Or you could just play WTA games.

I completely agree that draw voting should be anonymous for the very reason Luis mentions. We routinely see the draw vote used as a diplomatic tool here.

WTA allows draws, what does not allow is that survivor powers get anything if any power wins.

In fact I find PPSC somewhat reasonable because at least encourages players to keep their powers as strong (large) as possible, what is close to aiming for outright victory. Hence I'm not questioning PPSC but only draw mechanics (for either WTA or PPSC).

In my proposal, a player being a strong second or third in a PPSC with enough starting powers (is map-dependent) would be better off than in a too early draw. Some variants (Rinascimento for example) seem to demand PPSC because the initial power balance is too skewed and small powers can barely hope for more than a good survival.

I agree that draw voting should be anonymous. I also like the idea of weighting solos more heavily versus draws than the current system does, if only to further encourage playing to win.

Or you could ignore the point system entirely and focus instead on the ranking system found here:
http://vdiplomacy.com/hof.php

In tourney play the vast majority of games will end in a draw. I see no reason it should be any different, the problem is the way points are allocated. In a tourney, you have zero points awarded to those who lose to a solo, this makes people fight to keep others from soling. Voting is always secret in a tourney and should be the same here as well, if someone wants to play for a solo but everyone knows he is the lone holdout, it paints a bulls eye on him, the result is more draws! That one really puzzles me why you would not make the vote secret?

PPSC isn't a horrible idea if you are trying to score a game from best to worst, but the game is not usually played for a score, it's played to win. The rules are clear, the person who solo's wins, all others lose. So even though you may have a 'strong" 10 centers, does it matter if someone else soloed? You lost, your centers held don't matter, you are a loser! (winner take all) and the same can be said for a draw situation, the rules are again clear, all share equally in a draw, the game ended in a draw, no winners, no losers so why give any extra points to a person with too few centers to win? Center count with no winner take all is a further abomination, here you have an incentive to allow others to solo and this should absolutely never be allowed, EVER (yet it is here)

Many players have repeatedly written, like Tomahaha just did, that the rules would supposedly state something like "The person who solo's wins, all others lose." That is a mistake ! Indeed, the rules state exactly :

OBJECT OF THE GAME
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s 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 game board share equally in a draw.

That can be found, for example, on page 4 of Avalon Hill's site :
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy_rulebook.pdf
I can read that too on the rulebook of the board game that I have at home and that I bought in the early 80's.

In other words, the rules do NOT state that, when a player wins the game, "all other players lose equally".

It may seem to be "only" a semantic question but words have a very precise meaning. By distorting words, or worse, by adding supposedly "obvious" words to a sentence, one can try to create a different reality in order to influence people. Any Diplomacy player should know that.

----------

I understand that voting "Draw" publicly may cause the situation that one single player may find it difficult to face the consequences of his refusal to vote "Draw" but isn't that more realistic ? Indeed, in reality, when belligerants negotiate for peace, they publicly take position about their desire to sign peace. In reality, one relatively weak nation could be forced to agree for peace when all the other ones would agree that it is time to end the hostilities.

On that subject, has anyone thought about the potential bad consequences of the possibility of voting "Draw" anonymously ? For example, one single nation, no matter how weak it is militarily, could refuse for an extremely long time to vote "Draw" while claiming that it has. This could have the consequence that players could be forced to keep playing a game that they consider to be finished for a long time and that could lead to apathy and lost of interest in the game, which could even cause NMR's and CD's.

----------

Writing the previous warning reminds me of the Thread called "Input of an alternate scoring system needed..." that was started two years ago, in January 2013 : threadID=38097

In that Thread, I wrote repeatedly that we should not play for any kind of points and that adding another scoring system would create even more problems because so many players love and care a lot about points and that any scoring system will :
• pervert the way many players play the game and, additionally,
• will not reward skill in the same way that the games were originally played.
These were my exact words at that time.

And now some players describe a situation where some other players might want to save their dpoints or vpoints by drawing sometimes games in a premature time.

----------

My recommendation is that we should abandon any kind of scoring system that claims to measure players' strength.

In my opinion, the only real value of dpoints is to prevent some players from joining simultaneously too many games thanks to the possibility of creating games with a relatively high bet, the extreme example being that a game with a bet of at least 101 dpoints prevents newly created multi accounts to join it.


As a conclusion, let's not forget the title that Luis Aldamiz chose for this Thread :
"Rating system favors draws"

Shouldn't we always try to solve a problem by attacking its cause ?

What are those V-points? Do you score them by soloing? Doesn't seem to be the case: the leader of the pack has "only" won 12 games.

Re. PPSC: I'd say it largely depends on variant. There are variants like Rinascimento where if you draw the wrong power, your chances of winning are effectively zero, so you want another motivation to do your best and that can be PPSC or being part of a draw (why not if that makes sense not for the player but for the starting position as such? Try playing Siena or Ferrara in Rinascimento, really: you bet like the rest but you begin 4 times weaker than others). Also it makes a difference between elimination, a bare survival and a strong survival that somehow makes sense game-wise. Actually in PPSC a strong power's player can feel he/she is losing if the draw includes too many survivors and may prefer the game to continue till solo, even if not his own.

Anyhow, only sideways related: the issue at hand is draws.

@Retilion: I used to play a lot of PBEM Diplomacy years ago and I have of course GMed several such games: these issues were of course matter of GM "house rules" but mostly we all copied them from each other with minor variants and I don't remember a single game in which a draw was proposed or voted openly: that way you could say whatever in public but still sabotage the draw. And I don't recall from those (not so distant) days being ever in a game that was drawn either (cancelled yes but not a single draw). Then again there was no score system at all (if anything NMRs and quitting was frowned upon and actively discouraged by the community), so each game was meant on itself and draws were quite pointless exercises that only were done when a stalemate line could not be crossed and such.

I'm personally not much interested in D-points but they seem to fill a role (explained here: http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?p=288#p288). Nowhere in that explanation is the issue of soloing vs drawing addressed, so I think I do have a point.

Maybe instead of halving the points taken by those who draw (which could cause "point deflation", undesired), it could be organized as follows:
→ WTA: double points if solo
→ PPSC: get your PPSC share plus the total of the bet (out of the blue, as in the WTA solo but modified)

That way the solo is strongly rewarded in terms of points and players do have a greater incentive to attempt it. Remember that per the rules you so carefully mention, soloing is the ONLY way of winning, so it should be rewarded accordingly, both in WTA and PPSC.

It takes a complete ass clown like Retillion to make me agree with Tomahaha. Only Retillion could write a dissertation supporting the cause for second place and third place losers. Only he could champion the bastardization of the game. Only he could ignore the decades old conventions of the Diplomacy hobby that clearly acknowledge a solo as total victory for the winner, and total defeat for everyone else. Only Retillion could claim that points are the root of all evil when it is he that plays specifically for points, evidenced clearly in that he plays only PPSC games, and argues incessantly against any attempts to move the games towards a WTA standard. Only Retillion could attempt such an argument like this: "In other words, the rules do NOT state that, when a player wins the game, "all other players lose equally"". Please do tell us what the result of the players who do not win is? No, the rules do not say. The rules presume the reader to be intelligent. The rules of games do not state the objectives and requirements for losing. Rules to games state the conditions for winning. In games where second, third, or fourth place holds value, like racing, these requirements are noted. Diplomacy does not do this, because second place to a solo is a loss.

If points were eliminated entirely as Retillion claims to advocate there wouldn't be a PPSC system, would there? Would he play WTA games then. Tell us, Retillion, how many points to they award in chess to a player in checkmate? How many points does the soccer team with fewer goals get in the standings? Do the rules of these games specify the requirements to lose the game? No. They talk about the requirements for victory, and they also discuss what constitutes a draw. The rules do not list what the loser needs to achieve. That's just pathetic, even for you, Retilion.

Bringing Rinascimento into this discussion is rather pointless because it deals with a very specific style of variant play. It's also driven by many misconceptions that the minor powers are not competitive. The problem with Rinascimento is not the imbalance of the starting positions, it is the inability for most players to recognize the dangers of selfish dot-grabbing play. If you draw a minor power on that map and play with the goal of simply racing to neutrals before figuring out your alliances like 90% of the players here do, you're going to get crushed. The large powers may still hold an advantage, but that's just a fact of that game.

The larger point is that PPSC changes the dynamics of the rules of Diplomacy, and ceases to be Diplomacy, specifically where it awards points to players who lose by solo. Retillion likes PPSC, because he's developed a style of "play" where he offers players points to let him win. It works for him and makes him feel like a big fish in a very small pond. But he's not playing Diplomacy, and he's terrified at all suggestions that PPSC be called out as what it is.

Retillion, by all means, let's attack the cause. The cause of the problem is PPSC. If you want to go one step further and remove the points altogether that's fine by me. The only thing the points offer is a way to quantify the game in terms of how much players are willing to wager on the game. In theory the better players will have more points to wager on games, but in practice this really is not accurate. The secondary problem is rating systems. Rating systems are stupid, penis measuring contests that inevitably drive players to play games against the ratings/points tables rather than for the game itself. Fortunately this kind of behavior has been receding in recent months as players realize that points tables and rankings have more to do with frequency of play and number of games played than with actual accomplishments.

Tomahaha notes that FTF tournaments frequently end in draws. The reason for this is not that Diplomacy is meant to end in draws, but because these tournaments are governed by a time, and multiple rounds of play. Games are often capped at a maximum number of game years or actual timed periods of play. Games like this tend to end in draws because a solo takes longer to obtain and issues of practicality and fatigue become an issue. The other issue is that in multi-round events soloists, draw a lot of attention in the next round, and thus a draw is many times a wiser choice. Tournaments are by definition metagaming experiences, and each game you play will be observed by many others and your style considered in future games.

Still Tomahaha is onto something with his. Well played Diplomacy games, such as you will find at the major FTF tournaments will rarely end in solos because players understand the consequences of a solo as total victory vs. total defeat. That dynamic is what makes Diplomacy the game that it is. Sorry Retillion, but your two years of douchebaggery here do not qualify you to override decades of Diplomacy convention and tradition. Tournaments of the best players in the world, would rank higher on my charts than your opinions. These tournaments value solos as total victory. Spare us your examples of minor events an online contests that say otherwise. Scoring systems very, but any system awarding points to players who allow a solo against themselves is a joke. Teaching players in this community otherwise is a disservice to them.



As for draws maybe the points system favors a draw, but that's a very simplistic view of things. The real issue is that there are very few players that play for the solo at VDip. It's largely a friendly community rather than highly competitive. If anything the points give greedy players fixated on points a reason to try to play on and win. Because games here tend to be more friendly the alliances are typically rigidly set by midgame, and that makes solos very difficult if not impossible (unless you use the PPSC model to con players into losing as a way to earn points). Many players dislike stabbing, even for the chance to solo. Are they really driven by awarded points? I don't buy that. Most Diplomacy players are casual players that favor alliances and are loathe to stab. In spite of my reputation as a monster, I fall into that trap, and consider it a weakness in my game. Alliance building is just a much a part of the game as winning is, and the creation of a grand alliance to stop a solo can be at times more satisfying an accomplishment than victory. Until coming here a few years ago I'd never played at any site that awarded points for regular (non tournament) games, and players still tend to vote for draws rather than risk elimination. Achievement is measured in win>draw>lose, but absent statistics or awarded points, eliminated players can be recognized for their performances when strong. It is possible to play and lose, but points systems ignore this. PPSC attempts to equate success with SC totals, which are irrelevant in cases where someone solos. The frequency of draws is relative to the number of aggressive and ambitious players in a community. We have very few pure soloists (purists) here, which is why we see so many draws. Cypeg, Raro, Drano, Jimbozig are the classic solists, and the game needs players that play for the win at all costs.

The best tool for reducing the number of draws would be to make the voting anonymous. That way players could play on to win without being dimed out as the NO-voter. It would probably also help if we could stop perpetuating opinions like Retillion's, that winning is a bad thing, and that we need trophies for losers.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

Your argumenta ad hominem and ad personam only discredit yourself.

Moreover, you are claiming many times that I defended opinions that have never been mine.

That shows that you are just fiercely defending your personal preferences and that you are not interested in learning from another person's point of view.

Finally, the world is not a dichotomy. For example, a lost game does not mean that it has been won by the other side. As an example, a game of chess, since you are asking about that game, can be lost by both players or can be lost by one player and drawn by the other one.

I played a lot of competitive chess...and I'm thoroughly confused Retillion. When does either situation you described (loss-loss or loss-draw) happen?

P.S. for the record I agree with everything Ruff says. Long live WTA. I may have stoked his fire a bit about this topic too..

Hello, I'm RUFFHAUS8 and today I'm going to be taking you through my views on a Diplomacy topic.

This idea is obviously terrible, because someone I dislike supports it. Hell, I'm obviously right because I'm forced to agree with someone else I dislike in order to disagree with the other guy!

Now I'll go into detail on why I dislike the idea:

Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad. Retillion supports it, which means it's bad.

As you can see, the length of my post obviously means I've made some fantastic arguments. Did I mention Retillion supports this idea?



Honestly, RUFFHAUS, I used to enjoy reading the vDip forums before you came along and started making everything into an argument. I avoid it like the plague now. Hell, I prefer the old webdip forum (complete with Krellin, Draugnar, Synapse, Blankflag and a bunch of other people you probably don't know) over it, and that's saying something.

I know I've exaggerated the above - you do actually put decent points into your arguments - but it's so painful to read through the rest of your post it's impossible to get to them without giving up and closing the thread. Couldn't you write a post which includes the arguments relevant to the topic but without all the aggression towards various players you hate?

@ Valis2501 :

I also played a lot of competitive chess.

That exceptional and surprising situation can happen in the case that the referee declares that one player loses the game for bad behaviour. In those circumstances, the referee decides what the result of the game is for the other player !

that's absurd on the face of it. That's a tournament rule, not a rule of the game. The game contains no situations that allow for any of those situations. Not to mention it's such a rare and meta concept.

If that means chess can have two losers or a draw-loss, then 2+2=5.

I can't even.

@ Valis2501 :

Of course, it is a tournament rule. But as soon as at least two games or matches are connected, you need a tournament rule. And that is valid for any kind of encounter : chess, Diplomacy, tennis, football, car races, et al.
But we actually don't need a tournament rule to have two losers : how would you adjudicate a game in which it has been noticed that both players have been cheating ? Or even more simple : what would you say when both players were absent ?

By the way *voting* for a "Draw" is not in the rules of Diplomacy either. It is also a tournament rule in some FTF Diplomacy tournaments and it seems to be a necessity in online Diplomacy.

What I want to say is that things are not always as obvious or as easy as they may seem and that people should not jump too quickly to conclusions because it is very easy to neglect some important possibilities.
For example, you seem to have neglected that sometimes 2+2=5.

I agree that jumping to the throat of someone else does nothing to favor this debate. You can be a soloist and respect that others are not, David Cohen (with whom I used to play back in the day) in his famous manifesto does not feel the need to insult anyone to make a very strong argument for soloism: http://diplom.org/Zine/S2002M/Cohen/Soloist_Manifesto.html

One thing is clear: a draw is not a victory. But it's not clear how it is a lose either. So I do understand that, if there's a score, it should be awarded something, however I disagree that this award can be in any way equal to that of a shared solo. Solo victories must score higher, to represent adequately that such is the goal of the game and not drawing. Doubling the D-points earned by the winner can be a way to represent it in a scoring system like the one used here. Else an X-way draw (depending on the number of initial players) becomes too tempting as quasi-equivalent of victory.

Of course removing the D-points altogether can be an option but making the reward for solos truly appetizing in terms of D-points (as well as making draw voting anonymous) can be an even more encouraging way of "training" new or casual players towards soloism. It's not the same to be in a dilemma of 33 vs 100 , where chances are that I get zero if I aim for the 100 (solo), than to be in a dilemma of 33 vs 200 or, say, even 300 . There's a point when drawing becomes at least somewhat costly and not anymore the best strategy to climb in the ranks and accumulate D-points for elite games or whatever they are used for. And that point is one where draws are not equal to elimination/lose but are still far enough from the virtual gains of soloing. Someone please do the maths.

Chess is quite unrelated. But even in chess tournaments you see often enough that players don't throw everything in because a draw is "good enough", saves face and counts towards a total score. I'd also favor extra points for victory in chess, at least for the black player, who is the underdog by definition. Even in football (soccer at least), if victory would give more points than just two draws, we'd see more ambitious and spectacular play. In general, by allowing draws to become simple fractions of victory in scores, we are favoring draws and watering down the game to tactical draw accumulation strategies.

If we want a competitive game, we need to paint solo victories in bright enough colors compared to mere draws.

This is my position:
1. I advocate a complete removal of the dPoint system - in favour of the vRanking.
2. I advocate that the only requirement on joining a ranked game is one that is specified by utilising the RR system (in place of the dPoint buy-in scheme)
3. A hidden draw function is a really good idea - instead of displaying who as voted for this, it is simply shown under the map that *x players have voted to draw*. (I wonder if this could be included as a option during game creation?)
4. Chess is not Diplomacy. Please don't try to equate the two. They are as different as chalk and cheese, so you may as well be equating Diplomacy to Risk.
5. Some variants (Rinascimento, fubar) should not be included in vRanking and should default to unrated status.

Elaborating on point 2:
Additionally players can also choose to create a game that only allows players to join who are *x* ranks/points away from them in the vRanking system that is in place.

ie. I can create a game that only allows other players who are:
a) +/- 400 away from me in the vRanking
b) have an RR of 90% or higher

(and replace that anoying little points < symbol with a little (v) symbol.)

+1 Kaner

I am with Luis here: draw and concede votes should be anon. I have also already been several times in a situation where I wanted to keep playing to eliminate some more players and maybe solo, but you're having a hard time with that when everyone sees that there is no draw because of you...

How wrong can Retillion be? He says one thing and attempts to support his position by not understanding the same rules that undermine his case.

Let's review the game rules:
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s 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 game board share equally in a draw.

The player who gains 18 solo's, he is the winner.
If he is the lone winner, then it follows the others are all losers. The one power has "gained control of Europe". We have no second place, no third place only losers who do not control Europe. This is pretty crystal clear.
In tourney play we see scoring that awards all points to a solo winner for exactly this reason!

On to the next part
In a draw, all survivors share equally in the draw.
This is even more clear! We have no 1st, 2nd or 3rd place, everyone shares equally in that draw.

Where does he get this stuff? His opinion is so very flawed not to mention his way of thinking is completely counter to the way everyone else does things, just another reason to question his reasoning isn't it?

as far as voting for a draw.
Again, secrecy is very important. I know of no other places that make such voting public knowledge. In a face to face game situation (tourneys especially) it is normal to take one each of your army and fleet counters and hold them secretly in your hand. One by one the game master will have each player drop in the game box (above everyone's heads, out of sight) their decision to draw or not. Dropping an army piece might mean draw the fleet means playing on. The Game master checks the result and says nothing, he then goes around and has each player drop in the other piece. He makes certain he has one of each (no cheating) and then reveals the vote result. He also assures nobody knows who voted how since every player has one of each unit in the box!

Secrecy is standard!

If you make voting draw anon, I wouldn't even show how many people have voted draw. I would just keep everyone fully in the dark on draw votes (save their own) until all surviving players have their draw vote up or a solo happens, then end the game.

EXACTLY!

I recently had a draw in an octopus game. The game itself was pretty silly with no one gaining any ground and everyone just attacking each other. We all decided to draw and even though no one had been eliminated, I still gained 1 point from when I started. I'd assume a draw with no eliminated wouldn't assign additional points to anyone.

@ Cunnilingus :

Please check the scoring page of your game :
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/hof.php?gameID=21607

You have gained 1 point because you are considered to have defeated the player who went CD.

Draws should be kept anon. I totally agree with that. As for PPSC I suppose either people who don't like don't play or just shut up accept it and play... Although mods could calculate points gained as total scs over starting SCs and express it as a score of some sort to reflect a solo by a small power is better then a solo by a big country. For example in imperial diplomacy 2 csa should be awarded a better "score" for a solo compare to a holland who solo since although both need the same number of SCs to win CSA starts off with less SCs

This definitely seems better then the current system which utterly disregards the imbalance in some games