Hey. I'm curious what people's fascination is with WTA games? My suspicion is that people who join WTA games are either expecting a win and hoping for a big point payout, or else they are just hoping for a really fun, spirited match.

In either case though, a WTA game is almost certainly not going to land you what you're hoping for. For example, one should consider that the most likely outcome of a WTA match is a draw. Once it becomes apparent to the majority of players (partway through the game) that they are not really high in the runnings for a victory, their strategic objective shifts from a decisive victory to simply creating or enforcing a gridlock. There is no point advantage to being second place in a WTA game -- second place is merely the first looser. As such this cuts out the likelihood of a solo-victory with a high payout to the winner.

The other counter-intuitive non-advantage rises from the fact that there is very little motive on the part of players to engage in Machiavellian subterfuges. One guy is trying to push for the solo victory, while the rest of the board just either gives up peevishly or tries to gridlock things.

Oh, and WTA games are not realistic, anyway. Statecraft is not a zero-sum game.

Thoughts?

Point-Distributed games encourage fiercer competition, as well as livelier endgames, despite the fact that this may seem counterintuitive.