Thanks Oli, a good addition although personally my preference would be to force the game creator to choose between them with a drop-down menu.

Thank you, you sir. I appreciate your willingness to try this out. I believe that it will help improve personal relationships as they relate to the game, and in the end improve the play of all VDip participants.

Thank you Oli.

@kaner...
Leaving the field empty is much harder to program, because if you do not enter anything here the game will not be created and you have to enter all your data again.
Maybe no big deal, but this was fast and easy and will result in many more players to give WTA games a chance.
It's not the final solution, but a starting point.

Great Oli, thanks. I don't see how having the default follow the rules of the game could be a bad thing. What do you think of the idea of replacing points with vDip rankings?

This is an amazing improvement in my opinion. This means more WTA games which means probably a learning curve, but I think in the longer run this will be huge for the site. Thank you Oli.

Great idea, Oli.

Excellent addition!

So just how primo is this WTA pot? Is it primo enough Willie would smoke it?

How about winner takes half, half is divided between the losers. :)

"winner takes half, half is divided between the losers. :)"

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/026/futuramafry.jpg

@PE: PPSC usually works this way, because if you have half the SCs for a win, you have half the DPoints...

Oh, I know, haha

Synapse is clever like that

for most it probably will not be noticed, but for those who care, this can pay off over time.

Thanks Oli, we appreciate your consideration and for following the discussion.

"for most it probably will not be noticed, but for those who care, this can pay off over time. "

by nature, Tom has to be insulting and condescending to us here at vdip. WE DO CARE. thank you.

My preference would be a mixed system:
1/3 of the points go to the winner, the rest are distributed among all surviving players based on number of supply centers:

examples: pot size of 100, France solos with 18 sc, Turkey survives with 12 and Italy survives with 4.
18/34*2/3=~35 + 33 for winning= 68
12/34*2/3=~24
4/34*2/3=~8

France would get 68 , Turkey would get 24 and Italy would get 8 (I did the math in my head so numbers may be a little off)

I like this system better because it heavily encourages winning (like a WTA) but also encourages surviving, being a nice compromise of the two.

My biggest problem with WTA on this site (but why it is the preffered setting for me on webdip) is the scale of some of the variants.

WWIV map, because of how massive the map is, requires 20%+1 rather than 50%+1 to win. Because of how large the map is, it is entirely possible that I end up with 49 supply centers and you end up with 50 without us ever sharing a border, limiting the options I had to stop your expansion.

Under these circumstances, what right do you have to get 100% of the pot:
You failed to stop my expansion
Your army would not be large enough to stop me and all my allies should the game have continued (the only reason we play to 18 and not 34 is because of the theory that in a game with no luck, it becomes impossible to stop someone once they have more than half the map) you didn't achieve the majority needed to declare that.

When the required supply centers is less then 50% of the map, it is impossible to justify, in my opinion, getting 100% of the pot.

a solo should take ALL points!
NEVER should a loser take ANY points, you did not "Survive" if another soloed, you LOST and no points should be awarded for helping another to win ...EVER.

This talk of "surviving", if another soloed YOU LOST, you did not :"survive".

On to the WW4 example
100 sc's is stupid. The game has been played well over 50 times and has NEVER been soloed, basic game mechanics will tell you it will not ever happen! So everyone is playing to a draw and that is DUMB. If victory were at say 80? No way can you tell me that 80 center power did not have anything to do with any remaining larger power. It simply NEEDS to be dropped and maybe it's time to learn a little from history and realize this isn't working at 100! (and never will)

I think in that case the idea is that someone was able to achieve victory conditions *faster* than you were, so they get the solo. In my opinion, that is preferable to having players give away the solo in order to get more vDip points or a 'survive' standing (or just outright playing to draw, which I've seen many players do here) when they lose, which PPSC encourages.

and that statement about not getting 50% of the map is based on ignorance and a lack of game mechanics! You know what works on a standard map and simply multiply the numbers. It does not work that way, the more powers, the larger the map, the more difficult it is to reach 50%. Try designing such a game and work it out, you will find what I said to be 100% true, then to insist 50% being needed simply makes you look foolish!

But other ignorant know-it-alls will back up your dumb statement making you feel right.
sorry, you are WRONG

Tom, you are correct in saying that the game should be played to be won. We are encouraging players to do so, which is why myself, as well as Fasces promote a system "closer" to WTA, rather than PPSC.

** Our goal here is to improve/correct the gameplay issues caused by the PPSC setting, not to totally upend the points system where players can play and compete in many games in a fun a dynamic fashion.

However, your narrow opinion that a winner should claim all the points in a game, I feel, is a misguided interpretation of the rules. Please remember that when Calhamer wrote the rules, he did not do it in context of a points system. For this reason, there was only a need to establish the terms for the winner, and it was not necessary in his mind to develop a system which quantifies "survival", especially when "survival" on this site may represent several months of diplomacy and dedication. A key point here is that the rules were not designed around a point system, but alas....WE HAVE a points system, and it is up to us, collectively, to find the best way to incorporate it (without it damaging the gameplay). Please show me where in rules does it say that once a winner is determined, that all the other players "lose", in the sense that being totally defeated is "losing". It doesn't. Your parents might have taught you that there are no points for second place (which might explain your hostility and inflexibility); however many of us feel that there is value in playing the game to the end, and surviving rather than being defeated. Here is my question... "If we can correct the gameplay issues associated with PPSC (i.e. players allowing a solo to happen in order to gain points), then why do you care if there is a small incentive offered to surviving players? My proposed solution, which is similar with fasces, solves the gameplay issues, yet also rewards players who are dedicated enough to play to the end. I don't think surviving players should "win" any points over their buy-in; however, if they control enough centers, they should receive points for them (TO A MAXIMUM OF THEIR BUY-IN). Don't you think that this would solve the gameplay issues, but still appease those in favor of PPSC? Please answer that question instead of simply reiterating your point with the addition of a few more insults.

Here is another thing to think about, please. Having a small reward for survival keeps weak players active in the game. In an online setting, it is difficult enough to keep losing players engaged. How much more difficult will it be when the player knows he will receive nothing when a solo victory is evident? Why should the player stick around, if survival means absolutely nothing? He's not going to want to stick around and fight for survival only for you to call him a "loser".

@Tom: Its been played 48 times according to the statistics tab and has been solod 15 times (so which one of us is 'ignorant' now). Or just over 1/3 of the time. Of those, 4 times there was a less then 5 sc gap between first and 2nd place. In a game where to solo you need just 20% not 50% of the map, having WTA is stupid.

My modification to PPSC would be to let the winner get his current share then the survivors get an equal share of what is left. So strong second gets no more than the 1 SC guy who fought to stay in it. No more motivation for a strong second.

"Here is another thing to think about, please. Having a small reward for survival keeps weak players active in the game. In an online setting, it is difficult enough to keep losing players engaged. How much more difficult will it be when the player knows he will receive nothing when a solo victory is evident? Why should the player stick around, if survival means absolutely nothing? He's not going to want to stick around and fight for survival only for you to call him a "loser"."
In fact there have been many cases in my experience where a 3ish supply center power actively helps the person closest to soloing:
Knowing he has no chance of winning, he tries to end the game as quickly as possible. The number of times a player quits the game (favouring cd then continuing) after being stabbed is enormous.

The simple mentality that Solo>Draw>Survive>Defeat is something that is important for the web version of diplomacy.

@fasces, your system is intriguing but flawed. An 18/16 solo between two players would result in the winner getting 1/3rd the pot and the loser getting 2/3rds of the pot.

And I've always been, win, if you can't draw, if you can't screw the guys who screwed you as long as possible even if it means throwing the game. But above all, have fun. :-)

"@fasces, your system is intriguing but flawed. An 18/16 solo between two players would result in the winner getting 1/3rd the pot and the loser getting 2/3rds of the pot."
No Draug, the rest is split by EVERYONE including the winner.

In the classic map with standard rules, a solo will net you 68% of the pot, a 2nd place finish with 16 will net you 32%.

I was told it was NEVER soloed at 100 centers. I also believe that to be true because 100 just aint gonna happen. Do you know how many of these games were set at 100 center victory total? And did the game use a PPSC condition?

on to the stupid PPSC "argument"
I keep seeing players argue for "survival" sorry, if someone soloed, you DID NOT SURVIVE, YOU LOST! People keep calling this survival and insisting their is something noble about it? Pointing to the original rules and claiming points were not part of the rules so this must be wholly original is a foolish thing to say as well.
No, POINTS were not mentioned
HOWEVER, the rules do say the person who got to 18 centers was the lone winner.
And if the game ended in a draw, "All survivors share equally in the draw".

Gee, while "points" are not mentioned, how can you assume anything other than if they were, then the sole winner took all, especially when in a draw all share equally. They "Share equally" how can that be any clearer????

The rules are stated in a way that one does not want to allow a solo ...or he LOSES
Yet if he can prevent a solo and stay alive THEN he shares equally in the draw. This PPSC version that rewards losers fly's in the face of the RULES and as such has no place in Diplomacy!

And if that isn't enough
I know of many many tournaments both face to face and on the web (I have gone to the World DipCon Championship, I have been on the organizing committee of multiple website tourney's as well) never are points rewarded to any who lost to a solo win.

To claim any sort of points go to any who lost to a solo is not middle ground, there is no middle ground on the issue. If you feel you must take a middle ground and you feel you must have points, then rewarding points similar to tourney play is your only "middle ground" (more points for more sc's while "standard" play would split equal among all survivors) and there is still no room for points going to any who would allow a solo. Again, no middle ground there! (points are not awarded to losers)

Ah! My bad. That works.