JECE wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 3:18 am
pyxxy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 7:26 am
@JECE, having read a bunch of the old forum threads, I feel like I need clarification on the exact rules for your desired version of PPSC.
Or which version you think is the best, if that differs from the version that you want brought (back) to WebDip?
It seems like there are a bunch of different implementations that deliberately or not share the name:
--------
- Point Per Supply Center owned at game end for all outcomes
- Point Per Supply Center owned at game end, except solos where it's 18 points to a soloist
- Point Per Supply Center owned at game end, except solos where it's 18 points to a soloist and the other (surviving) players receive their # of sc / 16 points
- Point Per Supply Center owned, Winner Take All for a solo which 34 points or the entire pot
- Draw Sized Scoring aka evenly splitting the pot or points evenly between all players with greater than 0 sc at game end, except solos where it's 18 points to a soloist and the surviving players receive (their # of sc / 16 points)
--------
Let me know if I missed a variation or two.
By PPSC, I refer to the scoring system that was implemented by phpDiplomacy/webDiplomacy and that is still used on other websites that use the same open source code (such as vDiplomacy).
My post above should explain it:
viewtopic.php?p=311886&sid=7c0e3bb6e8eb ... 7c#p311886
If not, let me know.
Note that I tend to refer to 'PPSC scoring' and 'WTA scoring' (rather than 'DSS scoring').
I understood the webdip explanation I was just trying to confirm what system
you are advocating for being (re)added to webdip. In case you had a change of opinion over the last decade
So it's this one then?
- Point Per Supply Center owned at game end, except solos where it's 18 points to a soloist and the other (surviving) players receive their # of sc / 16 points
I'm still unsure about a corner case. What happens if the surviving players control less than 16 supply centers as a whole?
Do the survivors still only get a point per supply center they control? Or does it do a proportionality thing e.g. # of sc / total sc held by survivors * 16?
---
I found time to go through the old forum, will quote some old arguments that you may or may not still agree with?
"My main argument for PPSC scoring is based on encouraging CD takeovers and thus quality of play for new users."
We should have 5 years for data for this now, if we can rope an admin into looking
"Hell, my first four games on webDip (phpDiplomacy at the time) were games I joined in progress to learn the ropes as small Great Powers in difficult positions where simply surviving was a challenge and the goal was to expand modestly and draw if possible. Without PPSC all this is now impossible."
I guess I'm capable of the impossible XD
PPSC is definitely an interesting gray area in the rules:
JECE wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:32 pm
The very first page of the rules demand that draws be shared "equally". Any evaluation of player performance (such as SoS scoring) that does not honor the requirement that draws be shared equally does not honor the object of the game known as Diplomacy.
"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."
since they do not explicitly say "In the event of a Great Power winning, you may
not reward losers for their efforts.
I think it's funny that it says "pieces" and not "controls centers". That basically invalidates every existing scoring system, webdip or otherwise, right? I can't think of any that count pieces.
So by the letter of the law, any system that doesn't count pieces for draw participation is against the rules.
Suffice to say, I think that trying to use the original game rules as a way to argue for or against the usage of any scoring system is a bit ridiculous. It's Diplomacy Textualism. The rules should be a foundation, not a cage.
---
If I'm ignoring any rules-based arguments for or against PPSC, which I'm glad I went back and read and so I thank you for linking me them, I'm back to just behavioral arguments, yeah?
But then I think I'm currently stuck on basically what CaptainMeme wrote ~5 years ago:
"In reality, stalemates are an extremely important part of Diplomacy. The entire endgame revolves around making or breaking them, and that's the way it was designed. PPSC destroys this by making it better for a larger power to allow another power to reach 18 supply centers than to draw, so stalemate lines should never be formed in PPSC - someone behind them will always benefit from throwing the game."
https://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?thre ... hreadPager
I'm so indoctrinated by WTA as the norm that I've never given any serious thought to giving points to survivors of a solo win. Personally I would find it distasteful to be rewarded for being Vichy France
Similarly I agree with Calhamar:
However, in the final battle to prevent the leader from winning, one would normally expect the second place player to be the leader of the opposition. Consequently, something must be detracted from his achievement because he must bear some of the responsibility for the failure in the final battle.
If I'm understanding everything correctly, your version of PPSC does
not have WTA scoring in the event of a Great Power controlling 18+ centers.
To me, as Calhamar said, that would seem to encourage allowing or aiding a player to reach 18+ centers, which to me is
not a behavior that I want in my games.
For the record I also hate draw whittling in DSS.
This leaves me wanting a different option entirely added to webdip
and makes me feel much better about the tribute-based scoring system that we use for Nexus Leagues.