@Inspector Rex
Everybody who wants to remove the draw function from WTA or PPSC games.

Hey Bask and I are agreeing on something!

For those who are too new to remember, we used to not have a draw feature. It was an outrageous disaster. We had games that lasted fifty years with no moves. People waited until someone NMR'd to claim cheap wins.

I see no benefits to removing draws.

@Abg,
I remember. That's one of the reasons I stopped playing here for a year or two. Then I came back and you guys had anon games, mods, WTA (and not just if you bet more than 50pts!), draws, pauses, cancels, gunboats, GRs, and who knows what else.

Yeah, draws are a part of the game, and being able to band together and force a draw instead of allowing a solo is a viable strategy. It would be like saying "Chess would be a better game if a losing player wasn't able to force a stalemate." A reasonably good player in a bad position can do that, and it's definitely preferable to losing. I share the OP's annoyance with Baskineli and all the other care bears, but the draw option is a part of the game, even when you play it face to face. You may as well remove the support move option, or the convoy option.

lol i didnt want to remove draws all together. i said there should be a mode where you can disable draws and if it gets down to a draw situation where 2 players cant move for 2 years or something then auto draw it. otherwise let them play till the end. like everyone is saying WTA isnt even WTA because most people want to get points out of it.

ye i was angry when i wrote this cuz in 2 games it seems to be happening. but that doesnt change the fact that the draw option is supposed to be used infrequently due to extreme circumstances of unable to finish a game, yet people use it like candy.

look at mr czech up there. he has 151 draws which is more then anything by a long shot. some people just get trigger happy with draws

Most diplomacy games end in draws. I can't remember who said this, but in an earlier conversation on a similar topic, someone once said on these forums, outright wins only happen when someone has screwed up. If no one really completely fucks the dog, the game will end in a draw.

If you don't want to draw, don't vote draw. Simple. Ignore everyone else's whining and keep playing. That's what I do when I don't want to draw

Alan Calhammer (the games inventor) said that the perfectly played game will always end in a draw. Now if the inventor feels that way...

World War One ended in a draw. So did World War Two.

nah, the game just keeps on going.... ;^)

in the real world diplomatic ties end in draws because of secrets the other finds out about his opponent. in this game however a military tie happens which is no line can be broken i.e. draw line, in which case it should be drawn for the players who constructed the draw should get it and for times sake also. this game is not solely about points people!

Or in other words, don't tell people how to play the game!

@BunnY -- Mr. Czech is a pretty darn good player, he also has 62 wins and I have found him to be a good competitor, so not sure what your draw statistic reference really means or equates to ...

sorry, "The Czech" I meant -- anyway, I don't know him from Adam and he's just an example, but from looking at his games he often goes for the win and gets it

A high number of draws in someone's stats could simply equate to a high number of games played in which someone CD'd and made the game unfair for the remaining players. In my only have with The Czech, I (Turkey) was doing quite well until Austria CDd and he (Italy) ended up taking most of Austria's SCs. Then, rather than win a game simply because an opponent stopped entering orders, he agreed to a draw.

"In my only have" ---> "In my only *game*"

I think that the idea would be to have a No-Draw option to play games. It is definitely interesting to play a game with no draws every once in a while. Eliminating draws altogether makes absolutely no sense, but I would love to play a no-draws-allowed WTA or PPSC every once in a while.

I don't normally comment, but perhaps my long experience will help the discussion. Back in the Play by mail days in the 70's, we had few draws, but then we were just working out stalemate lines so games went to wins(sometimes 3 or 4 years of actual time). But there were draws. In those days, we could vote a draw. Say I'm a 3 unit Italy about to be wiped out with two 12 unit French and german players allied and winnign the game. We could propose thedraw and give them the win. That worked. But to eliminate draws would be to eliminate one of the real-world aspects of the game. No country ever wins alone, always has allies and the allies benefit. The game is designed to work alliances. But then, I may be completely wrong, since I soloed(if that's a word) my last game.

I agree with BESM.

If people don't want to draw, they should not click the 'draw' button. If they are out of the game already, they should not have a say anyway.

Thank you very much, Mr. B. We've never played, but you show a very high level of smarts. I will say that I hate pauses and think they should be outlawed except in the most extreme circumstances. I am tired of people asking for a pause because they are going on vacation but started the game anyway. Then when anyone doesn't vote for the pause, the pauser act as if they are entitled just because they can't plan.

BESM +1 regarding pauses. I don't kind if the game has gone exceptionally long or is part of the Leagues/GFDT where the timing is specific for the games. But if you are about to leave on vacation in a week, don't start a new game, folks. Or if you only have an hour free, don't start a live game. Use some common sense.

I don't kind ---> I don't mind

Another exceptionally bright commentor! Sad that I have to leave now to grade papers.

Why not just make 'no draw' an option in a game creation. Only wins allowed, and draws if all 7 players agree (even the ones eliminated)?

Why should eliminated players ever have a say in the game?

also, regarding pauses. I think 'auto-pause for nmr' should be implemented as a game option. So the game auto-pauses if someone NMR's. Obviously, this could be abused and such, so should not be on by default, but would be a nifty option to prevent someone from winning based on NMR's and CD's

eliminated players should have a say when draws are not allowed... if you want a true draw on true drawlines, outside, unbiased opinions can reign. I'm just putting it out there as a "blue sky" approach. I'm sure it wouldn't work very well in reality...

I like the autopause on NMR. It's similar to what the judges do. But honestly, this isn't survivor where people voted out of the tribe get to come back decide who wins and who doesn't. If your destroyed, then someone else owns all you ever owned and your only recourse is to continue to talk, not to hold the game hostage when a stalemeate between two or three superpowers/alliances has occured.