zultar, ghug, captainmeme et al:
I assume you all are imagining this chart when you say that large Great Powers have a points-incentive in PPSC to throw games to an even larger Great Power?

Full pot† 7,140 D
initial bet† 1,020 D

solo win† 3,780 D
2-way† 3,570 D
16-SC loss† 3,360 D
15-SC loss* 3,150 D
14-SC loss* 2,940 D
13-SC loss* 2,730 D
12-SC loss* 2,520 D
3-way† 2,380 D
11-SC loss* 2,310 D
10-SC loss* 2,100 D
9-SC loss* 1,890 D
4-way† 1,785 D
8-SC loss* 1,680 D
7-SC loss* 1,470 D
5-way† 1,428 D
6-SC loss* 1,260 D
6-way† 1,190 D
5-SC loss* 1,050 D
7-way† 1,020 D
4-SC loss* 840 D
3-SC loss* 630 D
2-SC loss* 420 D
1-SC loss* 210 D
0-SC loss* 0 D
† Assuming no CD positions taken over
* Assuming no neutrals left and no CD positions taken over

That is a very simplistic understanding of PPSC. Remember that there is always a points-incentive in PPSC to go for a win or (short of that) a 2-way draw. If you have two Great Powers in a game that have between 12 and 16 supply centers, then in your scenario there should be at least one Great Power barely holding on for survival but with enough SC's to influence the outcome of the game. So far so good, right?

In PPSC, your collective wisdom interprets this scenario as cause for the slightly smaller of the two Great Powers which dominate the board to throw the game in favor of the slightly larger of the two, effectively screwing over the tiny Great Power(s) still around. With WTA, you say that the slightly smaller of the dominant Great Powers should band together with the minor Great Power not to eke out a victory of its own, but to stop the game in its tracks at a stalemate line. (Note here that I'm not referring to other early draws without a stalemate line which Jamiet99uk and I have also been blaming on WTA because in similar situations PPSC discourages drawing.)

You're entirely forgetting that small Great Powers still have agency in this narrow scenario with two superpowers and are somehow missing that in PPSC the lesser of the two superpowers has a better option. I'll start with the small Great Powers.

In WTA, small Great Powers have zero points-incentive to play well unless they were lucky or smart enough to have placed their redoubt along a relevant stalemate line. Instead, their erratic behavior can decide the outcome of a game in the given scenario on caprice with little regard to the diplomatic or even tactical skill of either of the two superpowers. With PPSC, small Great Powers always have a clear points-incentive to survive and grow. Of course, with both WTA and PPSC scoring systems small Great Powers have a clear incentive to seek a draw, but often they do not have this option.

Here is where it gets interesting. In PPSC, both of the dominant Great Powers in your scenario can work with the minor Great Power(s) still in the game to win. Instead of being lazy and throwing the game or settling for a stalemate draw, the lesser of the two dominant Great Powers has a points-incentive to instead provide one or more minor Great Powers with avenues of either growth or stalemate line security (i. e. front-line placement). Working in the interest of minor Great Powers leaves open the possibility that the sponsoring dominant Great Power can (with cunning Diplomacy and tactical skill) surpass the position of the other dominant power and win the game itself.

The minor Great Powers for their part gain obvious short term benefits even if one of the major Great Powers clinches victory. With a PPSC scoring system, minor Great Powers can play the dominant Great Powers off each other in turn (Hey, just like the real world!) to grow their SC-count, knowing that they will always be rewarded even if they slip up and one side ends up soloing. But as a minor Great Power grows, so too does its ability to force a stalemate or even make a solo push of its own. There should never be a scenario where simply throwing the game is the preferred course, even for a small Great Power.

What do you all think?