Agree entirely.. in your example, survival is the most important factor and you should do what is necessary to protect your state.

But where complete extinction is not an imminent threat... I believe you should do your best to prevent the win. Even if that resulted in say a 3 way tie and potentially less points than you could otherwise earn.

Prioirities in correct order:

1. Survive
2. Draw
3. Win

You must survive before you can have a chance at drawing. You must have a chance at drawing before you can stab for the win. You never play to win. That is just inviting everyone to come and kill you.

There was a fabled time in phpDip when this was my dogma.

1. Win
2. Don't let anyone else win.

It was simple as that. There were no points, coming second was just as bad to me as being eliminated first. I would always fight against the imminent winner, and the funny thing, is that everyone else would as well. And the tables would be turned. However, it takes only one selfish person to insist on their own survival as a vassal state to ruin the rebellion, and this is the sad case in many games.

That's why many eagerly await a singular winner takes all option! =)

Agree with Chrispminis - when I start a game... my aim and priority it to win it and if that doesn't go according to plan then will settle for a draw.

Clearly at times you come under pressure and in the short-term you may have to just hang on in there (.e.g if you're playing Italy).... but long-term always has to be trying to find a way to win it.

"Play to get as much points as you can" should be the only priority.

completely agree. it's up to the point system to define your priorities

If the point system didn't exist, how would people choose to play? If it was winner take all, how would people choose to play? It seems that many people play for points, and make their play choices based on that. To change how people play, change the point system.

The point system is an artificial layer which distorts each game of Diplomacy, instead of being self-contained games where victory is glory and second is nothing, each game is now just a minor step on the road to raising your profile, ranking position and points. I think it was the worst thing that ever happened to this site, and every game I play in (even really high stakes games) has become frustratingly pointless because no-one tries to win any more - the people who do win do so because of accident and circumstance, not through skill, while skilfull players who genuinely want to keep a balance of power among their enemies, attack the strong, and try to win game are totally hamstrung.

Drawing games is also a nonsense in my view, that should only be an option in extreme circumstances where there's been say, a 5-year stalemate. People who agree draws are just too lazy to finish their games and fight to the bitter end! (in my crazed opinion!)

People should play every game as though it was the only game they will ever play, and as though their life depended on winning it. If EVERYONE did that, we would really have some great games, and it would take true talent to rise to the top and take victory. I really hope the winner-takes-all option gives this site the infusion of competitiveness that it so desperately needs.

Interesting view Noodle, and I know where you're coming from. However, making victory everything would lead to an elite, and then no difference between the masses who _hadn't_ won games.
Thus I still think that the best would be 50% victor, 50%by SC

The masses can play each other! There should at any one time only ever be 6 people incapable of winning a game, because the next-worst player could (in theory) play them all and win.
And what is wrong with the truly deserving rising to the top? (not that Rait doesn't deserve his present position..!)

An interesting analysis Noodlebug - I'd agree that far too many games are drawn easily, and the points system is a factor in this.

However, the draw is a valid option. The game's creator, Callhamer, said this about the draw, which I find valid, even if it isn't as exciting as going for the win:

"Nevertheless, it is not wholly clear why the draw is not an adequate secondary objective, inasmuch as the game is probably a draw with best play from the overwhelming majority of positions actually encountered. One of the difficulties may be that the draw is reputed to be inconclusive, because it is so reckoned in chess or checkers. However, a draw in Diplomacy may be more conclusive than victories among an equivalent number of chess players. If seven players play Diplomacy, and three draw, those three have scored above the four others."

The point is that often, if you are a medium sized country, a last ditch alliance with the remaining players against the big cheese to stop him winning may prove a stalemate. In theory, if you played the win at all costs rule, you might try and stab the remaining players to try and get that win, but what would that achieve? A deterioration in game position instead of getting a draw. That's why sometimes getting a draw is the best option.

If you were able to do winner takes all, but have an option where if there is a stalemate, the remaining players split the pot between them, I think that would be very popular indeed.

As I understand it the winner takes all option doesn't exclude draws, and much as I detest the idea of drawing, that is the way it should be. Freedom of choice, yadda yadda. My point is that no serious player should ever want to agree a draw unless there was a totally unbreakable stalemate. As it happens, I think if everyone plays to win and stops helping other people win, you will see a lot more stalemates.

Noodlebug, I greatly sympathize, you describe the exact manner of play that I enjoy. However, players will always have their own separate objectives in a game, regardless of a points system, though they might not be as elegant in simplicity as a play-to-win, they are equally valid.

I would not go so far as to say that players who win games now do so by luck... But certainly there is less emphasis on long term planning and taking into account the balance of power. Because in my recent experiences it is usually the players who are very good at opening gameplay that rise to the top. This is because players who manage to expand well in the beginning usually find the way paved to victory, as the other players begin to negotiate solely with the winning player for survival and/or a profit on their points investment. As a result, short term success is, in my opinion, overemphasized in current play, and the beauty of playing the long game is slowly being lost.

cgwhite, I'm not sure how your medium-sized country example proves the benefit of draws... I'm sure I speak for all play-to-win promoters when I say that playing to win doesn't mean playing to maximize centres, as much as it means playing to ensure that nobody but you wins. With this in mind, if you played to win, you would NOT stab the remaining players, but attempt to fight the current leader. If you bring it to a stalemate, so be it, then it ends in a draw. But in the end, that should be the best outcome. Why would the leader settle for the draw when they can grab the victory?

figle, I don't think Noodlebug would actually have any problems with the current point system IF everyone played-to-win. However, economics and game theory say that this will not be the case. I like that the point system is graduated, it's just unfortunate that people aren't willing to fight for the victory if it's clear they won't win it in the next 5 years or so.

Just a reminder, "play to win" does NOT mean that if there is no chance for victory then one should give up. It means that there is ALWAYS a chance for victory. It only requires intense co-ordination in the face of adversity. And this is a wonderful thing.

Your analysis is largely correct, but accident and circumstance (or as you prefer, "luck") do play a massive role in determining who has the strongest opening... which country you are, what the countries around you do. Consider inactive or tactically naive players in your neighbouring countries, or neighbours who agree (and stick to) pacts in your favour, while across the board your rivals cannot agree anything and end up competing for resources and are forced into fighting each other early on.

I'll hold my hands up, most of the games I've won have probably been from such benign circumstances. So there are two points here, no-one should be giving anyone a free ride in the opening of games, because we know what the consequences can be. And the opening should not be the be-all and end-all of a game, in fact the people who open the strongest should (in my ideal world at least!) be the most vulnerable and statistically the LEAST likely to win. Ask Vampeiro.

i think you shouldn't judge so much how other players play the game. and the point system is a part of the game on this site. and there are draws in the official rules - if you don't like the draw don't vote for it in your games

Am currently playing a game which is in stalemate - I have 14 centres and there is a grand alliance against me which could end in a 3 or 4 way draw!!

Clearly diplomacy is still ongoing... but if it were to breakdown and the current stalemate continues i'd actually be in a situation where if I was pursuing a points only agenda I'd be better off letting someone else win and claiming say 12/13 SCs than agreeing a draw and splitting the pot 4 ways....

... perhaps an extreme situation, but highlights the flaws in pursuing just points.

Perhaps there should be different versions of the leaderboard, including:
- current points set-up
- win %
- draw %
- survival %
- civil disorder %

Minimum ten games in last 6 months to qualify or something like that. Would also give people who don't know you a better idea of your playing style.... (not sure if that's a good or bad thing). And also spot people who are unreliable and leave games their not winning.

Add one point,
"Winner takes all" is sort of a problem, it encourage the cheaters (say same person with more than one accounts in a game) to play in the metagame way, for they could earn much more if one of his accounts wins.

Amazing how quickly this turns into an argument about the merits/problems of the points system... We have too few choices of topics on this forum, it seems...

I'm very curious 'braveheart' ... it sounds as if this thread you started here is your frustration that the 3 of us formed an alliance to deny you the win and none of us will stab the others ( a stab that would only serve to hand the win to you.)

Clearly, we're all playing in our collective self interest which is to first deny you the win, and secondly settle on the draw which is the only possible result no that nothing has changed in .. what? 5 years?

Stalemate's and draws are part of the game.

Razz - this thread has nothing to do with that game - I was initiating a debate based on a quote i read that struck a chord with me.

Referencing that game was merely pointing out what I consider to be a flaw in the points system and was more of an after thought. If you read the post properly I think you'll actually find that I am endorsing peoples decisions to form grand alliances where it prevents people winning. I completely accept stalemates and draws are part of the game.

wawlam, I don't see how winner-takes-all would somehow inspire mutliaccounting any more than our current system...

Hmm..try this:

Under winner-takes-all system, the cheater(who wins) takes ALL the bets.
while under the current system, the cheater(who wins) only takes a Larger Part of the bets (if I'm right).

(Remember they do not have to care about the other account which does not win. It's enough to have one account win and win... So I think they will get to the top Faster..)

Of course, the winner takes all style does have its advantages as discussed above. : )

Another way to look at it: under the current system the genuine player who wants to win by forming a coalition, takes absolutely nothing, because the other players are all ratings whores who would rather attack him for more supply centres and finish second or third than work together for a chance of finishing first.

Noodlebug: If the game was _just_ about winning and all points went on that I would also expect more multi-accounting, as players would find they couldn't win against the better opposition, and so would have no alternative but to try and get someone to help them out, in return for doing the same again.
Who is it you keep calling a ratings whore Noodle, because it's getting rather repettitive...

Any player that will not lift a finger to stop the most powerful country winning. The ones who attack the people they need to help them, because they're easier prey than the big guy. The ones with no ambition to win, or to stop others winning ahead of them, so long as they get their little piece of the pot. I'm sure you know the sort of people I mean!

They are deliberately letting another player beat them.

From the point of view of any other player in a game, I don't see much between that (player A allowing player B to win by not attacking him and attacking his enemies) and multi-accounting (player A helping player C to win by not attacking him and attacking his enemies). The only difference is player B is a lucky innocent bystander, and player C is a cheat. As far as players D, E, F and G go, player A's behaviour is equally disruptive of their game in each case.

I understand multi-accounting has been a problem on this site (though not one I've ever knowingly suffered from). But in trying to stop it I think we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and changed the whole nature of what a single game of Diplomacy is all about. I am a little annoyed about it all because I used to have such fun playing some great games here, and won a few.

Having said that, after an unpromising start, the very last game I am still playing in is turning out to be a cracker!

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2564

Take a loo kat the moves here.. meh :/

And the funny thing is they are probably not metagaming either

actually it is certain metagaming is going on in that game

actually, what do people here define as metagaming?

Metagaming is where someone screws you over 5 games running and in the 6th game you refuse to negotiate with him under any circumstances, because it's pointless. You are using events outside the present game to inform your strategy. (at least that's how I understand it from Chrispminis!)

I think everyone has a little metagamer inside them struggling to get out!