Home Game League Scoring

[purevital]

Hello all.

I am thinking about starting a Diplomacy league game with my home friends, but am wondering about what point scoring technique to use.

I like both variants of Sum-of-Squares and Draw-Size scoring and I am wondering whether they can be mixed? For example, allocating half the points to be split between the remaining players, and half the points based on their supply centre count.

It would encourage solos while also trying to stab your allies when it come to a draw.

Has anyone used anything similar or know of any other scoring systems?

Also, how would people prevent league manipulation?
For example, We played Risk Legacy and it gets to a point where if you know you won't win, you can purposely try and make stop the player who is ahead in the league winning

[Deeply_Dippy]

Sorry Purevital, I can't advise you on the scoring system other than that if you are keeping a separate score off-site you can do what you like. All that matters is that is clear, consistently applied and that everyone signs up to it before they start playing.

My main query, though, was how is your Risk Legacy 'problem' any different to regular Dip? As soon as you have a scoring system you'll have people playing to maximise their return and minimise those of their opponents.

My advice would be; don't sweat it and embrace the manipulation as just another aspect of the game.

[ghug]

There are a lot of scoring systems out there. The DSS style seems to be less common in face to face, partially I think due to time limits, but also because it encourages somewhat boring play in the late game if nobody thinks they can solo. Other scoring systems I've seen work on some combination of center count (a la SoS) and ranking (an extreme example of this is Carnage scoring, which gives 7000 points plus center count to the top finisher, 6000 plus center count to the next finisher, and so on, or all 28034 points to the winner in the event of a solo). Both have their benefits and do a good job of keeping play cutthroat even when a solo looks unlikely. The biggest thing to avoid is giving anything to survivors of a solo win, as you don't want to encourage people to throw games.

As for meta, there's not much you can do there except try to foster a mindset of playing each game to its fullest and not caring too much about league scoring, which is definitely possible if you're just a couple of friends playing at home.

[bo_sox48]

Carnage scoring is a lot of fun. I think it combines the best of both worlds when it comes to keeping draws "fair" (a one-center player that only survived because the game had a mandatory 1910 cutoff doesn't get the same treatment as a 14-center player that probably would have managed a solo within a few more years) and encourages crazy play where every center counts even in the event of a very clear and otherwise boring endgame. It fits your criteria of encouraging solos and keeping the end of a game interesting. Definitely look into it alongside our scoring systems here.

Your worries about manipulation are just something you have to deal with in a completely non-anonymous setting. At a certain point, crossgaming just becomes part of the game.

[swordsman3003]

In person, here's my opinion on the best way to play:

Every puts $ into the pot. Entire pot goes to solo winner, or if there is a draw it is split equally (DSS). The more $ the better.

When everyone bets, say, 100 USD, the play is pretty different from what you normally get. The play is much more anxious and conservative, and you get a game that looks like the "perfect play" that results in 1 or 0 eliminations.

I really, really like a Diplomacy game where the players are reluctant to take big risks and its extremely difficult to get even one elimination. It feels way more like real-life negotiations.

If you've ever played Poker for just bragging rights and also played Poker for big sums of money, you'll easily understand the point I'm making.

[tatertrotts]

I'm on the Sneak of the Windy City Weasels, the most active diplomacy league in the states.

Your metagame concerns are valid and they do happen. As soon as you make it a league, you change the objective from "win this game" to "win the league" for some players.

Traditionally we use Sum of Squares (draw based is an atrocious system for reasons I'm happy to explain in detail, but suffice to say under DSS Switzerland won both world wars). Over the course of a season, your top 3 scores count. The rest are dropped. The top 7 scorers are placed into our Weasel Royale championship board- the winner of which is then crowned champion.

This year we added an element to prevent metagaming. Outside of a player's top three scores, we average their remaining scores. That is added to the sum of the top 3. This means every game counts, so you have more cost/ less incentive to throw dots or keep another player down for league reasons.

Also, if you're ever in Chicago, hit me up! We'd be happy to set up a game with you and talk league diplomacy play.

[Octavious]

I'd be quite interested in why you think DSS is atrocious, actually. SoS I find quite repulsive, although there's an argument for it in time limited games where you don't have the luxury of playing your games to a natural conclusion.

Also, I'm struggling to think of a European nation that came through the Wars better than Switzerland...

[A_Tin_Can]

As soon as you make it a league, you change the objective from "win this game" to "win the league" for some players.

Surely that's the objective for all players, there are just people who haven't realised it yet (or are pretending they haven't).

[tatertrotts]

I'd be quite interested in why you think DSS is atrocious, actually. SoS I find quite repulsive, although there's an argument for it in time limited games where you don't have the luxury of playing your games to a natural conclusion.

Draw based makes sense for online play, but when you're trying to build a league, time becomes a major factor. We play twice a month- one game has a set 4.5 hour time limit, the other we often set an end time at the beginning of the game.

Our incentives as a league is to create competition, recruit new players, and make sure everyone who comes has a great time.

For context, we switched from DSS to SoS after our 5th season, we're in our 12th.

Draw based sucks for face to face for a lot of reasons:

1) no clear winner in most games in over 300 league games, we've had less than 10 solos. Because of the stalemate line and time limits, solos are a near unrealistic objective. Draw based fails to compensate for that, whereas SoS provides 1 winner nearly every board. Occasionally you'll get a split top, but secondary players will choose 1 Victor
2) less dynamic play. You can tell pretty quick where a DSS game is going. Stabs are fewer, though more valuable. The problem here is if you don't do well in 01 or pick the right ally quick, your game could be over hours before youre eliminated. That does not lend itself to a good FTF experience. SoS games are much more fluid and less predictable.
3) DSS makes early alliances feel personal. Because they last longer, that can make for a shitty playing experience.
4) Little late game excitement. Let's be honest- stalemate lines can be boring. Deciding between a 3/4 way draw can be a slog. Whereas in SoS, you could have 3 or 4 players gunning for a time limit win, with the other 3 powers playing kingmaker. In our league, the most exciting play occurs in the last two years of time limited play.
5) Elimination SUCKS if you're trying to get people to come back. Why encourage that in the scoring system?

There are others, these are just the first five that come to mind that are specific to league play. Personally, any system that rewards a 17 center power and a 2 center power equally goes against my competitive spirit.

[Octavious]

That's kind of sad, but I guess inevitable. The trouble is removing the solo as a realistic objective transforms the game completely. You don't really have Diplomacy anymore. You have something that resembles Diplomacy, but with completely different dynamics.

I've played face to face a few times, with a slightly stricter time limit as it happens, and it played out pretty much as you describe. There is 1 clear winner on every board. In effect the few years of play hammer out who is to be a contender, and the final few see the others act as king makers. It becomes little more than a popularity contest, generally with the player who became a contender pissing off the least people claiming the prize.

5) Elimination SUCKS if you're trying to get people to come back. Why encourage that in the scoring system?

This I don't get. The boost in points between having you on 10 centres and an ally on 2, and you on 12 without said ally, is quite significant. How does it discourage eliminations?

In an ideal world, where FtF games are played out in full and there's plenty of entertainment put on to keep early eliminations happy, would you still opt for SoS?

[tatertrotts]

That's kind of sad, but I guess inevitable. The trouble is removing the solo as a realistic objective transforms the game completely. You don't really have Diplomacy anymore. You have something that resembles Diplomacy, but with completely different dynamics.
...
It becomes little more than a popularity contest, generally with the player who became a contender pissing off the least people claiming the prize.

It's not that we as a club have removed the solo as an option. They still happen, they're just tremendously rare. A scoring system needs to maintain competitive spirit despite that.

I actually think what you describe is the 'real' game of diplomacy- convincing 6 other players that you are worthy of being the winner on that day. Tactics can do it, strategy can do it, but negotiation ability is the best way to do it. That, in other language, is popularity. Online feels more like a war game, face to face feels more like real life diplomacy (see Mattis's comments on soft power for a very recent example).

[tatertrotts]

This I don't get. The boost in points between having you on 10 centres and an ally on 2, and you on 12 without said ally, is quite significant. How does it discourage eliminations?

In an ideal world, where FtF games are played out in full and there's plenty of entertainment put on to keep early eliminations happy, would you still opt for SoS?

To your first point, you see janissarying and pirates a lot more in SoS than DSS. People still find a way to be a part of the game- and yes, metagame does come into play. SoS actually opens up a whole host of incentives for smaller players that DSS doesn't. I've also found that smaller powers have a much better shot at coming back and topping the board- I've seen comebacks from 2 centers, or guys get to a split 8 top with no home centers.

To your second question, I would still prefer SoS. It introduces a much richer set of incentives, which makes the Diplomacy more complex, fluid, and enjoyable. As someone who loves complexity, variance, and intensity in negotiations (political science background, work as an advertising strategist), SoS is much more fun for me.

[Octavious]

I actually think what you describe is the 'real' game of diplomacy- convincing 6 other players that you are worthy of being the winner on that day. Tactics can do it, strategy can do it, but negotiation ability is the best way to do it. That, in other language, is popularity. Online feels more like a war game, face to face feels more like real life diplomacy (see Mattis's comments on soft power for a very recent example).

I disagree quite strongly. In time limited FtF the only place a nation that has had a poor start can go is to the role of king maker. In the long game favoured online and via mail the smaller power has options. He can fight for a draw, he can punish his enemies, he can reward his friends, he can die quickly and bugger off to watch EastEnders. With so many competing alternatives the online player has to negotiate all the harder. The FtF player all too often just points out that rival king fought kingmaker in the early years, so kingmaker might as well help me him to get payback.

[tatertrotts]

I disagree quite strongly. In time limited FtF the only place a nation that has had a poor start can go is to the role of king maker. In the long game favoured online and via mail the smaller power has options. He can fight for a draw, he can punish his enemies, he can reward his friends, he can die quickly and bugger off to watch EastEnders. With so many competing alternatives the online player has to negotiate all the harder. The FtF player all too often just points out that rival king fought kingmaker in the early years, so kingmaker might as well help me him to get payback.

Logically you're correct, but having played three league seasons and five tournaments, I can tell you from personal experience that playing from behind is actually way more fun in SoS. The first two horses at the first turn are rarely the first two horses across the finish line.

Some things I've personally done when I was down after a bad start:

1) Worked with new players (online you don't know they're new) to help them develop skills
2) Punish poor play
3) Reward good play
4) Play the role of kingmaker
5) Try to tactically mess up the board as much as possible
6) Been the last unit in a stalemate line
7) Helped someone cross the stalemate line
8) Spread information to cause chaos across the board
9) Come back and do well
10) Come back and win
11) Get eliminated.

In terms of my real life comparison, national leaders are just a blink of the eye. They have a limited time frame, few will achieve their long term strategic objectives (or solos). All of them, however, are trying to improve their position. Real life, in the modern sense, isn't kill based- it is center based.

[Octavious]

The first two horses at the first turn are rarely the first two horses across the finish line.

Perhaps not the first turn, but by the end of the second year?

Your list is not at all unfamiliar from an online DSS perspective.

1) Worked with new players (online you don't know they're new) to help them develop skills I do this quite often. It's usually quite easy to tell when a player is new or not. Just as easy as in fact to face, I imagine
2) Punish poor play Always, unless they are very new
3) Reward good play At times, yes
4) Play the role of kingmaker Never. Why lose when yo can stop a solo and gain a draw?
5) Try to tactically mess up the board as much as possible Occasionally, but only really as part of a come back plan
6) Been the last unit in a stalemate line I prefer to call it the first unit, but yes
7) Helped someone cross the stalemate line To help improve my position, but never to king make
8) Spread information to cause chaos across the board Quite often :)
9) Come back and do well Yup :)
10) Come back and win Yup :)
11) Get eliminated. Yup

In terms of real life comparison, I agree. They have a limited time frame, few will achieve their long term strategic objectives (or solos). All of them, however, are trying to improve their position. Real life, in the modern sense, isn't about an artificially created winner- it is draw based. And every now and then, somebody solos.

[ubercacher16]

This is so much fun to read. I've been going down the list and plus-oneing all of your posts @Octavious and @tatertrotts.