+1 to vote if you think it is better to: be defeated rather than survive

+1 to vote if you think: neither, solo and nothing else matters.

+1 win
+0 survive
+0 defeated
+0 draw

Survive. Sure getting defeated might mean you gave it all you got, but I think trying to survive is a worthwhile goal if the only options left on are to live or die.

The third option you mean?

Thanks spyman, I would actually agree with you - I would rather survive than die.

Play to win.

Of course - but this poll is looking only at the relationship between surviving and defeating, a polemical issue of which is more preferred. Of course, of course winning is preferential to surviving or being defeated.

Play to win? That's strange notion. I always play to come exactly third in the SC count. It is more challenging than you might think.

+1 to win.

Actually, win>draw>whatever, I don't care, I just lost.

I don't see surviving as goal in itself, but it is necessary to survive in order to draw. So survive can be a valid means-to-an-end.

Besides, @spyman:

care to play a game where each player has as goal to come in at exactly third position? That would be incredibly weird (but probably fun nonetheless).

You definitely should try to survive if you can. I've played 13 full games on this site now and been defeated zero times. I think that is an accomplishment of some sort.

And I've also joined tons of games as very minor powers; it is very fun to play with such a small hand.

I'm firmly in the win > draw > defeat > survive camp. If you survive, it means you failed to stop a solo.
Kind of proud that I have zero survives, actually.

Again, this comes down to WTA and PPSC...

WTA: win > draw > anything else

PPSC: win > maximum points > defeat. I personally will risk a few points if there is a chance to stop the solo and obtain a draw (or win myself), but I find it difficult to fault another who in a strong second place position accepts a point gain survive rather than risk losing more.

I think that's the heart of why purists hate PPSC.

And czech... I don't understand, you don't have any more pride or sense of accomplishment in drawing than in a defeat?

I have pride in having fun. Just as you stated you wouldn't hold it against someone for finishing a strong second, why judge me for wanting to win and not caring about draw/survive/defeat? I think my win/draw ratio speaks for itself. I also think that if I don't have a chance of winning, I should be allowed the chance to decide who does.

If you survive it means you failed to stop the solo. If you were defeated it also means you failed to stop a solo, although your failure became clear a tad earlier. As long as at the end of the game you can stand back and say you put up a good fight it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other.

The Czech is quite right, though. In the final analysis the only stat that matters is whether you enjoyed the game or not. I've won a couple of dreadful games that I'd rather forget, and hugely enjoyed others in which I ended up with a survive or defeat. I'd much rather have fun than have a top 500 GR (although having both ain't so bad ;) )

Not judging partner, just asking cuz I don't understand. Do you really feel no more accomplishment from drawing than you do from a defeat?

Really, I measure the game by how much fun I had. Some times I'm the biggest asshole when I play and I sit back and smile the whole time. I try different personas and just live for the game. Really.

haha well good for you! Strange that you would be so highly rated with that attitude, but maybe I can learn something from that :)

Octavious et al:
Below are the five games I have "survived" in. Please tell me what I could have done in them to avoid an enemy win.

gameID=12290: I was screwed from the start in this game with a Spring 1902 stab, but survived four years without ever going below the four SC’s I had when I was stabbed. By then, my Austro-Hungarian and Russian neighbors were in civil disorder while a Franco-German alliance over 4 times my size was poised to crush what remained of Italy and England. Trying to draw here was not an option: France and Germany could have easily drawn 2-way. Given the state of affairs, I had to side with either France or Germany or be eliminated. Because there was no stalemate line between Germany and I, I had to side with France. I might have been able to stab France and force a draw later, but I never felt secure enough to do so. (I felt weaker than either of them and feared the two of them could just eliminate me and draw if I angered them both.) In any case, I think the last English SC fell too late to make a 3-way draw feasible. I ended the game with an equal number of SC’s to Germany.

gameID=12239: Don't even get me started on this !@#$% game.

gameID=14126: This is a no press game. I was Italy and don't feel like I could have been any more agressive. I survived mostly intact and on the brink. Working with A-H didn't quite work out in the end, not that I wouldn't have liked to, so I ended the game occupying all it's home SC's. In any case it would have been quite hard putting up a defense with A-H concentrating on Turkey.

gameID=13932: This was a public press game. The game was supposed to be drawn between Italy, France, A-H and I (Germany). This "Pact of the Quadruple Alliance", which had been formed in Fall 1903 to challenge Anglo-Turkish hegemony, fell apart with the Italian stab of Fall 1907, right as the game looked like it was about to end. Italian justification: "I am just going to make a statement: I have no issue with austria winning so long as the german doesnt survive". A-H pretended to go along with Italy's plan, but instead stuck with the alliance. Italy, nevertheless, refused to defend itself from A-H and was overrun so rapidly that A-H announced it would go for the win in Spring 1910, a season before it won. I realized that France and I had gotten the short stick of the alliance as early as Fall 1905 with Turkish civil disorder, but there was little we could do about it, especially not after the Italian suicide.

gameID=13377: This was also a no press game – with 10 day phases. Four Great Powers went into civil disorder in this game: first A-H CD'd permanently, then Russia CD'd, then France CD'd as Russia revived, then France revived, then both France and Russia CD'd again (France permanently), then Russia revived again, then England CD'd permanently and finally Russia CD'd permanently. Italy decided to challenge my expansion into Austro-Hungarian territory right as France missed its first season and began to be overrun by Germany. Italy would never turn west after it committed towards blocking me and I would not give up on regaining Tri and Vie, while Russia was active just enough to block my expansion northwards.

@ JECE

Try harder :p.

Damned if I know. Diplomacy is a game in which luck plays a huge part (to hell with those fools who insist on claiming otherwise despite the mountains of evidence in front of their eyes), and there are plenty of occasions when the game is going to hell in a handcart no matter what you do. I take the view that where there's life there's hope and will continue looking for a way to stop a win even when the odds are virtually nil, but if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen.

On a personal note, I rather enjoy the fact that different people play with different goals. It adds a nice unpredictablity to the game which I feel is more in keeping with reality, and finding out what the goals of different players truly is can be a fun challenge. I have a feeling that this is something of a minority view, however.

^tl; dr most of the messages but

Win > Draw (Unless you're going to draw with people who have a mere 1SC) > Survive (Unless it's winner take all) > Loss

Octavious: I wouldn't say that your fortunes in Diplomacy are a mere matter of chance, but it is true that there are plenty of times where your plans go to hell through no fault of your own.

I dont understand how this is even a real question....

1. win
2. draw
very large gap
3.survive
4. defeat

why would anyone think its better to die than to not die...??

heres another question - would you rather win or lose?

survive=defeat

I agree with Octavious. Variety of goals is one of the things that makes Diplomacy so fascinating to me. Different conceptions of stabbing vs loyalty, draws vs solos, defeats vs survives... these things add a different flavor to each game, and also add the fascinating task of determining what drives each of your opponents, and how to turn this to your advantage.

@yonni - yes, a survive is a loss, and so is a defeat, but a player who survives the game (and loses) with 10 centres has done a better job (though still a losing effort) than a player who gets defeated.

its like asking is it better to lose an NHL game 50-0 or 3-2 in triple over time.
both are losses, but one is clearly a "better" loss than the other

It really depends, and there's no right answer. Hockey is sort of a poor sport to compare standard play to, as there is a structured league in which you receive points toward a final prize for that overtime loss. However, in a tournament structure where points are awarded for surviving, than this metaphor directly applies and in this case win>draw>survive>defeat. But in the standard game, it's all personal opinion that can't be proven right or wrong.

And surviving doesn't always mean you played better than if you were defeated. Sometimes you are defeated and there's nothing you can do about it, or you are defeated only because you tried to stop a solo instead of simply locking up your current location, but if you are a decent size and allow a solo, it can be argued much more often that you had an opportunity and failed to prevent the solo.

@ Mac

Not clearly at all. A person who gets defeated because an ally messed up an order in what would have been a fine stalemate line would have done a lot better than someone who survived with half a dozen or more centres because he was too busy fighting his neighbour to notice the solo attempt on the other side of the map. This is sadly rather common.

yes, of course it is theoretically possible to contrive a scenario in which the greatest player of all time is defeated whilst playing an exceptional game, and all other 6 players play poorly but still end in a 6 way draw, and thus a "draw" is somehow "worse" than a "defeat"

but in general, all else being equal, a survive IS better than a defeat

yes, there are of course exceptions to the rule, but that doesnt deny that it is the rule

as octavious pointed out, many ppl on this app lose intentioanally to get points.
but if you look at real games, not games that award points for losses, and we assume that all players are actually playing the game as it was intended (to win or failing that to draw) then yes, a survive is better than a defeat, though both are still losses

as the nhl analogy, a 50-0 loss is worse than a 1-0 loss. still counts as a loss, but it is clear that one is more of a loss than the other

its like this : you get in a fight
in one case, you get the shit kicked out of you, but you survive
in the other case, you ket shot and killed

in both cases you lose the fight, but in one of them you survive and in the other you dont

@Macchiavelli

That same example can be used to support the other side.
If you get shot and killed in a fist-fight, you simply had no or very little chance to win; the result was inevitable. In a fist fight, you have a fair chance of winning it, but you didn't fight well and you lost. Sure, you survive, but you still lost. At least in the fist fight you had a CHANCE, where you had practically none against the person who brought the gun to the fist fight.