so 1.2 wTd (anything over 1 is good)
0.64 wdTse (i don't know what counts as good - more than 0.14 definitely, but including your draws means it is harder to tell...)

I think have a wTd over 1 while have a wdTse lower than about 0.14 is not at all impressive.

win to draw: 1:6
w/d to s/d: 7:13 (no resigns, after 40+ games, something I'm proud of)

your 14:36 (wins plus draw versus survived plus eliminated) is what i was counting...

also i'm more interested in how other people think of draws... should you take a draw when a solo is possible but unlikely?

Play to win. If it doesn't work out you still have a very good chance of a draw.

Imagine 10 games, with 5 wins and 5 defeats, compared with 10 draws and no defeats, I would take the 5 wins. How about 4 wins and 6 defeats, or 3 wins and 7 defeats, how do people feel about that compared with 10 draws?

It depends how big the draws are . . .

All interesting stats, like "numbers of touchdowns thrown by a quarterback".
But if there is only one number (like "wins" in football), then I'd go with GR.
And GR can be advanced through draws and cooperative play just as it can through winning alone.

Go Bask...it's your birthday...Go Bask...it's your birthday

;)

@orathaic--I am 14:26, so that is simplified to 7:13 :)

I think it's a very personal thing, much like our personalities, everyone is a bit different. I have 24 wins and 41 draws, so I'm well under the 1.0 wins:draws, which is not very good in the eyes of orathaic, but I don't mind it too much. Sure, I wish I could win more, so perhaps I'm a bit too forgiving of my personal shortcomings compared to being more focused on wins.

My stats are approaching the level of 50% draws, 25% wins, 16% defeats and 9% survives. I quite like wins being equal to or greater than defeats plus survives, and I also very much like defeats being nearly twice as likely as survives, but 50% draws is clearly too much, just not sure I'm willing to change my approach to the game enough to significantly affect that result.

Yeah, I think stats are interesting to look at, but I'm more focused on how I play and what decisions I make in a game than the ultimate outcome of the game. It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game sort of thing. I enjoy the game and play a certain way, the stats can fall where they may to some extent, though I certainly want to win and if I can't win then I want to draw, there's just a limit of what things I will do to get those specific results...

11:37 -> 1:3.5 -> 2:7 w:d

48:46 -> 24:23 w+d:k+s

I'm fairly new to this site, so I don't have the number of games under my belt that you guys do but my win / draw is 3:3 and my win + draw / defeat + survive is 6:5, with 1 defeat. Its something I'm proud of, but most of those games were all against noobs such as myself.

The win/draw ratio is, despite the natural instinct of many of us to be great fans of stats (I'd be willing to wager that we count among our ranks huge numbers of the poor sods who genuinely find things like elections exciting), largely pointless. I've had defeats that have been far more enjoyable than some of my wins, and all of my most memorable games have been draws. The only thing that really matters is that very personal feeling of enjoyment and satisfaction at a game well played.

I feel like the better opponents I play, the far less likely my chances of winning, as the opposition tend to unite to a stalemate when 1 player gets too strong (say around the 13 centre markish). It just takes one fool to let someone get the solo basically.

Then again, maybe I'm just crap!

W:D = 3:10 (0.3)
W+D:S+D = 13:18 (0.7)

I strongly disagree that win/draw ratio is more representative than W + D : S + D. It is almost impossible to win a high level game, and, to be honest, it is not very difficult to win a low level live game, say. For example, of my 10 wins, 6 of those are in the 6 live games I have played. Anyway, here are my stats:

W:D = 13:10 (1.3)
W+D:S+D = 23:14 (1.64)

Sometimes it is better to survive than to draw : this is disappointing. For instance, in that game, gameID=27672, England lets Turkey win rather than draw because he got more points that way.

That's why you don't play PPSC unless you are point farming.

Draug, I'd have to disagree with you (despite my overall respect for your comments in threads). And I "raise you" MadMarx's comments.

Some of us play PPSC for the fun of it. Yes, we look at GR.... we like to build our points total....we like to be rated "experienced" or "pro" rather than "political puppet" - but we don't obsess over the calculations of whether a draw against a poorer player yielding 40 with X impact on GR....is preferable to a survive when a good player is winning that will yield 20 but have X+ rating on GR. You catch my drift.

Some of us simply like to play the way we did before there were any of these measurements - PPSC, building alliances, trying to win by oneself or in as small an alliance as possible, with a person that we could work with, and if not winning, working for the "best possible" other outcome.

One size does not fit all. All PPSC players are not points farmers, and not all WTA players are purist gods :)

My response was directed to chamois wo has an issue of a strong second giving another person a win. Fact is, that *can't* happen in WTA, or at least won't happen assuming your opponents understand they get nothing for a strong second in WTA.

And I didn't say all PPSC players were point farmers. But it only takes one in a game to ruin it for everyone else.

Wins are better than Draws in many aspects because they can make you look like a better player but what if...

You are a person who plays for draws? I am not saying that this is necessarily me 100% of the time but I know of people who play this way.

I'll admit I play for a draw over all and if a solid opportunity presents itself (as it did recently) I'll stab and try for the win (as I got recently).

A draw is much better than a survive or defeat, and so, a solid draw is good if the chance of winning is under 1/2 after a stab. I'd rather draw a well-played game than try to win and lose it.

I'm pretty much there also.

Except for a stronger sense of loyalty to a partnership :)