kum ba yah my love.

And for your question again, would the solo be easier for? the idiots that let him get it without challenge, get it?

Lets put this in a half world situation, you have Hamas wanting to end Israel's existance, they want to "solo", do you think the rest should just let it happen or do you think we should try and stop this slime ball terrorist, murderous group of animals to "solo"? You know the rest of the countries, except Israel, would just "survive".

Again its a WAR GAME.

*****WTA******, i think i had a bad word on my mind I wanted to use. Don't want that here, might upset the young'ins.

wow, just WOW, Retillion can not be more wrong!
WTA is the standard, it is also the way the game was designed, The rules state:
"As soon as one power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that great power is the winner. 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."

That is WTA
A solo wins, all others share equally.

WTA is standard!
No, points are not part of the basic game. But do not let points get in the way, if you add points, it would follow that those points went to the winner and not to the losers, the game rules are clear, one winner or all tie. And this is the standard on every Dip web site I am familiar with (a great many)

Further...
Dip tournaments are run in a WTA fashion.
In tourney's they use points to determine the winner (quite similar to Vdip points). Solos get ALL points and draws share in points (and you have incredibly FEW solo's due to this!). This system that rewards losers is an abomination in every way.

reading Retillions rubbish opinion further...
He speaks of "survival" and of vassal governments having meaning.
Here's where he is absolutely and totally wrong...
If someone has soloed, they have won, you are considered to have lost. You are no longer a surviver, you are a loser plain and simple. Now you want to reward this loser with points? For allowing someone to solo? You want to give them a pat on the back and make them feel good about being a LOSER? No, that is wrong and that is an abomination of the game!

wow, I have to read all and THEN post.

Another idiotic question raised
He asks if PPSC makes it easier to solo, then for WHO?

It becomes easier for the leader. There is zero reason to join together to stop the solo. In tourney games you see almost no solos because the players are somewhat forced to prevent it. In PPSC, who cares if someone solo's? You still get your share of points so why stop him if you can get second place?

Yes, you do not know WHO will win before the game starts, but you have no reason to stop that solo so yes, the game will be won far easier than in a WTA format, the way the game was DESIGNED

I think many people are posting some solid points. Here is my take on this discussion at this point, with a possible resolution.

I think that Retillion makes some fine points. The first being that Diplomacy was not designed in reference to a points system. The "winner" is the one with the majority of centers, representing the strongest power in Europe. The rules do not mention survival in regards to having a value, but it also does not state that survival is worth nothing. I would consider that for many, being allied to (or even subject to) the strongest European power is a much better outcome than being totally defeated by them. I know that in a real life scenario this would be true for most peoples, because even if up against a hostile power, they would still have a chance to hold out their resistance, waiting for an internal collapse or power struggle. It is easy in many situations to perform a stalemate with far fewer than 17 sc's. This being the case, surviving may be considered a superior outcome (and perhaps worth more) than being defeated. Also, never in the rules does it state that weaker powers MUST work together to prevent a solo. Yes, it seems to follow naturally that this should be the goal, because a draw is the only other way to "share" victory; however, no one could possibly make a concrete argument that a player not doing his absolute best to stop a solo is against the rules. Maybe it is against the spirit of the game, but NOT AGAINST THE RULES. Also, one edition of the rules states that players may 'negotiate alliances to his own advantages'. If surviving suits a player, then what's to stop him from seeking that objective? I will also say that these are all cases where diplomacy can make the difference. Using good diplomacy to spur a strong resistance, or using poor diplomacy to cause a player to throw a solo simply out of spite are both very plausible outcomes. Diplomacy is still the key ingredient.

However, the rules do clearly state from the beginning that the ultimate goal is to win, by eventually standing alone. This asserts that everyone playing should be playing to win (individually), or to prevent anyone else from winning, because a draw is the only other outcome listed in the rules. This is why I agree that a WTA-style setting does the most justice to the game, because it best facilitates that style of gameplay.

I think the point system on this site is a good idea, because it gives players the opportunity to earn more, then bet more, which gets them into better or more challenging games. Where the points interfere with the gameplay is when a strong surviving player can gain a substantial amount of points, win or lose. In that case, a player might allow someone else to win as long as they keep their earned points. But a player would not normally do this in a game where points did not exist, so I agree that PPSC can contribute to a flawed interpretation of the objective.

In short, I don't think that either the WTA or PPSC setting is perfect, because WTA posits that the winner has assumed all the supply centers when in fact he hasn't, and PPSC for the reasons listed above. If it were up to me, I think the best points setting would be only one setting, where the winning player gets all of the points for all of his supply centers, and the surviving players receive points for their supply centers but only to a maximum of their original buy-in. This gives players some small incentive to survive, but prevents players from actually profiting from surviving a solo, and the only way to win points is to win or draw.

WRONG

Raro says:
"The "winner" is the one with the majority of centers, representing the strongest power in Europe. The rules do not mention survival in regards to having a value, but it also does not state that survival is worth nothing."
Yet the Rules say:
"As soon as one power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that great power is the winner. 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."

Read that again
The rules tell us we have ONE winner and a bunch of losers or we have a group who all share equally in that draw. The player with one center is EQUAL to the player who had 17 centers.

Yet PPSC rewards players with more centers with more points, they are not equal. PPSC rewards players who have LOST by giving them points (possibly a lot of points).
Nobody has ever stated it is against the rules to allow a solo to happen, yes we all agree it is against the spirit of the game so why would you reward something counter to the spirit of the game and counter to the rules of the game in who wins/loses?

Points must be rewarded in a way that is consistent with the spirit and rules of the game, Tourney play does exactly this and is well accepted. In tourney play a solo takes all points ...exactly as the game spells out. It differs however in splitting points based on number of centers held at the end of a draw. It's a best of both worlds situation that allows points to be given based upon ones game play. Why must we be different from the hobby standards? Many here seem to think Vdip is the only place on the web to play diplomacy. You can love it here, that's wonderful but you do need to realize Diplomacy is indeed a hobby played by tens of thousands of people on many sites. You can (and should) certainly tweak things to your liking here, but to ignore the hobby standards is generally not a wise idea. Here we have many speaking out about exactly why this PPSC system does not work as most would want. We point out how it bastardizes play to allow solos that are against the spirit of the basic game, so why support it? Adopt a more standard tourney rule system that is tweaked to reward points in a way that you feel best (based on centers held, number of game years, differential between players, whatever you like! but do the point reward based on STANDARDS that justify the game play as it was intended)

Tom,
You are contradicting yourself when you say that the tourney system is the best of both worlds. You yourself say that this system divides points in a PPSC way even in the case of a draw, and it is in this case that the rules actually do clearly state that all drawing players are equal!! (because no one could reach 18) Why would you promote this? It seems that this is also against the spirit of the game.

What I was talking about when I say "the rules do not mention survival in regards to a value", I am talking about survival when someone has soloed. The rules do not mention it, except in one edition that states: "in order to survive, a player needs help from others. In order to win the game, you must eventually stand alone". This basically says that "surviving" DOES have a value. You state that there is one winner and a bunch of absolute losers, however the rules never indicate this.

You state: "In tourney play a solo takes all points ...exactly as the game spells out."

No, the game does not spell out a points system at all. That's why we are discussing it here. Yes the game says that the one with 18 centers is the winner, the strongest power in Europe, but it does not state that it is the ONLY power in Europe. The rules do not state that remaining players are all absolute losers, who need to clean up the game, buy the beers etc.

Sorry to chime in here but this made me ask the question why not just get rid of vdiplomacy points all together? That would make this entire WTA/PPSC debate irrelevant. We can have players' Elo rankings next to their name to have a competitive hierarchy in place, but the more I think about it the less I see a need for Elo and vdiplomacy points. Why do we even have points when the Elo system is a better (albeit not perfect) measure of the games outcome? Can anyone think of a reason to not do this?

@ Shah :

One of the reasons for the existence of D-points is to limit the number of games that players can join. Also, if you create a high bet game, you are guaranteed that only the players with enough points can join that new game.

Yes but there are other ways to deal with this. I imagine limiting players from joining games only applies to new players and from what I recall there are already limitations on how many games new users can join. You can expand this program even more. Most games have low bets, so a lot of ppl can still play a lot of games. To your second point, the goal there is to get experienced or skilled players (who presumably have the most points), so we can set up restrictions on minimum Elo ranking to join a game. For example only people who are ranked 1500 or higher can join. Accomplishes the same objective. Any other reason?

Another reason is that we can expect that a high bet will motivate players to play as best as they can.

I don't see how that's any different than a game full of highly ranked Elo players wanting to play their best to improve their rating. We have two hall of fame lists on this site for some reason, when we only need one. The points system creates arguments of PPSC and WTA because that's how points are awarded and it does impact gameplay. The Elo system has no such bias to my knowledge (I don't know if the formula differs for WTA and PPSC).

The fact that the setting WTA/PPSC has an impact on a game is actually a positive thing : indeed, it adds an interesting variant, doesn't it ?

I think points are stupid myself, but since points are being discussed, then they should be handled in a manner that is in keeping with the spirit of the game and in a way that is accepted in the hobby community.

That being said, Raro you are foolish trying to dispute what I had said and you are attempting (poorly) to try and twist what I had said.

You claim I am contradicting myself
No, that is not the case.
Read what I had said in it's entirety not in one lone posting!
If you want to have a points system (as you have here) that is now a new twist and not part of the basic game. If you want points as most seem to like/enjoy, THEN you need to do so in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the game. If someone solo's then he wins, all others lose. It simply follows that if points are to be rewarded then you must give all points to the winner and none to the losers. That certainly does fit exactly with the game rules even though you added these points. You want to claim otherwise...then you are a FOOL. The winner of the standard game is THE WINNER, that means all others LOSE, if you want to argue that then how can you explain the next bit where all players in a draw are considered equal? There is ONE winner, to claim there is "value" in surviving a game that has been soloed is flat out wrong as wrong can be, you LOST, you did not "survive" you LOST, this is not surviving, you LOST. This attempt to discredit what I had said is laughable at what a turd you are!

If you want to reward an equal share of points split by all remaining players in a draw, THAT would be in keeping with the basic game rules and spirit (and is what I would actually prefer myself). This is not a popular idea for most so the next best thing is to go with the community standard of splitting draw points by supply center. (and there are many ways to get unique in how this is done as well).

@ Tomahaha :

You think that there is no difference between being eliminated and surviving, possibly as a strong second, in a soloed game : that is YOUR estimation and you have the right to think/estimate/feel like you do, even though many persons disagree with you.

Other players, like myself for example, think that there is a huge difference between being eliminated and surviving, even with one single SC, in a soloed game : that is OUR estimation. Don't other persons have the right to think/estimate/feel another way than the one you do ?

If you think this way then you think like a fool.
If you LOST the game, meaning someone soloed, then it makes zero sense to feel any sort of pride at having not been eliminated. And there is the difference, if you LOST, you did not "Survive", if you derive some sort of pride from this that's fine, good for you, but no way should you be rewarded for this stupid feeling by way of ANY points.

You like to play soccer/football?
You can get plenty of pride from scoring a goal in a game your team lost in, but the bottom line is your team lost and you get zero points in the standings for having scored that goal!

Same old story, Tomahaha : you simply consider that people who do not think like you are wrong and "think like fool"s. [YOUR EXACT WORDS]

What can I tell you Tomahaha ? Is there a point to discuss with a person that has your attitude ?

Retillion's primary reason for staunchly defending the PPSC system is because his entire game is based on convincing other players to let him win. And he specifically loves the PPSC setup because it rewards the losers for collaborating with the winner. He cannot compete in a WTA setting, so he plays PPSC games exclusively. He also prefers choose your only country games, and invite only games, so that he can bring back the same roster of regular collaborators from game to game. Of course he's entitled to his opinion. No one is saying otherwise. What's being said is that his opinion is wrong, and it's not Diplomacy. It certainly should not be the default setting, and any player that abuses the system like he does should absolutely not be attempting influence the default settings of the game.

To contrast the view points my argument for a default setting of WTA is to restore Diplomacy games here to the pure concept of the game as it was designed and meant to played. That concept works within variant play as well as on the standard map. The core objective of the game is to seek victory by solo while at the same preventing anyone else from victory by solo. This is the essence of the game. PPSC destroys that essence. Retillion's passionate defense of PPSC is completely self-serving and narcissistic, and any attempt to change the default setting would directly affect his performances. Think about that.

Raro, Diplomacy is absolutely a WTA game. The use of VDip points does not alter that. The points simply determine the weight of a particular game, as in the amount wagered. If the maximum bet for a game was 1/x where x represents the number of players in the game, then a solo would be worth one point in a WTA contest. Whether a game is worth 1 point or 100 is not the issue. The reward goes to the winner in WTA while The reward is shared equally among surviving players in a draw. This is Diplomacy. In PPSC the reward is shared by the winner and the losers. This is not Diplomacy. Allowing a solo is losing, period. PPSC is what you called bribery.

Retilion if you believe the things you say, then you really are an ignorant clown. Do you understand where the concept of there being no such thing as second place comes from? Being a Chess player you really should. The reason why Diplomacy stops at 18 SCs on the 34 SC standard map is because the game was perfectly designed to assure that once a nation had a majority of the map's SC it could not be stopped from taking the rest of them. The game ends at this point because it is pointless to continue. It's checkmate. The solo victory is assumed to go on and control the rest of the map, and by rule all players concede at this point because it is tactically impossible to prevent the player with 18 SCs from taking the entire map.

As an experienced Chess player you've surely seen situations where checkmate is not achieved but it will certainly be so in the next few turns. Respectful and courteous players lay down their king and concede the game at this point. Diplomacy simply enforces this decision by rule.

So with that in mind and following your own comments that suggest that PPSC "adds an interesting variant" [YOUR EXACT WORDS], doesn't it stand to reason that PPSC should not be the default setting? The answer is yes, and your own comments have endorsed the point.