"All you leave me with is the choice of draw or backstab a loyal partner to win"

That is how Diplomacy works.

"I can use the reward of points to persuade, that's important, to persuade a loyal ally to let me take the win."

Right and it's exactly this sort of metagaming that PPSC encourages that makes it so bad.

"All you leave me with is the choice of draw or backstab a loyal partner to win"

Isn't that kind of the point of a game which ask, "who do you trust?"

Thanks A Tin Can,
I can already see that I'll be choosing non ranked games on this site, and may well investigate this v-dip-v caper

Rubbish to your Meta gaming slur
It's meta gaming to promise the other chap a reward that is External to the specific game in which you are both playing
I'm offering a legitimate reward within the game we are playing.

This lack of choice may paradoxically encourage meta gaming
The you let me win this one and I'll let you win the next one scenario

The reason why we should or should not have PPSC should not be based on the virtues of the game mode itself. Game modes are called game modes because people can choose the game mode they prefer. The reason to restrict game mode choice is to avoid over fracturing of the player base. With too many game modes for a given population, the number of games that fit a particular player's preferences becomes smaller. At some point it becomes hard to find a suitable game to join and the result is him leaving the site.

The debate should be on whether enough people are on the site to warrant three scoring systems instead of two, especially in a site like this where there are strong preferences for certain scoring methods.

It was not meant as a slur. Metagaming is not inherently bad, although there are certainly forms of metagaming that is not allowed. Any scoring system is outside the actual game and for players to act differently to maximize their score is to metagame. Of course, no one is going to be banned for trying to improve their GR. However, the metagame that PPSC encourages is egregiously different from the actual goal of the game, which is what makes it bad.

@Vashta
So for you it's a game where no one can be trusted
For me it's a game where enough trust can be found to achieve success and trust given should be rewarded.

I repeat that I'm all in favour of having wta style scoring systems for you,abge, and all others who prefer those scoring systems.

I'm just passionate about losing a scoring system I preferred, despite its faults.

And I guess I'll be playing a lot of unranked games in the future

Yes^^

Nooooo^^^^

Fucking ninja'd

Yes to Abge's comment
No to the yes for MM's comment.


Make fucking sense. Bitches.

@abge
We're going to disagree on meta gaming as well then.
I accept you intended no personal slur in your comments.

I may, repeat may have sailed a bit close to the line on meta gaming when I first joined this site, and got a nasty scare out of that experience.
So I am something of a fanatic regarding my approach to meta gaming issues and my own games.
My view is all external issues are just that external to any game I play, and I always try, while my nation has any chance of success, and that includes being a minor partner in amulti player faction to force a draw, to always act in the best interests of the nation I'm playing.
Crikey I had an alliance with Jamiet99uk when I had Austria and he had Turkey because that's unfortunately what I judged to be in Austria's best interests, and this not long after the game we were in where be had Germany and I had Russia and he drove me absolutely maddeningly wild with his infamous as soon as you move from Warsaw to Galicia one of my German armies appears in Silesia, but it never attacks, it just makes you move from Galicia back to Warsaw and cocks up your attack against Austria routine.
I'm sure there are other severely scarred victims of his wickedness with his army to somewhere of great inconvenience to his allies tricks.


So I am extremely particular about keeping each game separate and external issues out of consideration

"So for you it's a game where no one can be trusted
For me it's a game where enough trust can be found to achieve success and trust given should be rewarded."

No, I just happen to believe that your way of rewarding trust is antithetical to the very spirit of the game. If you trust someone and are equally skilled, then you should be willing to just draw. If you aren't willing to, then clearly you don't see them as deserving a true reward as you deny them a spot of equality and give them mere points and a survive. What you are defending is a way is to have your cake and eat it too, and I dislike that.

I just cannot see how wanting to win and wanting to allow a loyal ally share the rewards is inconsistent with the ideals of the game

We form an alliance at the start of the game, and at that point it's about mutual survival, we both want to win if there's a chance.
We see off the other rival alliances and players, both of us still wanting to win.

Is the only way for one of us to win the way of the backstab ?

Surely it's the ultimate challenge of diplomacy, to persuade the other chap to defer his self interest to yours, and in ppsc games I had a tool,a very useful tool that I've used to persuade the other chap, and he gets a second prize

Someone asked about where else in games do we offer rewards to place getters ummmmm the Olympics, and there are many athletes for whom simply competing in an Olympic final is the highest achievement of their careers.

Do I regard them as losers....complete and abject failures ? provided they competed without cheating in my view, anyone who qualifies to represent their country at the Olympics deserves respect IMHO.

Well vashta there are game options on this site with scoring systems that cater for your views.
There used to be one that suited me

I'm saying its good we have the options that suit you and I'd like to keep the option that suited me
I'm not insisting you play with a scoring system you dislike or detest.

Why do you insist that I should play with a system of scoring I dislike?

Because you "know" it's better for me ???

And Vashta dearest, that's such a mangled metaphor
It should be "eat your cake and have it still" to properly express an illogical concept.
It's a disturbingly common misuse of that metaphor.
Please remember you are using a language used by literary giants, please don't mangle it in posts to this thread.

How about tweaking the new survival scoring system so it gives survivors in games where someone wins a share of the points as well as in games that are drawn,?
That would work for me, and maybe a few others.

Sum-of-Squares is a well understood and accepted scoring system in the FTF diplomacy world.

@MajorMitchell: The reason I use that metaphor is that, at least in the essence of the game, you can't (or at least shouldn't) have it both ways (which is a valid interpretation of that metaphor). Diplomacy creates an interesting scenario where you must interact and work with people you know you are competing against. It asks if you are willing to do what it takes to win, whether you are willing to stab an ally for that gain, whether you will fight a fair tactical battle or simply draw before or after all of that. At the point where the ideology of the game presents a dichotomy and PPSC just lets you side step it, so now you can both be a good ally and win the game.

However, there is still a strong idea in PPSC, that results and effort should be rewarded, and this is seen in how draws happen.

Also, pretty much every game functions on a WTA ideal. Even when second place is rewarded, it is usually a lot less than the winner.

While I can see how there are different viewpoints on distribution when there is no direct winner, when there is a direct winner, it must be clear that they won, much like what abge said before. Regardless, my opinion means little if there is no popular backing, so let's just see where this new system goes.

"I just cannot see how wanting to win and wanting to allow a loyal ally share the rewards is inconsistent with the ideals of the game."

That's inconsistent with this bit of the rules. "As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner."

"Is the only way for one of us to win the way of the backstab ?"

Not at all. You could race to 18. You could already be far enough ahead that you don't need to stab to win.

"Surely it's the ultimate challenge of diplomacy, to persuade the other chap to defer his self interest to yours, and in ppsc games I had a tool,a very useful tool that I've used to persuade the other chap, and he gets a second prize"

It's a tool that's inconsistent with the rules of the game. This is very frustrating for other players, who now have to watch your ally throw you a game that they otherwise wouldn't. You're right that convincing somebody to defer their self-interest to yours is the ultimate challenge of diplomacy, but PPSC cheapens that challenge. When somebody lets you win in PPSC in return for second place, they are not really deferring their self-interest to yours. When you convince somebody to let you win in WTA, then and only then have you beaten the ultimate challenge of the game.

"Someone asked about where else in games do we offer rewards to place getters ummmmm the Olympics, and there are many athletes for whom simply competing in an Olympic final is the highest achievement of their careers.

Do I regard them as losers....complete and abject failures ? provided they competed without cheating in my view, anyone who qualifies to represent their country at the Olympics deserves respect IMHO."

This is not an equivalent comparison. Everybody competing at the olympics won their country's trials to get there. If you start a PPSC game, nobody had to win anything to join it. At the olympics, even the losers can say that they're the best from their country. A better comparison would be the finals of the ODC, where even the losers can say that they beat others to get there, even if they weren't good enough to win the whole thing.

It seems to me Vashta that you're the one who wants it both ways.
You want the scoring system that suits you and you want to deny me the scoring system I prefer.

I'm not trying to stop you playing only in wta scored games

You just don't get it, you get to play under system you prefer, I support that there should be that option for you. I don't tell you I know what's best for you.

But you want, as well as play under a scoring system you prefer, you also want to deny me the option to play in games with a system I prefer

I allow you your choice
You deny me mine

You're the one wanting it both ways you want your preferred option and also want to deny me my preferred option

So with no choice, I'm compelled to either go for a win and treat a loyal ally like shit, of give up going for wins and chase draws

How dumb is that, you say winning is the highest goal, and at the same time piut a real disincentive to winning and rewarding a supportive ally in my way.

Think about that message
Support a superpower and get screwed

I'll adapt my game and what games I participate in to suit the changed environment, but don't expect me to be happy about it, or even support this loss of choice
.

Everyone is going to hate me for this comment but I don't care. I think if people are worried about having too many game modes and they don't want ppsc on top of everything else. I think we should get rid of DSS as it isn't very fair in a draw situation as you or somebody else has worked hard to get (17 supply centres) and you only get and even amount of coins. I think we should replace it with ppsc as it is more varied from DSS and is fairer. The other reason is that DSS and SWS are very similar and only vary in a case of a draw and so to have some variety on the site we should have SWS and PPSC.

Peter, apart from the points everyone starts with a player had to invest points they had won to enter a new game.
And Peter players who don't like ppsc scoring simply choose not to play in those games.
As I have consistently tended to choose ppsc games and avoid wta games.

Again I am not denying you your choices, I make no claim that ppsc is superior to wta. Nor do I pretend to know what's best for you.

I simply say I want the choice I used to have that is now gone.

And if people are going to cheat they still can, theres always a way around something. All you have to do is make 5 accounts and then get 18 supply centres with one, its not hard. Also that is why modes are there to stop cheaters

SkiingCougar: DSS is described in the Diplomacy rulebook. It's the one system that I think we really *should* support.

Why? The draws are unfair, and why do you need to follow other peoples ideas, can you not be original?

I actually like the sum of squares scoring system.
I'd like the option of playing under a sum of squares system that applied to games where there is a winner
Where the winner gets the "lions share" of the points and the remainder are shared on a sum of squares basis between the other survivors.

I guess I'll be playing mainly this new unrated/not scored option to avoid wta type games

thank you the kept modes should be SWS and ppsc

@skilledCougar, whether you survive with 1 or 17; another player soloing is deemed to go on to conquer all of europe - thus you get nothing.

In a draw, no matter how many centers you have; everyone is included in the agreement to draw. By definition you agree to end the game early because face-to-face diplomacy takes too long and people have lives to go back to.

It doesn't matter in this case how many centers you had. You failed to win. Everyone decided that it wasn't worth playing on, or were happy with their performance.

There is nothing unfair about this agreement, per the original rules.

As a side note; any points based system forms a meta-game. Webdip's 1 'daggers' are designed to limit the number of games a player can enter at one time (so you can't start 14 games and then drop out of all but the two where the 1801 moves suited you - this kind of behaviour is to be strongly discouraged) In the absence of a community who knows and recognises each other and worries about their reputation we need some system for meta-gaming.

The ideal system limits the influence internal to the board.

When we played league games we explicitly designed a meta-game based around playing four boards. And signed up to play the meta-game; this was excellent because you got an opportunity to betray or build up a reputation within your groups of players.

The ppsc model lacks any similar benefits. And has many downsides.