@Acosmist
The point distribution is clearly there to reflect the values that are meant to be attributed to the game. Your specific values for what is important shouldn't be reflected in the results (survive/defeat) of the game, the values of the type of game (here WTA) should be reflected. WTA, as I've said, means all non winners are equal

One thing I learned in law school - never say "clearly."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2006/03/clearly.html

You seriously don't think that WTA is meant to encourage that attitude that the winner wins everything?
It uses point distribution to advocate values that should be upheld in the game.
What I'm saying is that the stats (defeat/survive/draw/win) should also reflect this.

"You seriously don't think that WTA is meant to encourage that attitude that the winner wins everything?"

I think WTA is directed at two populations:

People who want to risk more webdip points in the hopes of the quick acquisition of points.

People who want webdip points distributed in a way that matches their conception of the hierarchy of game results.

Neither has any necessary connection to your values. A person who thinks a survival is worth more than a defeat may play WTA because he wants to build points quickly. He may play WTA because he thinks PPSC insufficiently incentives anti-solo alliances, but still believe that survivals are superior results to defeats.

Yes, he can believe it (survives are better than defeats), but the concept of WTA goes against that belief, so when he plays in a WTA game, he shouldn't expect his beliefs to be reflected in the way the results work at the end of the game.

Do you see, I'm not dictating what people should believe, I'm suggesting what results should be obtained at the end of a WTA game, based on the principles of WTA.

So, even if he believes survives are superior, he should get the same mark on his stats for playing a WTA game and being defeated as surviving, as that is what WTA suggests.

Win
Don't let anyone else win

Ultimate caveat: Don't be predictable.

"Yes, he can believe it (survives are better than defeats), but the concept of WTA goes against that belief, so when he plays in a WTA game, he shouldn't expect his beliefs to be reflected in the way the results work at the end of the game."

Begging the question. Massively. I already pointed this out several posts ago. You're using words like "should" and "ideal" that have a normative import. Well, this entire argument is about what norm is best, or whether a plurality of norms exists. If you think you've discovered "the" way to value Diplomacy results, back it up. Don't merely state it.

"Do you see, I'm not dictating what people should believe, I'm suggesting what results should be obtained at the end of a WTA game, based on the principles of WTA."

You've privileged your conception of a WTA game above mine, in this very thread. What justification do you have for that leap?

Do you recognize the fallacy of equivocation that you committed when you thought that "winner-takes-all" means, literally, that the winner takes everything Diplomacy-related that's at stake? Roughly, you've argued that the format is WTA. WTA stands for "winner takes all." Therefore, the winner must take all that's at stake.

Extend the argument to PPSC. PPSC stands for "points per supply center." Therefore, players take points based on the number of supply centers they have. But what if the points at issue are Calhamer points? Then PPSC could allocate more than 1 Calhamer point per game, which contradicts the very concept of a Calhamer point. But if I were to conflate the two instances of the word "points" I would reach this contradictory result. You've done the same thing with "all."

good analysis, i like it!

"a plurality of norms" ??? A Confederacy of Dunces? Sounds like ego-inflation to me.

What are you on about, Timur the Lame?

timur shut the fuck up!

There have been many great points made that deserve attention or a response (and a few that deserve derision), unfortunately, I do not have the time to give them all their due respect... I do however want to take a few minutes to say that i have been pleasantly surprised by a number of Acosmists' recent posts and will have to re-evaluate my prejudgments about him (including my view of his maturity level).

Acosmist - what I would ask you to consider is that your drawing of a distinction between the 'game' itself and the 'points' is creating an illusion of separation between the two. I would invite you to view the 'points' (and by the way same applies to the GR points which are also distributed PPSC vs WTA dependent on the game type) as a measure of ones level of ability in playing said 'game'.

you are correct that there are various reward mechanisms that go into how many players play - some enjoy being online and cant find anything better to do with their time, some like the forum and play only to stick around, others might like to play just to get on other people's nerves, and yet others simply love to lie and this provides them an opportunity to do so in a socially acceptable way... I fully accept and concede all of these are valid and existing reasons that some play the game irrelevant of the WTA or PPSC type they choose. HOWEVER - my (first) contention is that the points system is indeed a form of measuring skill, and BECAUSE of the PPSC format, it is a very POOR measure of a given person's skill at the 'game' of Diplomacy.

Every game, by definition, has winners and losers. that is what makes it a game. it is in fact HOW you count the points 'scored' that makes one player of the game 'better' than another. the fault in WebDip's point system is that due to the PPSC format it dilutes that score-keeping mechanism to such a degree as to make the point system almost completely useless for that purpose.

There is a second question which is far less cut-and-dry and more personal in nature - which is the question of how one SHOULD play the game. on this question, I have (finally) reached the point of grudging accepting that some people prefer an inferior 'game' (PPSC) over what I consider to be a superior 'game' (WTA) - and as I said long ago... more power to you. I choose not to. and since I'm not King of Webdip, I cant force you not to... whatever...

BUT there is something that is UNDEBATABLE - Calhammer's original premise of how the 'game' should be played is NOT open to fanciful interpretation by some random online players... his intention was CLEARLY for the game to be played as a WTA with the 'winner' defined by a solo or co-winners defined by a draw with losers being anyone who was not a 'winner' or a 'co-winner/drawee'. Now there are many inventions in this world that have been improved by people adjusting or augmenting their use ... in my strong OPINION - Diplomacy is NOT one of those things.

the reason this game is so sublime is because its inherent in-game reward system encourages the players to switch sides so as to prevent their own losing. This reward mechanism is what produces the 'stab' and thus balances the game. The PPSC perversion of the original, takes away that reward system by in-fact rewarding those who actively seek to 'lose' (by surviving).

of course, as in other things in life - there are other things to consider - sometimes people want a live game to finish or they are tired of playing a game, or they really want to stick it to some other player, or maybe they get a thrill out of being a douche-bag in-game - but as DEFINED by the 'game' rules, these are all external to the 'game' itself and thus very clearly defined as 'meta-gaming'. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above examples, if strictly construed, is an example of someone meta-gaming. oh well - life is not fair - so we live with imperfections.

but once more - i repeat - if someone gets their rocks off by playing PPSC, go for it, what do I care... my big critique of WebDip allowing PPSC is #1 it is training a whole generation of Dip players who are becoming habituated to a variant of the REAL game and #2 by actively promoting PPSC as the dominant format of the game (by its defacto status on new games created) it is discouraging veteran Dip players from joining as most do not view PPSC as Diplomacy



One useful thing however that I do think can come out of this entire discussion is IF the coding is not too difficult, to ask kestas or someone with some programming skills to separate out the PPSC and WTA results on each of our profile pages... and in such a case, I would agree with bishop that for the WTA listings, 'survive' and 'elimination' can be combined into 'defeat'.

Most of the top players on this site already mentally add up win/draw and survive/eliminate into two categories (what we call a win/loss ration)... but separating out the PPSC results from the WTA results would go even further in better evaluating relative skill levels since the point system is an abject failure in that regard.


I hope I've managed to make my points clearly and concisely and given Acosmist deserved credit with a well reasoned response.

oh... and Draugnar... its really ok to admit that you suck man... really, its ok. Diplomacy does not dictate your worth as a human being so you sucking really bad at it does not make you a bad person... i'm sure there must be SOMETHING in life you are half-decent at right? right? if you cant think of anything ask your mom, i'm sure she can come up with something nice to say about you.

also - Acosmist - I never thought you to be such a relativist!

@Babak - as tempted as I am to thrash a barrage of profanity, I'll keep this civil. Leave my geriatric mom out of it. Im in my 40s and my mom is approaching 70. As far as sucking at Diplomacy. I was shocked I actually pulled off a win in the leagues last Spring to move up to the C-leagues.

Yes, I do suck at Diplomacy. Strategically, I do fine, but my skills as a diplomat are very weak.

My strengths lie in logic, creative design, and music. I'm a decent developer (do it for a living), graphics designer (although not a pro by any means) and musician (jazz trombone, classical french horn, and piano).

So, leave my mom out of your insults and I'll leave your infatuation with little boys anuses out of mine towards you.

I tend to play PPSC game exclusively, and a such I think most WTA player would rightly think me an inferior player. I think that both have their place though. The question to ask is are you playing a game or a simulation. Obviously, it's both, but where do you place your emphasis.

If it's a game. Great, play it to win.

For me, it's a simulation. As such, I look on it in terms of survival and growth of a power rather than domination of a landmass. I realize that this isn't in keeping with the original intent of the boardgame, but the PPSC variant allows it. In WWI, it wasn't a struggle for supremacy of one power. It was a struggle between two alliances. The victors did not turn on each other immediately when the vanquished surrendered.

Brooding omnipresence in the sky - yeah the guy who decided the platonic form - Kestas, at least that is the form in which webdiplomacy finds itself today - with webdip points as defined by kestas, and the ppsc variant - along with the webdip highscores table - which introduces a meta-game or scoring the most points does change things from what diplomacy was.

However that is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes sense in some ways, for the practicality of choosing who you will play against, and avoiding those players who always lose/nmr (because they can't enter too many 101 point games at once)

However I think the mentality (play to survive or 16 SC giving up one to gain more webdip points) which it encourages is not ideal. It is not what I want in my opponents. Thus i would submit to you that WE re-define the game played here on webdiplomacy, and petition Kestas to change the system to reflect the game we want to play.

Now i understand that there may be many people here who learned to play diplomacy on webdip / phpdip and they may even prefer to continue playing the variant as defined here at present. They might even outnumber those of us who would prefer WTA only, but i submit that the system is broken, and popular opinion can be wrong (mislead by their habits) but as setting up a WTA or PPSC version of this website is a mistake, I would like to see the people who wish to play on or the other variant (because they both vary from each other... and even WTA is not the dip which allows you enter mistaken orders on purpose) to add to their profiles their 'player type'

I will be a WTA player.

@crazy anglican - if you want a simulation i think there are better ones out there.

with fog of war, and limited lines of communication, and supply lines.

Hearts of Iron II is a great game and world war two Grand stragety game.

Thats why TGM developed Ghostrating.

thanks orth...

crazy - fine enough - but you should be aware you are not playing the 'game' called "Diplomacy".

figles - but the GR system still includes PPSC games. and rewards 16 dot defeats. it is better than the points system by a good deal, but still not close to the ideal. maybe a WTA-GR would be close to the ideal I have envisioned, where only WTA games are included in the rankings. hmmm...

Draug - your assumption that I was disparaging your geriatric mother is disconcerting. why jump to her defense when there was no comment directed her way? maybe you are used to dealing with adolescents' insults. As for you as a person, i'm sure you are a nice chap in real life (and a loving father, and a great employee, etc etc) but in your dip-presence, you tend to be an annoying prick. which may indeed be part of the reason the diplomacy element of your game is so glaringly lacking. but whatever floats your boat man.

I'd rather take odds on a win and most likely go down in flames than take a draw with my tail between my legs.

dunno LJ - I think a WTA draw is still very impressive. a 4 way draw is almost like a B- in my book. while a 3 way draw is more like a B+. (these are for WTA... for PPSC, i wouldnt even know where to start)

2 way draw in WTA is an F-----------