@diplomat61 I think Yoyo is saying that drawing in WTA is not a loss, whereas coming second (or any other position) in PPSC is still a loss. :-)

I don't agree - what matters to me, mostly, is the points/ratings division. For PPSC that means a "strong second", or even just hanging on to your own SCs (or trying to grab more from people closer to the stalemate line), in the face of a solo threat is "logical" play, since once you demonstrably can't solo, your best outcome is to maximise centre count for points. Clearly most people playing PPSC agree with that, given the increased solo count.

For WTA it makes more sense to even potentially throw away all of your own SCs in an attempt to stop a solo, since if you don't stop it, you get zero points.

Which ratings division is *better*, I will leave to other people with stronger opinions ("don't play PPSC!"), but I do think PPSC results in weirder decisions during endgame.

(Also, if you're a small power in PPSC endgame, it might be in your interests to draw - you might get more points out of a draw than by centre points, but it's unlikely to work given the bigger powers aren't going to try.)

Thanks Thorfi, that looks like a better interpretation, but if that is what he is a saying I really don't agree with it. A draw may be the most common ending (in WTA at least) but it definitely is not a win.

@A_Tin_Can: I would love to see those results, or even have the data set to play, if/when you get chance.

Before I saw ATC's post, based on the names of each system and comments on the forum, I assumed that there must be more wins in WTA. How surprising that actually PPSC produces more solo wins, but at least I now I understand why I prefer it.

If you look at the numbers, a 12SC "survivor" in PPSC gets a bigger points share than a 3WD participant in WTA, and with 16SC you are only a fraction behind a 2WD.

Megalomaniacs, if you want to paint Europe in your assigned colour play PPSC! Stop this namely-pamby drawing, play PPSC and go for a win!!!

I've posted them in the forum before. I don't have the link handy right now, I'm afraid.

diplomat61 just please stop you're making the site look bad

@Valis: should I be posting links to Disney cartoons instead?

@ATC: I will have a search

Diplo61: Draws are always scored the same (pot divided by number of participants). So your maths is correct, but only if someone has soloed.

Here's a response I wrote another time someone asked about PPSC:

One of the best things about Diplomacy is the tension between needing an ally to achieve your goals, and wanting to help no-one. PPSC removes this tension, since a solo win for someone ... well, isn't a solo win any more, since others can share in it.
It allows two players to go "alright, if we keep working together towards your solo win, we'll win".

These alliances are unbreakable - since there's no reason for them to stop rolling. Unbreakable alliances, to me, aren't the point of Diplomacy.

Alliances are really important in Diplomacy (and I'm probably best described as an alliance player), but the key challenge in designing alliances is to ensure that one player doesn't have an overwhelming advantage in the alliance. That challenge is missing in PPSC.

Because of the encouragement to throw someone else the win, I don't think PPSC is a good way to introduce new players to the game, either. It means that alliances aren't based on strategy, and stalemate lines don't matter at all.

Some players argue that these missing features make for a simpler game - and they're probably right - but I don't think they make a good environment for new players, since the presence of unbreakable alliances means that new players can get rolled for no reason other than they didn't make good moves in 01.

Sorry, I don't buy this unbreakable alliance argument for two reasons:

1) Allying for a three way draw in WTA gives you 33% share vs 32%/35% for holding 11/12 centres in PPSC, so why is an unbreakable alliance in WTA less likely?
2) if PPSC "rewards" unbreakable alliances better than WTA does, why are solos more common?

160,000 games is a substantial data set. Perhaps it is time to start considering the wisdom of the crowd.

Basically, anyone with over 12 centres is not going to settle for anything less than a 2 way draw in PPSC, so there is no incentive for a smaller ally to stab the bigger ally. Thus solos are more common.

"So your maths is correct, but only if someone has soloed."

Not true; if someone draws a PPSC game with 12 SC's they still have more points than a WTA 3WD participant. The only difference is that we now label them as drawer rather than a survivor.

"if PPSC "rewards" unbreakable alliances better than WTA does, why are solos more common?"

Because the alliances don't break, even when one player is close to a solo.

"there is no incentive for a smaller ally to stab the bigger ally."

Balderdash! The incentive is the chance of a win. Any diplomat worth his salt should be talking to the potential losers to offer them a stake in an alliance led by himself.

If the alliances don't break you are a rubbish diplomat.

Oh yeah, and the stats say you are wrong

"Not true; if someone draws a PPSC game with 12 SC's they still have more points than a WTA 3WD participant. The only difference is that we now label them as drawer rather than a survivor"

Wrong. A PPSC draw is scored no differently than a WTA draw, so the points would be the same, assuming both are a 3WD.

Or, from a losing perspective, you should be going to the junior partner and dangling the prospect of a majority share in a draw. In PPSC that is good for him. in WTA it is not.

I suspect there is a sacred cow here that needs slaying.

"Wrong."

No. 12/34 = 0.353 whereas 1/3 = 0.333.

@ A_Tin_Can: "Unbreakable alliances, to me, aren't the point of Diplomacy"

I agree. Unfortunately my experience, on this site, has involved a reasonable number of unbreakable alliances in WTA games. Thus, in my direct experience, WTA does not reduce the instance of "unbreakable alliances", far from it.

Diplomat, I don't think you understand the scoring of PPSC draws. A draw does not take into account the amount of supply centers.

At this point all talk of unbreakable alliances is either anecdotal, or theory crafting. We don't actually have any evidence on this matter. We only know the win and draw percentages of WTA and PPSC games, not the nature of alliances in each type of game.

@IG4: perhaps not, let me check.

@IG4: the FAQ says you are correct, but it is not 100% accurate (e.g. a player <100 can join/create a WTA game) and my memory disagrees with you, I would like to verify. Can anybody else confirm?

IG is correct

Thanks Yoyo.

I am not sure that this makes a huge difference but it is too late for me to articulate it. More tomorrow.

An 18SC solo gets 53% share in PPSC and 100% in WTA. A survivor gets between 3%(1SC) and 47%(16SC), mid-point 25%, in PPSC and 0% in WTA. Which means a PPSC player stands to gain only 28% from converting a survive position to a win, whereas a WTA player could gain 100%. That gives WTA players a large incentive to try for a solo and yet the stats show the opposite.

Soloing is not purely down to individual skill, is why. The motivations of the rest of the board matter - and it's pretty obvious that PPSC has far less motivation to *stop* a solo, in terms of points outcome.

I think that's all there really is to it. I suspect with no hard evidence that early to mid game play is much the same regardless of PPSC vs WTA.

Diplomat, you are missing the point. There are a lot more incentive for a player try to solo in WTA. But there is a lot less incentive to a player STOP a solo in PPSC.
In a WTA game once one power is over 11-12 center or ahead of the stalemate line, all the other powers will unite to stop the solo, this is why it´s so hard to solo in WTA games (at least decent ones). In PPSC it´s better for you to keep harvesting centers from the weak powers instead of making concessions to stop the solo threat. That´s the real explanation for so many solos in PPSC (and also because PPSC was the default game mode and the unexperienced and cheaters play PPSC.....)