I never fail to be totally bemused at the concept of draws, a draw is simply a convenient term to describe any game abandoned before a winner emerges. There can be good reasons to do this (stalemate, time limitations etc), but when done voluntarily I see it as the thin end of the wedge. If you're not in the game to compete equally against everyone for the win, then it's not really a proper competition. Why not just agree a draw with everyone in Spring 1901 and not bother playing?
The real reason, I think, is because people are more interested in Dip points and rankings than they are in playing any single game on its own merit, and even people in a winning position know that with a concerted effort by the other players they can lose it all. So they quit, and bank what they have. I don't think quitting should be equated with winning.

I'll 3rd the general response so far. There is only one legal victory in Diplomacy and phpDiplomacy should remain true to the rules. The only way a victory should be awarded is if a single player manages to amass 18 supply depots.

Your request for a "half victory" or some such is already taken care of by the point system. The two (or more) remaining players are all already recieving their (un)just benefits.

I agree totally with llama's priorities. If I were you Stephen, I would make the agreement you mentioned, and then when there was nearly a draw, stab for the win. But then again I wouldn't get the agreement the second time like that.

Play to win. Failing that, play to draw, failing that play to survive, failing that, admit you failed totally.

Dammit Ghostmaker, until you added that last option I was denying all of my losses.

Another vote for the "Draw!=Win" club.
I don't have a problem with a draw, but it is not a win. Having a place on the profile for draw's might be nice however. All these possible improvements I should wait until Kestas releases. I've heard several possible dates from him, and we are nearing the end of them!

I don't know how you play for a draw, surely it's up to the other guy if he offers you a draw. If you're in a position to make terms then you're capable of winning and should play to win.
I have issues with playing to survive too. If the ONLY way you can survive is by allowing another player to win, then I guess that is fair enough, no-one expects pointless sacrifice. But that's not a very common scenario. On the other hand, if everyone is willing to go against the leading player (as should normally be the case), there's often an opportunity for you to make gains. And if there are three or four players with pretty even distribution, or if you can find a sponsor who will help you back into the game, there is a real possibility that you could grow strong enough to challenge. Basically, what I'm saying is you are always playing to win, even when you're playing to survive!

Well that is because playing to survive is the basis of a win.
I never play for a draw, but they can happen. For example, if you reach a stalemate position, with 4 players in two alliances. The only way to make progress would be for someone to stab, but this would allow the non-broken pair to take the game. Therefore it is likely the game will need to be set down as a draw.

In fact the wise rules of Diplomacy include draw among surviving players as a possible legal end of the game. The example given by figlesquidge above illustrates excellently why it is acceptable and sensible to come to a draw (besides obvious cases, like two players with 17 SCs each, stucj on a stalemate line).
Yet, draw is different from solo win, so it should not add to that count.

No-one is saying it's not possible or not legal, it's just (like a defeat, or any other term which means "failure to win") not desirable!
Like in chess, a draw is a satisfactory outcome where any other resolution is impossible (eg stalemate) or would require a move by one player which would amount to concession (eg perpetual check or figle's example above). But I've never heard of chess players agreeing a draw when one is still capable of winning by his own efforts. I don't think you tend to hear at chess tournaments "I can win this, but it's going to take too long, and there's a risk I might lose so I'll just offer a draw."
Diplomacy isn't chess, of course, and you have dynamics between multiple players, but all the players owe it to all the other players to try as hard as they can to win the game for themselves. If that leads to stalemate, at least you all know you've been in a game!
I maintain that drawing a game should not be an objective in itself, just one possible outcome of every player striving to meet the objective of winning. If things are going bad for you, a draw might look like a good outcome, but your opponents (and I include allies in that term) shouldn't really be offering them, and they're not that easy to engineer.

PTW! PTW!

Nice parallel Noodle.

The only counter-argument I have to it is that a chess player DOES offer a draw at a chess tournament in Searching for Bobby Fischer. And we all know that movies are exactly like real life. Of course, the offer is not accepted so at least one of the players was being realistic.

All players with unit(s) on the map at the end of the game should share equally in a draw. This is not reflected in our current point system.

ummmm...actually it is, mapleleaf.

It is if it is finished as a draw, but if someone wins then the points are not even

mouse, the reason they offer draws is because they don't think they can win, and 90% of the time they are right. There was one case in the Kasparov-Kramnik match where Kasparov offered a draw in a won position, and that was because he was so tired (he'd played for about 7 or 8 hours...)

I sit corrected.....

This has been a problem throughout the years as well: How much does a draw count?

The first answer is as above; I think everyone entering a game will prefer a win to a draw, a draw to a loss, and a loss where they're around at the end to an elimination.

For more details, see the page at http://www.badpets.net/Diplomacy/AtoZ/0-9.html#Appendix1 for a sampling of valuation systems.

In the end, the value a player places on each ending is primarily up to the player themselves.

off with his head, and his friend too. I only hope these two players haven't wasted any of my time.

It shouldn't count as a victory. Because it's not. =)

In face to face play draws happen 9 out of 10 games! So those players who think solos are common have NO clue what there talking about a solo is a rare thing. In many cases stalemate lines are formed and no one can win. I have played face to face for many years as well as touraments with some of the best players in the country. Draws are not wins, they are DRAWS!

So Noodlebug get a clue!

wins are better than draws, draws are better than losses. thats it, simple but...not.
still i dont mind the Dpoint system, maybe with a little less dwelling on points and more on stats would be nicer.
id love to have stats on the pofile pages, wins as each country, times gone into CD, draws etc.
Noodle maybe these winner takes all games might end up making more people go into CD as they cant see the point in fighting on when the going gets too tough.

If you do make this change, many more games will end in a draw. I am against.

The remark from sean above is valuable to me. A key issue is giving each player in any phase of the game rational ground to go on fighting with all his (mental) energy. The point system and the possibility to get a draw are good incentives, while I am afraid that stressing too much the winner takes all option could result in premature game ending.
The bottom line is that the fun of a game is proportinal to the good will and "passion" of players (besides time availability...), whatever the rules you plug in. So having stats on players profile might help selecting games to join in.

Hmmm...maybe there should be a new entry: Games drawn...

adab- i agree, and i think that more emphasis on stats and win/loss ratio might mean some players wont play 20-30 40point games (in a desperate attempt to stack up points?) at once as i know some do.