I am in the minority that prefers PPSC because I think it encourages people to actually try to win.

In my experience, WTA leads to far too many draws, as people are afraid of coming out of the game with no points, so they draw when there are 3 or 4 players left, so they feel they "got something" out of the game.

I may be wrong (does anyone have stats on the rate of solo wins in WTA vs PPSC games?) but that's how it seems to me from actual play.

I prefer WTA

In PPSC some losing countries are interested in helping others to win, and grab as many SCs as they can during the process. It is quite ridiculous I think, that in any board game your best interest is to lose. PPSC, for me, is just aplayground for kids to get some satisfaction, success and points.

WTA is much more closer to the logic, that you must stop others from winning. Also it requires a lot more effort from the other players to cooperate and more do it at the right time. If you start stopping the possible winner to early, you will be defeted by the others, if you are to late, someone will win. In PPSC you can have irresponsible moves, and you still get some points, even when there's a winner. But WTA punishes irresponsible behaviour, hence you have to be much more focused.

Comparing the stats between PPSC games and WTA games won't be very helpful since you're talking about usually much more experienced players playing WTA on average than playing PPSC. Wins happen in PPSC games more often because not only is the incentive to stop the solo lacking, but the experience of the players is often lacking as well.

WTA

@Jamiet99uk: Detailed GR lists contain that statistics you are looking for. But I think that's still irrelevant, as it doesn't show what level of games are they playing.

See, what some people saying here encapsulates what, for me, is actually the problem with WTA. In WTA you get people behaving as if they've won something just because they were part of the alliance that stopped the solo. Most WTA games end with no winner, just several people agreeing not to win together and calling that a great result.

In fact, bearing my above comments in mind, how about this for a variant?

I'm going to call this he "Win or Bust" variant. It's very simple:

1. If someone wins, they get all the points, just like in WTA.
2. If the game ends in a draw, *all* the players get their stake back - even those eliminated before the draw goes through.

That way there is absolutely no incentive for people to accept a draw in order to increase their points. I've totally seen WTA games where someone will agree to be part of a somewhat lazy draw *once* there have been enough eliminations for a draw to give them a reasonable points profit. This proposed variant would remove that incentive.

Thoughts?

^ that's the whole idea of the Masters tournament

Indeed, but the Masters tournament takes about 9 months to play. I think it would be interesting to have a variant like the above, available for individual games. What do you think?

PPSC

@Jamiet99uk, while I agree with you on the phenomena, please don't forget, hence the reasons above winning a WTA game is a far bigger achievement.

As I see it, it's just harder, requires more skill, and so on. But it's not impossible, at all. For me winning a WTA game is a challange, while winning a PPSC game is not. If someone is behaving like a winner, after a wta draw, it says a lot about the player himself, but it has nothing to do with the type of the specific game.

Personally, whenever I realize I cannot solo, I totally lose motivation in the game. A draw just doesn't satisy me, I rather get defeated. But you will never experience the feeling of beating top10 GR players, all at once, in 1 single game in PPSC.

I had the opportunity to get that satisfaction, not just once, luckily, and I wouldn't change it for anything. PPSC will never be able to give that kind of success, where the entire world is against you, and still, you kick their asses :D

The Masters is an interesting one. There is no points incentive, and only wins count, but I believe GR lurks in the backs of many player's minds. Also there is a distinct game weariness that develops towards the end of the tournament that seems to encourage draws for the sake of ending the game.

In all honesty I don't have a huge preference between either versions. I play the same regardless. All that changes is that you get different types of poor play lurking in the hearts of the feeble players.

An option I would like to see if a variant where WTA when there is a winner, but PPSC in a draw. There you would have an incentive to win while also giving credit to the better players in the draw. Everyone would still have incentive to try for the win and get rewarded the closer they get.

Ogion: in a WTA game, sometimes a 1-2 SCs holder power is crucial to be part of the stalemate line, and if we look at the objective is to stop a solo, you cannot overvalue those who have more SCs, as the small power might have a bigger role actually.

Sometimes the small power realizes first, he has to move to stop the solo, even at the cost of losing additional SCs, and yet I consider him the 'better' player. I would say I like Jamei's ide better, compared tothis one, where everyone gets back their points. But I don't like that idea either :) Sometimes being part of that "lazy" draw requires a very focused and cooperative play, and not rewarding that is just dicouraging I think.

@jamie, I thought the win or bust idea would be good idea also. But, then again, there are legitimate 3 way draws that are not based on laziness, but on legitimate game play/stalemates.

I would suggest it could be a "no draws greater than 3" concept. And, that could be played under the current system. Everyone joining would simply agree at the start that no one is allowed to vote draw unless there are only 3 left.

Me:WTA

I would say that your scenario of the 1 or 2 SC powers being critical are exceedingly rare, and there was of course the play leading up to their being a 1-2 SC power. Far more common is that the country killing of the 1-2 sc power has to stop to turn attention to a solo and the small country jumps at the life line. Those small players can be important but only within the context of the dominant players. They're the ones controlling the play and deserve greater rewards for putting themselves in that kind of position. I think being larger reflects having had a better game. The idea of rewarding people for staving off certain defeat is a rare enough occurrence that the possibility shouldn't carry much weight

That said in my experience most draws result from people being unwilling to play after a CD. There, I'd like to see the players who were doing well up to that point be rewarded.

I'm not saying all 3-way draws are lazy. I'm saying that some are, and when I see a lazy draw, it tends to be in a WTA game.

@Devonian: there are also legitimate 4 way draw, when there's no way to eliminate the 4th one without losing the game to the solo threat, only if the solo threat country pulls back enough. But if everybody knows, that will happen, then the soon-to-be-defeated country will throw the game once again, just earlier.

@Jamiet, I know you were not saying all draws are lazy, but any rule change would affect all games, not just the lazy ones. And we shouldn't punish those games which were played honestly and with effort.

@ rokakoma: No, it wouldn't. You misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting changing the rules of the existing PPSC and WTA game types. What I'm suggesting is the introduction of a new variant option *in addition* to those, with rules as outlined above.

@roka, Sure, there could even be legitimate 7 way draws, but the more that are in the draw, the lazier it typically is. My definition of a legitimate draw is any draw where one side is all alone and capable of permanently holding back an alliance ALONG a stalemate line. I define a lazy draw where there is no stalemate line, or (in most cases), where both sides of a stalemate line consists of 2 or more players. (I realize my definitions are open for debate, but they are how I define them)

@jamie, Since all games cannot end without unanimous agreement of all remaining players, your idea of "win or bust" could still be played under the current game system. If all players agree at the start that everyone will play for a solo, or cancel the game. The end effect is exactly how you proposed.

@Jamie: okay, my bad it was ;)
@Devonian: okay, it makes sense, howeve in those games I usually play in, that never occurs, hence I didn't think about these situations.

Nice discussion. Thanks. I can see the merits of both systems. From my own experience on email judges I was used to WTA which IMO best matches the official rules of the game. I would need to play a couple more PPSC games before I can make a fair comparison though.

I'm currently in a PPSC game where I can see one effect it can have. Unlike WTA there is a no incentive for one player to let another player eliminate a third player if that first player would not gain any centers in the process. This dynamic makes it harder to solo, as with WTA that first player might risk the second getting a solo just so they can eliminate the third (of course thinking that he can stop the solo, but that might be a misjudgment). Thus it counters the dynamic that rokakoma mentioned where a small power helps a larger one get a solo if that small power can get a few SCs in the process. I am in no position to judge how frequently each of these opposing dynamics occur though.

i prefer ppsc. I prefer to not have to worry as much about someone stabbing me, and it is also easier to stab someone as they expect it less. i also like the fact that it is not just "alliance against the biggest" over and over again.

PPSC is more of a challenge i feel, since you have to rely on pure persuasion, even charm, to get your opponent to follow your plans.

In WTA you can always use the magnus reason of the game ending, and losing every point if you let the winner reach 18. I'd say that's almost 'cheating' because it uses a 'false' reason to force diplomacy, which I think should be conducted more 'freely'.

Also, PPSC is more life-like. Rarely do people care about whose going to be the winner, as long as they get some piece of the pie, their own earning if you will, as in real-life.

I prefer PPSC.

I really like Jamiet's suggestion. I'd be curious to play a high-level game to test how it works out in practice.

I only play WTA because that's where the better opposition is, and I think no-one should be rewarded for losing a game, even if they have 16 centers.

@rollerfiend- Stopping anyone from reaching 18 isn't a 'false' reason to force diplomacy. The whole idea of the game ending once someone reaches 18 centers is that they have more than half of the board, and so diplomacy ends- they could conquer the world alone. (This technically isn't true because there are some stalemates with less than 17 centers, but that is beyond the point) If someone reaches 18 centers, it is implied that everyone else is eventually conquered.

xD

No matter if it is Ppsc or Wta, my first goal is always a solo - sometimes a misplaced bad conscience makes me agree to draws against my first goal. If I cant reach a solo, my goal changes to draw with as few players involved as possible (necessary to stop a solo). And if a solo and a draw are out of reach, I try to sirvive at all costs and never CD.
I play both, but for the moment I have a strong preference for Wta.

(Btw, I am still looking for 2 more players to start a 7 games tournament. Each player will have to play once as each country. All games are full press wta 20pts buy-in 48hrs/phase. PM if interrested)

The more frequently that I examine this discussion, the more convinced I am that PPSC represents a higher level of competition.

Please consider the following points.

*A minority of players will cheerfully join a WTA game and then deliberately attempt to throw the game. I do this. If you and I are playing a WTA game and you block my attempt to win, I will likely retaliate by throwing the win to a third party. I'm not really interested in a small share of the pot if I don't feel that it suits my preferences, and I tend to view the buy-in as a sunk cost.

*I agree with the above (c.f. Jamie) that lower-caliber players tend to clog up WTA games and will frequently seek to grid-lock games, even early on. This will be their nearly-exclusive focus and they won't make even a token attempt to win. This sort of behavior is viewed as pretty much unacceptable in nearly all other spectator sports.

*WTA games of this sort tend to have nondeterministic (e.g. random) outcomes. Backstabbing will be less frequent since dominant players (randomly chosen) will have lower incentive to seek a change to the status quo.

*Skilled players should know how to force a draw, regardless. WTA or PPSC shouldn't matter from that perspective.

*Skilled players should know how to achieve a win, regardless. WTA or PPSC shouldn't impact their decision to join a game.

*In WTA, their is very little incentive for a minor power to even aide a win. Moreover, there is very little incentive for a minor power to persist in a game once things stop going their way. It's not very exciting to sit as a pawn in between two or three major powers who keep dishing you obvious poppycock when you also have no negotiating power, and they're just trying to gridlock the game to achieve the rather unexceptional result of a four-way draw.

Etc. I won't belabor the point.

Fundamentally, I think that there is a lack of consensus upon this topic for the reason that there is no agreement about which style of game is more competitive. PPSC players worry that in a WTA game, no one will be putting sufficient energy into achieving a win. WTA players tend to worry that in a PPSC game, no one will be putting sufficient energy into *blocking* a win. To that I would respond that if you don't know how to negotiate or coerce participation out of a minor power, that you're pretty much better off in minor league play.

Other opinions I have on the matter:

*No skilled player is going to want to join a game that is likely to result in a gridlock. A skilled player will be much more interested in a game that appears winable.

*WTA players don't show enough aversion to taking a defeat, and don't place enough value on achieving a survive (as opposed to a defeat).

In my experience, WTA games tend to have stalemate lines force more quickly.

PPSC tend to have janissaries, which can be a bitch. Example:
Russia is heading for a solo and his partner Turkey is grabbing like 10-12 other SCs so he gains lots of points.

Al makes some very interesting points. I'm in 4 games right now...I have absolutely no idea if they are PPSC or WTA....frankly, I play to win, regardless. I may play differently in a tourney were the individual outcome of a non-win may effect my overall standing...but in individual games, I play the same.

It's odd, though, that Al claims he will intentionally throw games in WTA, and then complains about low caliber players clogging up WTA. pot...kettle....

But his main point that people change their play based upon the style of game is probably fundamentally true -- and if such is the case, then you join the game with this knowledge, you will set your personal goals for the outcome of the game based upon said knowledge, and you will therefore act accordingly, if such is your desire.

To say one style is better than another is nonsense, though - they are simply different, and need to be accepted and played differently if you choose to. If the NFL suddenly changes the Point After kick, it wouldn't be better or worse, it wouldn't be cheating it wouldn't be anything - it would just be different, and it would affect all teams the same, and some changes in play would occur to adjust - things added, things subtrated, etc.

krellin, first you claim that you play the same no matter what the scoring system and then you say that when one enters a game one knows the system and must act accordingly. That seems contradictory.

I agree that it is just different rather than better or worse though. Nonetheless, exactly because it is different, some people will prefer one, some the other and some will be indifferent about them.

You could compare it with preference for vanilla or chocolate milkshakes. That would be a bad analogy though, as obviously vanilla shakes are better.

I hate chocolate. Chocolate shakes can't be much better.

oscar - I said *I* do not change my style of play -- it's hard to change your play when you don't even know what game is WTA and what is PPSC...duhhh..

I agree with him that OTHERS do this, though.

HE SAID: "his main point that people change their play based upon the style of game is probably fundamentally true -- and if such is the case, then you join the game with this knowledge, you will set your personal goals for the outcome of the game based upon said knowledge, and you will therefore act accordingly, if such is your desire."

So I agree that a lot of people play based upon game style, and if they understand this going in, there is no problem -- join the games you like and play how you want to play, if that is what you do. As for me, I play to win, regardless -- I'm more interested in competing with people I know since I'm usually in invited games - I'm not interested in points, so why would I adjust my game play?

My point was krellin, that if even if you yourself always play to win, it still matters which type of game you enter as the different playing styles encouraged by each system are something that you will have to take into account when figuring out what your own best strategy to win is. Therefore, especially if you always play to win, you should adopt a different approach under each system.

oscar - you can not take in to account that which you are unaware of. People will do stupid things in either type of game, so trying to predict people's sometimes ridiculous behavior is pointless. I don't see anyone around here that consistently wins enough to convince me there is some grand strategy that works for WTA or PPSC.

The difference between WTA vs. PPSC typically comes in how people decide to lose a game, versus how they try to win...i.e. push for the draw, lack of willingness to make a stab because they almost have the draw they are looking for etc....and this doesn't affect my objective to push for the win - it just changes the chance of success in making a deal with someone...and that will be obvious when the deal works/fails to work....but it doesn't change my personal objective.

oscar....you really ought to play a few games...1 draw...

I'll add a bit more, if I may.

I think that if you're a newer player (e.g. less than fifty games) and you're considering joining a game with a lot of stronger players with the goal of forcing a four way (or three way?) draw, I say good for you. This is a noble goal for a newb. If you still have a lot to learn, one learns best by competing against (and watching) the powerhouses.

If you're an experienced player (e.g. been here for a year or more) and you still view a draw as a desirable end-game, I feel that you need to step your game up. Draws should be easy (too easy) for veteran players. Instead you should be seeking matches where you're likely to win, and where you won't face a terrible penalty if someone else wins (e.g. PPSC).

Even more:

*Playing to win is not just slightly different than pushing for a gridlock, it's completely different. When trying to win, the objective is build slowly while hamstringing rival powers and converting them into vassal states. Eliminating rivals is often counterproductive.

When pushing for a gridlocked draw, you attempt to grow quickly while shooting for quick eliminations of neighbor states. Any game that results in a draw prior to 1912 probably means that people weren't competing that hard at all.

*WTA unfairly punishes skilled players who are surrounded by idiots. If you're playing PPSC, you can at least offer to support one of your neighbors in a solo bid in exchange for survival. If you're playing WTA, they probably won't take you seriously.

Al - "If ... you still view a draw as a desirable end-game, I feel that you need to step your game up. Draws should be easy (too easy) for veteran players. Instead you should be seeking matches where you're likely to win..."

Wait, what? That sounds more like giving up than stepping up. Wins are too hard to achieve in a WTA setting, so stop trying? If a win is easier to accomplish in PPSC, doesn't that cheapen the accomplishment?