I would suspect it's rather even between them. With WTA, you risk losing everything by playing for the solo victory, but the reward is there if you do it. With PPSC, you don't have the same risks, or the same reward. The cost/benefit is pretty similar between them, so just hazarding a guess, I'd expect to see analysis on the subject show that the ratio of victories to draws is about the same.

I'd guess that PPSC produces more solos because there is less incentive to stop one.

Depends if the cost model is principally capex or opex and how prone middle-management is to stabbing each other.

My personal experience is that PPSC leads to more solos that WTA does.

WTA provides a strong incentive to draw, which is why I don't like it. I see WTA games with supposedly top players ending in 5-way draws far too often.

I have had two separate experiences in the last few months, in WTA games, where players Ghost-rated well above me have told me in their press, often as early as 1902, that they were playing for a 3-way draw because playing for a solo would get them eliminated, and playing for a 2-way draw created too much of a solo risk. (And, to be clear, they then played on this basis and the game did indeed end in a draw).

I have just recently, last week, heard this argument yet again from a less famous player who presumably learned it from the champs.

I personally regard this as very poor play. Why play a game you're not going to attempt to win. Poor show.

My personal experience is that PPSC leads to a worse game experience because of the "strong second" effect--a weaker player can help a stronger one win and still gain a benefit for it.

I'm guilty of the strong second effect myself, to be perfectly honest.

I always play to win, but I feel like PPSC provides me with a third option that I would otherwise not have (a "favorable" survive, as I like to call it). Soloing or drawing are the only options in WTA, and as Jamiet pointed out soloing in WTA (especially full press WTA) can be extremely risky.

Given my notorious levels of survives and defeats, every little helps!

My preference is also for PPSC because it feels right to get a benefit from a strong second position if I csnnot get a win, which is my primsry intention. You might argue that is what a draw in WTA represents but, as someone else mentioned, many players seem to look for them too quickly. To me a draw should only really happen when a stalemate is in place, with a single player or very solid alliances on each side. I particularly dislike draws with a majority of players still alive, e.g. 4+ in classic or 3+ in Ancient; there is too much still on the table for that to really be the end.

The traditional hierarchy of outcomes is usually given as: Win / Draw / Survive / Defeat, but I think this is over-simplistic and thus flawed. For me, some survives are better than a draw.

I would argue that coming strong second (say, a 15 or 16 sc survive) in a game in which someone else solos is actually a more impressive result than taking part in a 7-way draw, for instance.

The only second place finish that I have ever considered to be impressive was the one rdrivera had to win the 2014 webDip tournament.

I come at this from the board game perspective and haven't paid much attention to points, ghost ratings or other site specific ratings, and am finding this fascinating. I've always played WTA because I felt it more represented F2F, but after reading Jamiet and diplomat61s posts I might change my opinion. For me you either Solo or you loose. Any other way and it really puts a lot on the webdip admins to set up the 'reward structure' to motivate certain behaviors. I'm wondering how many players here are like me and play the game as a virtual board game, and how many are meta-rewarding with points/GR. I imagine now that I'm in the minority. Of course, even IRL some people play the game to just fuck with other people, so you never know what's motivating players (and some would say that's the crux of the game). Thanks for posting, and mods for running the site.

Sure a 16 SC survive is better than a 7 way draw, maybe. But I think that the 5 way draw that you think is common among WTA games is better than a 16 sc loss.

Secondly, Top players in WTA very rarely allow 5 way draws. I wouldn't even consider myself a top player, maybe like in top 5-10 percentile, and I almost never allow 5 way draws. They are so easy to avoid. The vast majority (perhaps 80%) of my WTA games where I lived to draw, that weren't drawn due to NMR or CD are 3 way draws. Sometimes there's a 4 way draws if you have 2 alliances facing off. My only 5 way draw was during a tournament that allows meta to be used when playing.

Draws are absolutely more impressive than a survive, because it shows that you've completed the objective of preventing someone esle from winning. I feel that PPSC panders to beginners as a chance to see how the game is played, without the risk. WTA is how the game is supposed to be played in my opinion.

Any strong second survive is worse than a 7-player draw. The diplomacy involved in a strong second win can be distilled into this: "I help you win, give me the scraps, master." That's garbage gaming right there.

^+1
"give me the scraps, master" Lmao

i did not know kuta bear could be funny, +1

@ KalelChase: "For me you either Solo or you lose."

Couldn't have put it better. I strongly agree with KalelChase here. As someone who played the boardgame for real quite a bit before coming here, I actually think the hierarchy of outcomes should be expressed as:

Win / Lose by draw or survival / Lose by being eliminated

Players should try to win at all times; any other outcome is a loss. I place very little, if any, difference between drawing and surviving. One of the worst things about playing here (and don't get me wrong, I still have fun) is people who are willing to play for a draw almost from the outset.

I would support a classic variant where if the game does not end in a solo for one player, *all* the players lose the points they invested, and the result shows as "defeated" on their record.

@ Yoyoyoyo: "Draws are absolutely more impressive than a survive, because it shows that you've completed the objective of preventing someone else from winning."

Where is it established that this is one of the objectives of the game?

It's implied. If you can't win, stop anyone else from winning

But at what point is it possible to determine that you cannot win?

^For me, usually right when I join.

Lol

OB is being funny today too, where did you guys get your kool-Aid

'The diplomacy involved in a strong second win can be distilled into this: "I help you win, give me the scraps, master."'

I completely disagree with this characterisation. In a couple of recent games I have come finished second with 15 or 16 SC's and I know that I had to fight for all of them, certainly no question of the eventual winner tossing me scraps.

I do think that not enough players go for a win. It reminds of the debate in football (the variety where applying feet to the ball is the normal way of playing) when the number of points for a win changed from 2 to 3 to encourage attacking play.

Congrats on your second place, but the thing is, whether or not something happens to you unimportant. The fact that someone else playing could have just been like "Yo lets stab Turkey, I'll give your your required 18 centers if you give me the rest." and your plan eould have been ruined.

Just as there are people that play for draw in WTA, there are people that play for second place in PPSC. It's just that the latter is worse, and more annoying in my honest opinion.

Yoyo, I take the point that some players in PPSC may set out looking for a good "survive" result rather than an outright win. But, is that really worse than a WTA player setting out for a draw?

Both styles are relatively negative and both show a concern for overall points position, which has a whiff of meta-gaming about it. But, are they really wrong? Does it really matter? In the real world the aims of countries varies, a win for one is not necessarily a loss for the other, even in Diplomacy I think one of the things that keeps it fresh is the players approaches differ.

But the is, in WTA is annoying, but doesnt cause everyone else in the game to lose. And yes, when you have a game with win conditions, if you don't achieve those conditons and someone else does, it's a loss.

Lol I'm on mobile and that sounded terrible. Hope you understand what I meant

If I understand correctly you are saying that playing for second in PPSC prevents others from winning, but playing for a draw in WTA does not. But, is that true?

In either format, a "negative" player may ally with a strong one, but does that stop others from winning?

Yes, PPSC has many more solos than WTA. I have posted graphs before, but I'm not sure where the link is right now.

-webDip Dev Team