Unless it's a winner-takes-all game, then yes, the surviving players split the pot in proportion to the number of supply centres, and so yes, the difference between winning 18-16 and drawing with only two players left on the board is minimal. This suits some players better than others, and yes it does change the strategy - for a more traditional experience there is always the option of playing winner-takes all games!

How hard would it be to set up a "winner takes some" format setting aside some points for the winner/s?

it also matters if you pay attention to ghost ratings. You want to win for your GR to go up, and if you draw with people better than you your GR also goes up. but if you lose or draw with people worse than you your GR goes down.

not hard, though you might still need to have 101 pts to set one up, i can't remember

Ok lets be clear

Points vs Ghost-Rating (GR)

The difference between points and ghost-Rating is simply the algorithm given a particular result. The actual result value as a proportion of the game is taken to be the same in whichever system.

The result value:

PPSC
In PPSC you get 1/34th of the pot for each SC you own, unless its a draw, in which case the pot is split evenly.

WTA
In WTA you get 1 for a win, 1/n for an n way draw, and nothing for survival/defeat.

WTM (winner takes most) has been suggested fairly often, in fact.

Yeh, and everytime I mention it Ghost tells me "Yes, it's called PPSC".

WTA is the way to go. The main advantage of PPSC is that for new players it encourages them to fight to the death.

The main disadvantage of PPSC is that for new players it encourages them to let someone else win as long as they get a decent share of the pot.

WTA for the WIN

PPSC allows me to reward reliable allies with *some* of the pot, instead of being forced in a draw where I less. :P

pastoralan
according to the rule book there are two possible results.
either someone wins or noone manages to solo and we have a draw.
the board game doesn't reward second or third place.
So if you want to play according to the board game spirit you have to play wta games.
But if you want to practise and get better without having your moral beaten play ppsc.
You no longer need to have 101 free to create a wta game.

that's the bad spirit of PPSC: rewards with points...

i was refering to dominicHJ's statement

I'm fed up of games that run along the lines of opening moves - eliminate the smaller countries - agree a draw. Is there any conceivable scoring algorithm that would stop this being an attractive option? The only one I can think of is that we play no-holds-barred diplomacy and I simply go round to people's houses and deface them horribly if they agree a draw when a win was available.

There is not. People defend this option with their tools and nails, because they never stab their allies etc pp. Go figure.

@ parallelopiped

There isn't one which is zero-sum (unless its perverse, e.g. dead people win part of the pot when the game is drawn)

If you eliminated a certain % of the pot when the game is tied that could work. If you tie with a single other person because you really can't beat each other, you still both get a credit gain, while if you kill too small a % of the other players before drawing, then you wouldn't.

Example could be a 35% draw loss: If you tie after only killing two people (28%), then everyone loses points compared to what they put in. If you tie after only killing three people (43%), then you really don't make a gain that was worth the bounty pot and the risk of being one of the less lucky nations as well as the time you put in the game.

Otherwise it could be a scaled loss. You lose 0% of the pot if there are only 2 players remaining, 15% (for example) if there are 3, 30% if there are four, 50% if there are five, and 75% if there are six.

All of this, however, has nothing to do with PPSC.

@ Troodonte Sure, it's not really what's written in the rulebook, but I don't believe in absolutes, and among these are absolute defeats or victories. Nor do I believe that results are all that matter, effort is also very important. The board game rulebook states otherwise, but I think it's because it's forced to prone extremism at the risk of too many people playing with no stabs or manipulation. However, I don't think stabs are always warranted, as you can often gain a lot more by making alliances work than by just trying to stab at the first opportunity you get. Countries who survive the game deserve points, in my opinion, for simply being smart enough not to get themselves killed. As its always tempting to eat up the smaller nations, this isn't a negligible feat. So if someone makes me want to attack another instead of him as I go for the win, then he deserves the points for convincing me to do so.

Dominic, the problem you then make is that the game stops being zero sum, which is quite a considerable change to my mind.

Not to mention, it makes metagaming even more profitable.

Indeed it is. Why is that inherently bad, though? You could always that that share of the pot and add it to a "rematch" game.

And how does it make metagaming more profitable?

Because it encourages players to throw away two draws and take a win each.

"You could always that that share of the pot and add it to a "rematch" game."

"that that"?

What did you mean there


Figle is spot on RE the profitable thing

Ghost

That's what I thought. So, no-holds-barred it is then.
Who's first on the list for desecration?

I already don't like eliminating an ally just to "improve" the draw (and have planned on starting an ethics of the draw post at some point.) This would just make it even worse.

@Figle: I disagree that this is neccesairly metagaming. If you do this in exchange for another game in progress - then it definately is. But let's say an Italian/Austrian even alliance is just stopped by England at the northern stalemate line with one Russian fleet in StP, one French one in Por. People would now say this is either a 5 way draw, or I stabs A, or A stabs I. If neither A or I likes to stab, they sensible thing (ie maximizing points or maximizing your ghost rating) for them to do is - no, not draw. They should flip a coin, the winner takes enough SCs of the other to reach 18 SC and win. And yes, even in WTA this is sensible to do! Because the EV of points is half the pot, whereas a draw gives merely a fifth of it. If you look for stats, imo (because it is a 7 player game and draws are far more frequent), 1 win + 1 defeat >> 2 draws (like many points system give 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss, encouraging to go for the winning), so you should flip the coin there, too.

This throwing should, from a game theoretically point of view, happen quite often, also for just *in-game* reasons. However, hardly anyone likes to lose to a coin flip, so I guess we do not see an increase of this. :p

If you take a certain % of the credits off from tied games, you could always have the site generate a new game with the same players (if they want to join in) and add that confiscated share to the rematch's pot. That would require fancy non-existent code, though.

SEcki: well I would be very suspicious of that sort of thing. I won't call it definite metagaming just yet, want to think it through a bit, but don't do it.

SEcki, that wouldn't work for one very simple reason: the looser of the coin flip would go back on the deal immediately. If he didn't there is a case to call 'meta-gaming' just as there is a case to call it when there is an artificial 2-way draw, where one player could have won.

@figl: Please think through it, especially if you study math. This is far far from meta-gaming - you can explain the strategy by sound in-game play to maximize your wins (because on average you can win more than withe the "draw" strategy).

SEcki, you make the fatal assumption that anyone would live up to it.