Re: How often do games draw?
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:49 am
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3157
First, there may not be one clear solo contender just because the match has reached stalemate positions. There could be two, or there could be alliances that have stalemated each other.RoganJosh wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:22 amYou're taking the viewpoint of the solo contender. And for the solo contender it's of course a "feature": they get a second shot at the solo with no attached risk.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 8:59 pmPlenty of players cooperate to eliminate a rival just to continue the match and see what happens next—or even as part of a strategy to get a solo win.
I cannot give a reliable estimate, but I can tell you that I have gotten solos where other players would have voted draw. Even a small chance at a solo is worth continuing the match, because I value a solo as a qualitatively better outcome than a draw. Getting a solo win where other players would have drawn is even more satisfying; it makes me feel like I'm achieving something beyond the grasp of the average player.RoganJosh wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:22 amBut out of curiosity, let me ask: in these games where you're the solo contender, you've reached a stalemate line, and now you back off to give yourself a second shot at the solo. How often do you solo? And how often do you have to settle with a draw (whatever size)?
Do you think that reducing the size of the draw is an inherently non-rational strategy for smaller powers? Or do you mean that refusing to reduce the draw can be a rational strategy? (Your use of the word 'rational' is a red flag to me, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this here.)RoganJosh wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:32 amMy point, as you already know, is that it's rational for the minor powers to decline the whittle. There are some obvious reasons:
1. Too small reward, too big risk. We've been through this one already.
2. (Meta) Also small powers are needed to stop solos, but if you always whittle them, then they won't help out. You basically mentioned this one yourself.
As for players who think that they should optimize each and every game, that's not an effect of DSS. And if someone is so stupid as not to put on a fight when they're being whittled, well, then they're not even playing to optimize that one game.
Assuming that you're from a FTF background, let me point out two other reasons for why declining the whittle is more rational online than FTF.
3. There's an abundance of games. Sure, you can put a lot of effort into bumping .20 up to .25. Or you can just take the .20 and start a new game. What'll give you the best return per effort? Compared to risk?
4. You can't sustain an inflated ranking. FTF, the ranking list is always finalized in a not-too-distant future. In an ELO-based and constantly ongoing ranking system, an inflated score will be lost as you play more games. That is, optimizing the return from one game is less important than improving your overall skill. (Unless you do it like that vDip guy, who simply quit after getting an inflated score that put him top of the rankings.)
It's bold to assert that a strategy employed by some of the best Diplomacy players is not rational.
This is a completely different scenario and nothing I've said refers to this scenario. If you still have a shot at the solo, then you should of course continue the game. It's a no-brainer. I am talking about the powers which have no shot at the solo, and who can only whittle at the risk of losing to a solo. My only claim is that for such powers, it is rational to refuse the whittle.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pmFirst, there may not be one clear solo contender just because the match has reached stalemate positions. There could be two, or there could be alliances that have stalemated each other.
Again, if you have a shot at the solo then you should continue the game. It's a no-brainer.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pmI cannot give a reliable estimate, but I can tell you that I have gotten solos where other players would have voted draw. Even a small chance at a solo is worth continuing the match, because I value a solo as a qualitatively better outcome than a draw. Getting a solo win where other players would have drawn is even more satisfying; it makes me feel like I'm achieving something beyond the grasp of the average player.
No.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pmDo you think that reducing the size of the draw is an inherently non-rational strategy for smaller powers?
Yes. Thank you.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pmOr do you mean that refusing to reduce the draw can be a rational strategy?
The question is whether you're making a net gain or a net loss from draw whittling. I'm only saying that if you're making a net loss, over time, then it's rational not to whittle. I think most players don't realize that you need a 3:1 or 4:1 split to actually make a net gain. And, again, we are only counting the games where you have no shot at the solo. If you have a shot at the solo, then you should always continue the game.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pm1. The degree of risk to you in whittling out players is subjective. Diplomacy isn't Craps. I'm not betting on a random outcome, I'm betting on my own ability to get the result I'm looking for. A player with weak abilities and scant end experience might blow it, but I won't. (Or, I believe I won't.)
Sure. I'm only saying that it's rational for a player that expects to be whittled to throw the game, and that expectation depends on meta and player reputations.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pm2. Diplomacy is, in part, a game of manipulation and deception. Endgame is no exception.
Subjective, but not solely subjective.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pm3. Again, the effort-reward calculation is subjective.
It's the difference between optimizing the return in one game, and optimizing the return over a sequence of games.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pm4. I'm not seeing the distinction between "optimizing the return from one game" and "improving your overall skill." Isn't learning how to optimize your returns (in a given scoring system) part of improving your skill at Diplomacy?
I don't have time for a long reply right now, and also, the OP's question probably got totally hijacked, but "someone" has already tried to do this:AnimalsCS wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:38 pmI'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for alternate scoring systems that eliminate draw-whittling without changing the other incentives that DSS does a good job creating—encouraging solos and discouraging focus on how many centers you have in a draw.
E: Don't mind mejay65536 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:12 pmI don't have time for a long reply right now, and also, the OP's question probably got totally hijacked, but "someone" has already tried to do this:AnimalsCS wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:38 pmI'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for alternate scoring systems that eliminate draw-whittling without changing the other incentives that DSS does a good job creating—encouraging solos and discouraging focus on how many centers you have in a draw.
https://brotherbored.com/guest-post-the ... ng-system/
Oh, wow, we're coming from totally different places. I play 99% private games and can't remember the last time I had a match ruined by a player giving up as in losing any motivation to play the game, if you'd asked me to name my top 20 problems with online Diplomacy it wouldn't have come close to featuring. I am curious why you wouldn't take this option more often if you have so many games ruined by quitters as I've found game quality to be consistently tolerable doing so.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pmPlayers giving up in the middle of matches is, in my opinion, the #1 problem with online Diplomacy. Even 1 player giving up can spoil the fun of the match, and every player fighting to the bitter end can be fun for everyone (up to and including a player who aspires to solo).
...The apologia for this other scoring system depends on ignoring what is (in my opinion) the #1-worst problem on online Diplomacy.
"Non-rational" are your words, not mine. I'm not accusing anyone of being non-rational.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:48 pmCan you link me to a concrete example of a specific match in which you believe a player non-rationally whittled (or attempted to whittle) the draw?
Finally a patrician answer.Hellenic Riot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:22 amThis is why the true strategy when you fail on a solo attempt is not to just pull back slightly so that whittling can be attempted; but to pull back so far that you give up some of your own home SC's, thereby essentially restarting the game all over again, and allowing you to put into place a multi-decade strategy to solo sometime around 1930
There are many ways to give up on a game including throwing solos and other forms of "suicide" moves, as you recognized. When a scoring system provides very little incentive to keep fighting in a game, it is quite easy to decide to give up. With DSS scoring, there is a much greater reward for fighting to the end of the game and staying in a draw. This makes it more difficult (and more rewarding, in my opinion!) to convince players to throw you a solo, and easier for players to work together to stop a solo.jasnah wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:31 pmOh, wow, we're coming from totally different places. I play 99% private games and can't remember the last time I had a match ruined by a player giving up as in losing any motivation to play the game, if you'd asked me to name my top 20 problems with online Diplomacy it wouldn't have come close to featuring. I am curious why you wouldn't take this option more often if you have so many games ruined by quitters as I've found game quality to be consistently tolerable doing so.swordsman3003 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:30 pmPlayers giving up in the middle of matches is, in my opinion, the #1 problem with online Diplomacy. Even 1 player giving up can spoil the fun of the match, and every player fighting to the bitter end can be fun for everyone (up to and including a player who aspires to solo).
...The apologia for this other scoring system depends on ignoring what is (in my opinion) the #1-worst problem on online Diplomacy.
What I do regularly encounter is players who no longer have any meaningful chance of making the draw deciding to take their fate into their own hands and play to realise their desired outcome of the match, namely by suiciding into the person who aggrieved them most, which I find to be a great feature of the game and not at all a problem. After all it's a game of Diplomacy, and no talking doesn't mean no diplomacy; players who tank someone else's game have to be prepared to face consequences.