@TheGhostmaker: I have seen so many draws where no mod jumped in, because the players just drew for whatever reason. Especially some two way draws. Out of friendship or whatever. Here, we have quite selfish reasons - to maximize the own *wins*, not even draws. And no promissing of each other to do that in future or other games a like. I see more the problem with the two parties actually agreeing on the strategy. But if they agree, in game, why not? I would suggest such things even in anonymous games. (Not that I was ever in the position where it made sense)

This fatal assumption is part of negotiations, so no meta gaming. I don't prevent people from making a 5 way draw out of selfishness.

I play all games like WTA's the sad thing is that I seem to be a minority in this view of diplomacy. I try to win all the time, and if I can't win then I go for the stalemate.

SEcki, What I am saying is that I think it would be impossible without objectives other than normal, or meta-gaming of an implicit or explicit sort.

As regarding mod-action, I would not suggest it in this circumstance.

The implicit meta-gaming is that you play many games of diplomacy and that a random decission where might give you a worse result now, but maybe a better result in the long run, if you can convince many people to do so in similar situations. However, I feel this is like the best metagaming that could happen - because people would play to win that game. And my proposal is a strategy to make a winner, not some 5 way draw.

It is just a mixed strategy (game theory), that gives both parties a better EV than drawing. I don't see anything wrong suggesting this at all. I admit, I can hardly see many people agreeing to that. Especially online, where you need to agree on a random method.

@dominic
"Countries who survive the game deserve points, in my opinion, for simply being smart enough not to get themselves killed."

We see the game in a very different way. Imagine a futbol championship with 20 teams... the ones that get 19th place are very smart because they managed to not be last?
Looser spirit?!

For me the ones that survive weren't smart enough to get a win or a draw... so they don't deserve anything :)
That's the real spirit of this game, I believe.

I agree with that one hundred percent!

The problem is a lot of players have a temperament of getting whatever they can out of games points-wise instead of going for the win if its possible. I'm really tired of alliances where one side helps another to 17 for a draw instead of taking the win when they could have. That is the one issue with the points system on WebDiplomacy. I would much rather see games based on Ghost-rating scaled for total games played.

The problem with points opening the games you can play means a lot of players in "lower-stakes" games will just try to come out better than before points-wise instead of playing to win if possible or draw if its not.

that's why we have WTA games...

kreilly, G-Rating operates the same reward system and Points, just with a different algorithm. The discussion is WTA vs PPSC, not G-Rating vs Points. They are very distinct issues.

Secki: I do, and will think about it as I said. Its not really a mathematics issue though, more a psycological one.
Re "We play lots of games so metagame": I only play anon to try and limit this

@Secki: "People defend this option with their tools and nails, because they never stab their allies etc pp. Go figure. "

I haven't heard that expression before "tools and nails", but it sounds like like "tooth and nail".

@spyman: tooth is what I meant, though =)

I like the expression you came up with better. It seems quite apt and it made me chuckle. There's a name for that sort of mix up I am sure, but I can't remember what it is called.

I think what the scoring system really lacks is any link to which country is being played. It shouldn't be too difficult to work out the Expected Value (EV) of starting with say Italy in a gunboat game and then raking the final result using this EV as par. This would set up conflicts which can only be solved by conflict. This is because the worst country (Italy) would score more than say England if the game finished without a move being made. (Italy's EV would be lower than Englands' - so a seven way draw would see Italy exceed her EV and England miss theirs, therefore more points to Italy)

It would also more accurately measure a persons success and eliminate the lottery of which country you get.

I would need to know what the winning/drawing stats are for each country to explore this idea further - does anyone have these to hand?

*raking = ranking

PPSC is useful as a tool to have enough points to play WTA. And neccessary given my record here :(

I find it difficult as a 'Win first, no-one else wins second' player to adapt my style to PPSC.

Maniac, I do, but I am inclined to suggest that that is a dangerous road to go down. The percentages vary from place to place and time to time, plus different players have wildly different preferences e.g. I hate Russia but really like Italy.

Pete U I think you are an excellent player. I don't know why you haven't won any games yet. I suspect that most of your games have been with other very good players, and you have been a trifle unlucky.

@Pete U:The one game I played here with you, your bad luck was due to other players not working together effectively to stop me from winning. You did, however, kill me on facebook (in my second game ever). And I thought you played the best game in the game we played here (compared to the others), even though you were defeated (Austria is tough).

@spyman - thanks. I'll still smash you next time, despite the early attempts for alliance :)

@Pete U I hope you won't hold that game against me, I stabbed you because I was certain that England would stab me (I was France) - and I had to make the best gains I could while the going was good. But no doubt my next game with you will be a challenge :)

Am i the only player who doesn't really play for points but more for the win/draw etc ratio. After all the points are only the thing that enables you to play more game but the win/lose/draw etc ratio shows a lot more.

*also I don't mean play just for the ratio or points or whatever as I play for the fun of playing but if i'm going to focus on one thing it would be the ratio.

You're not the only player Biddis. I think that is how most diplomacy enthusiasts play.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the WTA format isn't. That is, you can still draw. Detente is a part of the board game version of Diplomacy, but what about a version of WTA where the winner does take all? Yes, Stalemate can occur, but then really it becomes a test of endurance. Unless you wanted some sort of ability to call a 'judge' to determine if its really stalemate... another option would be, if you draw in a WTA game, you get 1/2n, where n is the number of drawers.

Draws a test of endurance? Not really in most cases. Unless you are willing to wait forever. Stalemate lines really do exist.

You mean, unless you aren't willing to wait forever, Stalemate lines do exist... I'm not disagreeing, I am simply suggesting an alternative play style, and pointing out a potential flaw ahead of time.