Winner Takes Half, Survivors Split Half

The idea is, like in PPSC, the winner gets just over half the pot (18 SCs worth) and any survivors split the remainder between them equally.

This would discourage strong seconds while encouraging a fight to try for the solo knowing that if everyone else is gone and you do lose, you still get just under half the pot. So survivng with one other player would cost youpoints over a three way draw, only being the sole survivor behind the winner would net you more than a draw would.

Yonni, combo breaker only works if the person didn't ask for a moment to get their poost out. I did. Epic fail, my friend. Epic fail.

Sounds good but a 1-center survival shouldn't get the same amount of points as a 14-center survival. Anyway, it would cause the person looking for a strong second to simply shoot for a lone second by taking out the smaller survivor completely.

What about when someone survives, but it's with 0 SCs? Do they get a portion? There have been many games where 1 or more players go to zero and there is a solo.

@bo - Yes it should. That is exactly the problem with PPSC. All survivors contributed, in theory, and should share in the spoils of the survive equally. IT is the only way to discopurage strong seconds.

@czech - That zero SC survive bug would need to be fixed. But it sin't that common of an occurance.

Let's say you're the smallest part of an alliance of three trying to stop the solo. You look certain to succeed, but it occurs to you that the other two in your alliance could quite easily work with the major power to kill you off and get the three way instead. Suddenly it's in your interests to turn on the alliance and work with the major power to secure his solo as soon as possible. This I don't like.

That is true of any point system or even non-points.

Same problem as PPSC. If I'm going to lose, I'd rather cut the draw for the survivors and eliminate the weaker players instead of fighting the solo. If it's an 18 center win and I have 17 centers, I win the same amount of points as the winner? That doesn't quite seem right.

No, you don't. I made it clear the winner gets 18 SCs and the survivors get 16.

Or how about abandoning points. Like the original board game.

Why do we need points? Seriously? If it is to differentiate between newbies and experienced we could simply record how many games a play has played in. We could ever rate players from 1 to 100 based on amount of CDs and NMRs a player has had. If we want some kind of league table with someone on top that can be achieved without scoring the individual games.

Not really. Winner takes all dictates he will gain nothing from the survive helping the soloist, but has at least a chance of gaining part of the draw if he can convince his allies to let him be part of it.

To be honest I see little point in developing a new point system (unless a perfect system can be devised) as they will all have flaws. WTA and PPSC work well enough, despite their well known drawbacks. Besides, it's an awful lot of effort to go to for the sake of those poor fools who think points are important ;)

"Winner Takes Half, Survivors Split Half" implies a bit different. Where does the 35th center go, does it just disappear and not count?

There are only 34 SCs on the Classic map...

The 35th center that doesn't exist?

http://i.imgur.com/syr57.gif

FWIW, I like the idea. No system is perfect, but this seems to do the best job of anything I have seen at aligning incentives with the original goal of the game ... play to win. period.

@2WL - First, I did clarify that the name was a bit of a misnomer when I laid it out in detail. Second, what 35th center? I don't know what classic board you play, but there is only 34 centers on the classic map, dude. Otherwise a 2 way draw would be impossible.

Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. If one centre was left neutral a two way draw would be possible (it's happened a couple of times on the variants over on Vdip).

I think Maniac had the best idea so far. Eliminate points, which also eliminates PPSC. Only have WTA and have games based solely on GR. With the absence of points, you'd have to make different requirements to join games. A certain threshold of GR, a minimum number of games. Points being involved just encourages people to play incorrectly for better point gain as opposed to playing the game as it was intended.

I like Draug's idea. But I also greatly prefer WTA to PPSC.

But captainmeme, ther is only 34 SCs on the classic map, so a mute point. 2WL is smoking something funny if he thinks there is 35.

I like the fact that you are brainstorming ideas, Draugnar, but I personally like what you propose worse than PPSC for a few reasons:

1. Diplomacy is all about winning, WTA is perfectly fine.
2. My top priority in most any game is to not aow a solo, but your proposed scoring system encourages more solos.
A. Your proposal encourages two people to "race for a solo", and also virtually insures one of the two will solo (just like PPSC). I don't like that.
B. Your proposal encourages small powers to help the big guy solo, even moreso than PPSC. FOR SHAME!!

Those are my knee-jerk reactions... I do admit it will reduce playing for a strong second, but it will increase small powers throwing a solo more often compared to forming a Grand Alliance for a draw, though perhaps I haven't thought it through enough?

1. I was only.providing an alternative. I am.fine with WTA as well.
2. Your priority is worng. You are playing for a draw if your priority isn't to win.
A. Not necessarily. If one of them.sees the solo will come from.the other with at least one.other player left, the strong second would.try to stop the solo because the draw always pays more with three or more in it.
B. No it doesn'. The little guy gets more as part of the draw than as a survivor.

This is a bad idea because it forgets the goal of the game:

In WTA the priorities in the game are reflected perfectly, except perhaps that a survive is better than being defeated (which, if I recall correctly, isn't even something that MM believes).

PPSC is a good facsimile of the way tournament play works and also encourages players to play to the end.

Your system only introduces a perverse incentive: To make it so that there are less players in the game when someone solos. That's not at all a goal in diplomacy and it shouldn't be.

The incentive in my approach is that each person should strive to solo but when they see a solo about to happen, they are encouraged to stop it, knowing they'll at least get something if some little punk decides to suicide and give the big guy the win.

But again, I prefer WTA anyhow. This was just an idea to eliminate the strong second syndrome of PPSC. Personally, I would do away with PPSC and just have WTA, that or do away with points and set minimum games played and maximum CD/NMR percentages.

I do prefer a defeat to a survive since a survive means Ingave up a solo while alive and able to do something about it...

Draugnar, I think small powers will cut a deal with someone trying to solo, the small powers help the big guy solo *before* the small power gets eliminated, which I think will encourage small powers to help a large power even quicker so the small power has a better chance at a survive, and I just hate the concept of playing for a survive (meaning you don't draw, and thus give up a solo)...

But I, if a small power, would cut a deal with the other guys stopping the solo and use chainsaw diplomacy because I then get more out of the draw than out of the survive. Of course, it is situation dependent. 3 players topping a fourth with two smaller and one mid size or less likely to consume each other than two moderates and one single 2 SC nation.

I think its a fine metric. In fact I don't care really what metric is used, I'll change my tactics accordingly. I would have the benefit Draug mentions, and the downsides seem rather subtle/small. I believe in many F2F tournaments survives are scored equally regardless of SC posession, and it works.

I disagree with removing points/GR entirely, as some suggested, because then you have people playing on different metrics of success within the same game. I'd happily take a strong second in that scenario. Who's to say I was wrong?

I like Maniac's idea of abandoning points.

What about 1 point for a solo. And 0 for everything else.