no problem, I do not play games here, the one only so far thank you. I may play another WW4 variant after this one ends, but I am obviously not concerned about personal points or personal ranking. My play speaks for itself thank you.

I have never told anyone what they can or can't do. You are putting words in my mouth here. I would certainly love to see the PPSC format removed but that is not telling someone what to do is it?

But here's the problem you continue to ignore.
The game is DESIGNED to be won as a solo where all others are losers. That is basic fact. You prefer to play a different way where so called "survival" means something to you and this personal failure should actually be rewarded. Why oh why any would suggest failure should be rewarded is beyond me but you can feel all warm and fuzzy over just barely losing that's cool.
Points obviously mean something to you or the argument would simply NOT EXIST. If you didn't care about your point whoring ways then why care about PPSC in the least. And we have examples where players have thrown game stating so because they gained more points, again, points do matter to some (yourself included).
By rewarding points for losing you simply encourage people to play to lose, you lower the quality of play. This is a basic fact you try to ignore but it's there, we have seen real game examples and still you argue the point.

Now, if you feel who wins or loses doesn't matter, if you feel that as long as you did well it doesn't matter who won or lost and you like rewarding losers, (as you have stated) then we have a big difference of opinion and I don't think the site should CATER to this poor play. That's why we argue
You want your points, they are important to you
I want quality play, that is important to me

Now make the call, what is more important to the site?
Points? ...then use PPSC by all means!
Quality play? ...then WTA is the clear choice!

Those are your two options

There is a third option. Do away with points. It could be done now, especially here at VDip.

I gave you a "like" as we agree!
The problem is, it was already stated that points are not going away, then again, it was stated that PPSC wasn't going away either so who knows?

Honestly, my personal opinion is to continue to discuss the idea fr a while but keep it to the topic and not troll or call others names. Discussions, even heated ones are not always a bad thing! Keep it to the topic and all can maybe even learn from others ideas and hey, after a while some new ideas pop up from such discussions never before thought about!?

Retillion, how is it any of your concern when and how many games I play? I think that I'm responsible enough to manage my own schedule. My reliability record over 75 games and 4,000 phases demonstrates that I know what my time constraints are. Whether or not I perpetually play or not is irrelevant. Maybe if you were not fixated on posting my "EXACT WORDS" and actually took ten seconds to read them and think before you blather on about what you want, you would realize that using your own logic and statements about how I am always participating in games here, that my comments about having time to join a game meant to participate in *another* game. That's a choice, and it's rather mine to make, isn't it? Can we jump off the strawmaw train now? In the case you mentioned, it was of notable relevance since the turn cycle was 14 hours, which is extremely challenging for any game, but more so on a larger map like Imperial II. I realize that the use of logic is foreign to you, and you're ruled by you emotions and how often someone offends you, but you should really attempt to understand the concepts of logic. Your arguments would suddenly be so much more valid and influential. Naturally you would have to ditch the emotionally based crackpot viewpoints that you hold so dear, but maybe that's what is holding you back.

And yes, I am capable of creating my own games. That's an asinine question, but of course you already know that. It's just another strawman because you're losing the argument. However, unlike you I prefer to join games that are already advertised. You prefer to engineer games with players known to you as revolving allies, and to orchestrate their placement on the board, specifically with respect to where you will play. I prefer to avoid any suggestions, temptations, or speculations on these topics. You on the other hand are unbothered by ethical issues.

Another reason why I did not create an Imperial game at this time was because uberdouches like you have drilled the PPSC setting in as the default, and pointing to WTA as an expert setting, which scared players away from games. This makes filling a WTA game difficult, simply because WTA has been branded and expert setting. Six weeks ago when this game was created the setting default was PPSC. Thankfully that has been changed and over time WTA games will become more prevalent, and we can set about playing real Diplomacy.

Yes, I am responsible for my choices. I knew and accepted the risks of a PPSC game, and one that allowed players to chose their own nation. And for an anonymous contest I also knew that you and MAK could be positioned adjacent to each other in the game. I chose to play anyway, because that was the game available, and I thought I'd take the risk. If I had cared enough at the time to create a WTA, random nation assignment game, I might have gone to the trouble. But the last time I championed the cause of a game that needed recruiting of players, you undermined it by immediately creating your own PPSC chose your own nation game, and billed it as a high caliber game that took interest away from the game I was helping to sponsor. In this case of the recent Imperial II variant I wanted to play a fast paced game, and one was already open. *Six weeks* ago as you're so fond of pointing out, that's what I had to work with. Unlike you, I'm not an uberdouche who looks to submarine games that others create. Over time I will play fewer PPSC games, and more WTA games because the default setting now will throw them out that way, and with any luck we can see WTA Imperial II games. And when we do the dynamics of play will shift back to real Diplomacy. In fact a variant like Imperial II will help people realize the real value and risk of a solo.

The answer to the oft asked question of, 'Why play PPSC if you hate it so much?' is that the previous setting of PPSC as a default drove a majority of games to be created as such, and that the only option was to play those games. Attempts to set up WTA games were undermined by people suggesting them as elitist snobatoriums. Most of these folks learned to play the game here under the PPSC setting, and it's hard to fault them too much. They don't know any better, and their style of play has evolved on a fallacy. Any attempts to alter this are met with outrage and emotional rage.

The complaints coming from the lemmings and the ethically challenged in support of PPSC for regular gaming situations that people shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to is moronic. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Suggesting that WTA is the proper way to play is not forcing anyone to play WTA games. In the end this is a website where Diplomacy is played. Asking that it be played by the rules isn't that unreasonable. Offering PPSC as an option is fine, but people should understand what they are getting with it. It's a variant of the game with no purpose or point, other than that it disputes the stated value of a solo as total victory. It's a rule change made under the everyone gets a trophy concept. That makes it a bastardization of the game. Maybe there are special circumstances that warrant it. Many games here are played under special rules and victory conditions other than a set number of supply centers. And in those cases PPSC might make sense.

It is ironic the in the middle of this discussion Oliver changed the default status from PPSC to WTA. Over time this change should resolve many of the discussions going on now.

Hey Oli...

Thanks for the default change!
Can you make the one more ever so slight change I suggested earlier,
This changes absolutely nothing except words, but the wording change can help change the level of play and alter what is considered winning.

I would strongly recommend the stats be altered as follows:
and I would change the order listed as well, from most preferred to least preferred, a sense of prestige if you will...

Game Stats:
Won
Drawn
Defeated
Eliminated
Total Played
Playing

Think about it seriously please.
Both camps should have no real issue with such a change, it still tracks the same performances while not implying a lost game is preferred. (for now) you can keep the points the same for having been "defeated" but not "eliminated" so the PPSC/WTA argument plays no part in this, it is semantics only yet does not imply a false sense of victory for "surviving" after all, did one really survive if the game was won by another? It could go a LONG ways to ending this dispute and seems simple enough a way to eventually improve game integrity?

Oh, note I added the one stat "Eliminated" that simply fills in what was missing and helps those who want to think their "survival" in a game means a bit more than elimination. To me I really think this is a win-win all around and guys, I do welcome your thoughts and opinions on this idea!

hmm I wrote two posts today and none cared to respond so either Im invisible or Im too right for anyone to accept and they prefer to keep on fighting.

In short I said that " WTA and 99% Ranking should be the default" and that PPSC is in fact WTA in disguise (aka variant) since a draw in both types splits the pot among players and the only real difference is that in a WTA a solo gets all the points while in PPSC half of it.
Ergo no need to have PPSC.

Thanks Oli for changing the default..at least you heart me :)

Krellin, dope, I trust my 20+ years of experience not my points, are you too dumb to see that. Nevermind I think we know the answer.
Chav,
I was fighting three nations at once one of them the soloer because of your buddies and group hug theory, but you know what I survived, so kiss off, that's all you guys need to know for judging a player as good, right? I might say I was the only one fighting the soloer, where was everybody else, oh yea, just happy to survive.

And Retillion, that was a stupid thing to say when you let someone step on your nutts to solo. It's like saying hey, great I got the consolation prize, whoop de fricken doo. Not in the spirit of the game.

Why play PPSC games? Simple, sometimes you would like to play a variant that is getting started and hope it is with decent players but that is becoming more of a rarity with the group huggers around here. That is a reason against anon games.

But your 20 years of experience didn’t inform you to not join a game type you don’t like? Lol <rolls eyes> And yeah….I’ve been a fro about 35+ years….so…yeah…
You’re still a petulant child, stomping your feet and whining about a bad choice YOU made, joining a game that your 20 years of experience should have told you was fraught with the risk of people “misplaying” it for points. So…lest you think we are impressed with your vast experience, you have only diminished my respect for you.

Next…

I've been a *gamer* for 25+ years that should say...strange typo that!?!?

The two are really quite different and not similar in the least.
The main difference is in WTA you only get points in two ways, By winning or by preventing a win. In PPSC you can gain a lot of points by allowing another to solo and points are awarded to everyone, you get points for having one center when losing to a solo. The format encourages simple survival only and allowing a player to solo ...who cares!?

@ Oli :

I find Tomahaha's idea EXCELLENT :
- renaming "Survived" and "Defeated" into respectively "Defeated" and "Eliminated" - rearranging the game results by descending order of preference.

That would give :

Game Stats:
Won
Drawn
Defeated
Eliminated
Abandoned
Total (finished)
Playing

What do other players think about it ?

Toma...and your point? What is someone ENJOYS coming to this website and playing a game that way? He's wrong? He shouldn't be allowed to because you disagree with the philosophy?

you are really are a meat head aren't you krellin, did you read any of the earlier posts? Can you read? I said sometimes you join games because you like the variant and hope it is not loaded with meatheads like you. Sometimes you run into stupid players fact a life you hope to change their mind but when they won't even try to think if becomes very frustrating.
Respect for me? ahhhh when???? now you are a liar as well.

Renaming "Survived" and "Defeated" to "Defeated" and "Eliminated" has my wholehearted +1. The simple change in name will hopefully trigger an innate desire to avoid being "Defeated".

a huge +1 to drano, maybe that would work.

" I said sometimes you join games because you like the variant and hope it is not loaded with meatheads like you. "

Nice. Glad you aren't a troll. Glad your 20 years of experience have taught you that when you take a known risk you sometimes get bit on the ass. Maturity would inform one that when you get bit on the ass, you deal with it, not bitch that you got bit.

An alternate would be instead of joining random games of a style you don't like, that you actually, you know, CREATE A GAME. That you -- again, let's be clear -- made a stupid decision, makes the fault of yoru situation *entirely* yours.

Yes...I'm a meathead because I don't complain about the bad things that happen to me THAT I KNOW WILL HAPPEN based upon my CHOICES....yeah.

Feel free to start up that game, unless you are afraid. I'll easily gather a few highly-skilled players to join us....unless you will be incpable of playing a decent game because you are too emotionally tied to the forum (I suspect the later may be true, sadly)

"Respect for me? ahhhh when???? now you are a liar as well. "

No...none whatsoever. You are petulent and a whiner.

I would like to start with an apology for my outlandish behavior. I acknowledge I went too far over the top. I was angry and my sense of humor is perhaps not for everybody.

Nevertheless, I feel the need to seriously address the issue at hand as I have watched, with no little amount of frustration, this thread grow and grow for weeks, fueled in large part by the strongly felt opinion of a few and especially, one specific member.

1. In defense of PPSC

I understand it differs from the way the original board game was played. So be it. It appears to have been devised, for better or worse, as a ranking system for multiple games played. The problems with it have been very well described here, repeatedly. But, does it have any value?

1.a., it has become the norm on various web based platforms we are all familiar with. Because of this, there is a large number of players who are familiar with it, many of whom, like myself, learned with this system and may have never even had the opportunity to play the original tabletop game. From this alone, there is value in keeping what seems to work for a great number of players who do not have a problem with it and may not enjoy WTA, regardless of the legacy of that play style. Legacy alone cannot dictate rightness or wrongness. Consider for instance the three point line, or, another example I referenced earlier with some attempt at humor, the multiple iterations of Dungeons and Dragons over the years. Game rules can evolve and change, and, yes, rule changes can and will affect the way the game is played, but it does not make them _inherently_ wrong.

1.b., addressing the game play altered by PPSC, it has been presented in black and white terms and described as “throwing” the game for points, and also characterized, with some vitriol, as rewarding losers, yet, in spite of this, some people enjoy this manner of play. Why?

1.b.i., It plays more realistically, not as win/lose binary game, but as schematic representation of diplomacy and war. As such, nations in war are motivated, if not to gain total domination, then to at least further their interests, and if that is unachievable to defend what they have. PPSC successfully incentivizes this multitiered hierarchy of aims. Seeing that you cannot win, it is in your interest to consolidate and defend what you can.

1.b.ii., It provides finer ranking than tracking solos alone. What kind of stats do we follow in other sports? Wins only? Of course not. How many points someone makes in a game is still interesting even if the player was on a losing team. Granted, point are not a very good ranking system, but I for one disagree that a survive with 8 centers is exactly equal to elimination as a measure of skill.

2. We are _not_ faced with tomahaha’s forced choice between points and WTA.

There have been several alternatives mentioned. There is the GR system (I don’t really understand it or remember what it stands for).

We could have two systems: Points awarded for PPSC, and no points awarded for WTA. WTA could be ranked with a very simple ratio between wins and losses, perhaps weighted in some way by number of games played.

There are any number of options which can be considered that would involve keeping PPSC and satisfying the wish to separate the purist WTA ranking from the rabble.

I think we all understand that points are second rate as a ranking system, regardless of play style.

As an aside, I do not agree with swapping, as tomahaha suggested, “survived” for the word “defeated.”

3. Beating up newbies

I understand that veteran purist have strong views about the game, but let me please remind you, that every day new people discover the game and discover our site. When you play an open game, you may be playing against someone who barely knows the rules and maybe another player who has played thousands of games. It is not fair to make assumptions about people’s skill and knowledge of the game. Playing for a “survive” is only one of many possible behaviors and choices you may encounter in an open game that does not fit with your assumptions and belief system.

I respectfully ask that you put yourself the shoes of a new player. It does not feel so good to be insulted, berated and put down for making the “wrong” choices and moves in the game.

If you feel strongly about WTA play, the good news is there is something you can do about it. You don’t have play with newbies. You don’t have to play with people who think a “survive” is better than being eliminated. Here are just a few suggestions:

- play with people you know.
- password protect your game.
- create games by selecting the WTA option!

These few simple suggestions can take the headache out of vDip play for the dedicated WTA player.

And, always remember, be welcoming and friendly to new players. If you can spare some time, you could even provide helpful pointers and politely delivered information about the game you love.

4. Process

I have to admit, I am somewhat bothered that this discussion has been overly represented by one side of the conversation, and specifically by a single individual who has made his same point over and over again in scores of long posts that have been overwhelming this forum for weeks now. I fear that one man’s conveyor-belt style of posting has created a seriously unbalance conversation and decision making process.

I sincerely hope that the owner and administrators will take into consideration the vast number of players who don’t have the time or inclination to take part in these extended forum threads.

Thank you for letting me post my views on this topic.

I don't support all the name-calling and vitriol that's been thrown about in what should simply be a debate on the merits and issues of PPSC, but I do support a few of the things people have said.

1) I think Drano makes excellent points on the subject again that everyone should pay attention to.

2) I support Tomahaha's terminology changes, which help address the problem with the whole 'survive mentality,' which is in direct opposition to the principles of Diplomacy.

3) I think PPSC is fine as a variant setting, but the problem with people playing for points and playing simply to survive goes against the win or stop the solo and draw principles of the game should be pointed out in the setting description.

4) Some of us forget, this is a game and it's supposed to be fun. So please have the decency to respect people you vehemently disagree with by debating the merits of their ideas respectfully like an adult and not insulting them personally, calling them names, patronizing them, ridiculing them in other ways, getting hot-headed and angry. This only reflects poorly on you and diminishes your own ideas and marks you for someone to block and keep off any invite list.

I'm a WTA guy, but I've been initiating PPSC games to build a group of quality, skilled, and dedicated players who would play on and off (anonymously) in a series of games to try out many of the variants here over time. I have done this because I initially found many quality and fun players in WTA would not return for future games if they were regularly losing points. So, before each game, I'll message each invitee with a note about the most recent games in the series, details of the upcoming variant, and the following:

"As a perk to those who survive in the event of a solo, this will again be Points Per
Supply Center (PPSC), but it's expected that everybody play to 1) win, 2) draw and prevent a solo first and foremost."

We've had a couple of hard-fought solos out of a dozen games (which sounds about right) and some extremely hard-fought draws. Only in one game did I think a small group of players may have agreed upon and played to draw from early on, but then, that could also happen in WTA. I could not discern that anyone helped anyone solo for points or played to a survive, as I have seen prominent players do in other games here. But most importantly, we've got a really great large and fun crew, including many of the site's top players, who show up regularly for games, but not necessarily every game.

Now that I said my piece, out respect for Oli's request, I am not posting on this thread after this.

The problem isn't PPSC or WTA. it is the players that you play with. Period. Play with good players, you will get a good game. Play with people who want to pad their points, you get what you get. As my earlier post stated, try to play with quality players.

This argument cannot and will not be "won" - this discussion is like PPSC, in that there will never be a singular system, a WTA in which some one wins the pissing match and gets to implement in totality only their idea of the right way to play.

Yelling louder and trying to score some kind of points by attacking personally and out-clevering each other will not change anyone's mind, and just makes you look bad. Yes, I say that while being fully aware that I've had my share of bitchy moments.

All that this shouting match, and the other WebDip fallout threads, are really accomplishing is to bury the useful actual Diplomacy-related threads in the forum, for advertising games, running tournaments, etc. Not that this debate does not have value - there are important points to consider here - it's just that the signal-to-noise ratio is way out of balance and people are playing to win a debate that will not be won.

Changing the default to WTA is a good and welcome change, and that will hopefully make a measure of difference. Thanks again, Oli, for doing that. I also think it's a great idea to change "survived" and "defeated" to "defeated" and "eliminated."

Ultimately, it's easy enough to get games going here with the parameters and playing styles that each of us prefer.

My argument isn't for a PPSC, it's for some sortnof merger, which does negatively effect tomaha in anyway: want to exclusively play WTA, join or start WTA games

Having both formats is just silly. You reward the same points for different games. Its like you get x points for soloing your dip game and I get the same x points for losing my game of risk. Then I claim to be a better diplomacy player. Playing only one format only allows point mongers to proliferate and fosters a loser mentality where throwing games is accepted. Some of those types will of course contaminate my wta games no doubt. It is in no way any sort of solution. It sounds nice but does not work at all. Its the big group hug reply.

Points have no meaning. If you want to rail against something, rail against point refills and point inflation. WTA means if someone bets it all, they get 100 back if they lose.

The points here really are dumb. I think most agree on that? But we all know that some do collect them as if they were gold and as long as we have this then the ripple effect will be felt throughout the site. Just as you can't simply play the type you want and expect this will not affect you. Not to mention the culture that evolves around playing for "survival"

Tom -you should really play a minimum point game here with me, YouCan'tHandleTheMeat and a few of our friends - I think you will find am excellent high caliber game -- exactly what you seek. YouCant and I - I know we play to win or die, and stop the solo (usually...lol The ocassional f-you vendetta does arise....but that's differnt than Point Hording :-)

So turn this discussion positive and joi a game,OK?

Count me in.