Well it'd be hard, especially if it is a dynamic stalemate line. (There are dynamic stalemate lines...)

Notwithstanding that I have just been asking for a draw in a game where three players remain, I agree with you. There is too much emphasis on survival and not enough killer instinct to go around.

I am of the BIll Shankly school that believes, in his immortal words,

first is first and second is nowhere.

I wonder whether a feature to anonymously offer a draw would help with this. The gamemaster would end the game if all survivors had anonymously offered a draw. There would be no other way for the game to end in a draw. That way if someone doesn't want the draw, the others don't know who to gang up on.

I wonder what propted this...

i vote for anonymous automatic draws. nobody should see if you disagree

Caviare's idea is a good one.
This way players would be given the choise of whether to draw anonymously or attempt to use it as a diplomatic tool by speaking globally.

Allowing draws only when a stalemate has been reached would not only remove that diplomatic tool, but also impose an interpretation of the "spirit of the game" which isn't universally held. And that's definitly something we should avoid.

The trouble is two fold.

First, the nature of phpDip is such that you are award for SC's mainly. So, the incentive to draw is higher when doing well is greater than the risk of losing it all by not drawing.

Second, if you are of the old school (older versions of the rules), you might argue that the rules stated, or implied, or the spirit of the game was "there can be only one". However, quoting from the current rulebook as posted on the Wizard's of the Coast site, "As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally in a draw." These means that drawing is presently an officially acceptable option. I will see if I can find the edition of the "there must be one winner" rule.

Beyond the above, if you wish to encourage more single winner games, you would need to reward more for single wins. You could set the system up to alway be WTC or for the winner to get X times the number of points. You could change the points to be more in line with the present rules and make it so in a draw, all surviving players receive an exactly equal share of the pot. Which, may or may not be equal to the total they could get if they won singularly.

I like playing PPSC, and I like the fact that it is not the same to be utterly defeated, than ending the game with 16 Sc's.

Also, I like keeping my word unless absolutely necesary, or if I have reasons to distrust someone.

It is yet to happen, but if I formed a good alliance with two other people, and took out the board, I would gladly sign a draw in that game. Of course, if someone chooses not to sign it, I'd keep playing.

I think the idea of an anonymous draw button is pretty good. I don't think it can be considered "wrong" that all the involved in a given game choose to end it as is.

After some quick research, there have been to date 9 editions of the game 58. 59. 61. 71, 76, 82, 92, 00 and 08. Only the 1961 version states that the player with the most countries at the end is the winner.

Most versions post 1971 have a "short version" objective which would give the player with the most SC's at the end of play time a win.

In all versions that mention a draw of remaining players, it does specifically say they share equally in the draw. The only losers having been players who were completely eliminated prior to the draw.

Maybe we can have a system similar to foofball (soccer) - where if a team wins they are awarded 3 points, and if there's a draw the two team get 1 point each (e.g. the game "value" is reduced by 1/3 when there's DRAW).
Is this possible to implement - let's say if a game end with a draw points are reduced in half. This will make draws not so lucrative - actually people would lose point if you have 5-player draws?

Rait is not arguing against a draw as such but that there seem to be too many games now where players are looking for the draw rather early in the proceedings. It is as if they start with the limited ambition to survive.

Gotcha, that surely wouldn't include games 18 years in then :)

I didn't say that draw shouldn't be allowed, I also didn't say that draw should be allowed in stalemate cases only. What I said, was, that there should be some obvious reasons for draw. What I have seen recently (and MajorTom, I'm not speaking only about this concrete nopress game) is that the games are ended with draw also in cases where game has just reached to the mid-game & where there is clear potential for some of the countries to win the game alone (with or without an alliance to other powers). I think it must be the question about ambition - why drop the game for draw if You are 4 SC-s away from winning, or 3 (or even 2....??).

and talking about 5 way draws - wasn't there recently case of one 5 way draw??

An idea I've been tossing around is an "accept draw" button, like the finalize button. When all remaining players have accepted the draw, then the game will be drawn. This eliminates the need to post in the forum, and could also bring in the idea of anonymity. What do other people think?

I think the current draw system is fine. It follows Diplomacy rules, and if people are choosing to draw instead of have more fun by playing out the whole game, what do I care? It doesn't hurt anyone but the people making the (unanimous) decision.

I like the idea of a "draw" button, especially an anonymous one, though less to solve the problem presented, (though it might or might not help with that) and more because it lets the players end a game they want to for whatever reason (maybe they all are finding themselves too busy to play or maybe they just don't feel like continuing, or maybe they're stuck in a stalemate, I think it should be up to the players to end the game, but it should probably have to be unanimous), without having to appeal to someone else outside of the game, it would presumably make Kestas' life easier, as he wouldn't have to go and manually draw all those games, they could just do it them self.

I agree that it is fine - a draw requires agreement of all so you don't need to participate in this trend unwillingly. If the remaining players in a game want to agree a draw in ANY position it seems reasonable that it should be up to them, no?

My belief is that you have players like Rait who are "Old School". But you have many younger players who are playing by the rules as set up on this and older sites. They see comming out of a game with more points then you went in with as a win.

As such they don't mind a draw so much as it seems much like a win to them. I've been in several games where I've had this happen. I've been one of the final 2 or3 and we all worked well together.

In the case of the three the other two wanted to draw and if I had resisted it would have been 2 on 1 against me. I don't believe these people are wrong, in some ways they are honorable, it's just not in the "Traditional" diplomacy spirit.

I like the idea of anonymous draw buttons. I thought that was the original plan with Kestas' current manual drawing only a temporary necessity. Of course, if manual drawing continues in with the implementation of moderators then a rule that does not allow soft draws in WTA could be utilized at the judgement of Kestas and the moderators.

I completely agree that both hardcore WTA and softcore PPSC are both valid ways to play the game, which is why we have the option. Would any of the classic WTA players have any problems with prohibiting soft draws?

I personally enjoy WTA, and dislike soft draws, and in case anyone has a problem with prohibiting soft draws in WTA games (but not PPSC) then perhaps we can just figure out who agrees with both Rait and I and set up a few games which are honour bound to not end in a draw unless it is forced by a stalemate; a hard draw.

Well, I am all for hard draws (except in our League... )

Chrispminis, what do you mean by hard draw/soft draw?

Hard draw: There is no chance of either side winning so long as they both enter moves sensibly.

Soft draw: There is chance of any side winning so long as they play on, but due to risk they draw instead.

I don't like soft draws...

What's the problem here? If you are a member of one of these games, refuse the draw. If you are not a member of the game, then it's none of your business.

Rait's original statement mentioned WTA games especially. While I think draws are viable options, non-stalemate draws most definitely violate the spirit of WTA. Any attempts at drawing these games should require a neutral 3rd party that there is in fact a reason to draw regardless of how many players want it.

With PPSC games, the frequent "unneeded" draws are more debatable. I think an anonymous Draw button system would be a better solution than what we have now.

I actually think that when I first joined this site there was a ridiculous lack of draws. Assuming you play a game with 7 reasonable skilled opponents then I think you'll find 3 way draws should be the norm. With solo wins occuring due to exceptional play combined with a bit of luck or due to bad mistakes/missed turns by the remaining parties.

I also put the increase in draws down to the introduction of WTA games, but more because people are now motivated to gang up on the game leader to prevent a solo win.... which I believe is definitely for the better. That certainly explains the rise in drawn games that I have partipated in. Most of which have been a lot more fun than lame ass games where I have strolled to victory because the weaker powers have been content to sit on their current points and not united to prevent the solo.

Whilst there are definitely examples of people agreeing draws far too easily.... I'd like to think they are the exception and no the norm.

Just looking at your own stats Rait... you only having 3 draws out of 95 games played. Whilst I am not questioning your undoubted Dip skills - this seems extremely low!!

Which from my experience on this site backs up my belief that the ability for players on this site to launch co-ordinated counter attacks against game leaders is poor. Am sure there are various reasons for that.

If you compared this sites stats with those from longer running email/internet Dip sites I reckon you'd also find that they see more draws than solos.

Braveheart, that is the result of PPSC. If you get 12 or more Centres, then a three way is bad for you, which means that, in most situations, two players have an incentive to end the game: the victor, and the "second place". This is why I dislike PPSC: you can actually loose in PPSC and still gain loads of points.

And as others have said, hard draws good, imo, soft draws bad.

I agree with Braveheart in all his points.

Regarding soft/hard draws, it's almost always a matter of risk. In fact, only a 2-way draw can be a hard one. 3-way and 4-way draws are always soft ones, although the risk rate varies. Who can say that e.g. 90% risk rate constitutes a hard draw, while e.g. 80% risk rate means only a soft draw?

Easy fixed.

WITHDRAW the function to draw WTA's.

This is a constant issue. Fix it or remove WTA

Well i think that if kids play the game, this sort of thing is more common.

Canute...

Draws are perfectly legitimate end states. Rait is merely objecting to people requesting draws prematurely before all other diplomatic means have been exhausted.

WTA does NOT imply that a solo win is the only objective and the game must be played until that objective is achieved by someone.

WTA just means that you get nothing if you allow someone else to claim a solo win (and a solo win is rewardely more handsomely in terms of points.

Well, i agree to an extent, Braveheart, but i must say one must change the name or acronym as well from WTA as it implies winner takes all and should therefore be played as such.
Why have a draw in a game designed to allow people to TAKE ALL?
I fail to see the logic(or lack of)

The logic is undisturbed. IF a WTA games reaches a stalemate position then there is no reason why the points should be given to one rather than the other player (assuming two left). We would not want a coin toss system surely? In these circumstances, the draw is perfectly acceptable.

What is being questioned is the existence of draws for convenience.

I agree with Oxim. We should retain the option to draw any game where all surviving participants agree to the draw, for whatever reason. It's really no-one else's business.

Consider this game:
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3817
If anybody has a reason why this game should not have ended in a draw, I'd like to hear it.

I actually can't see any obvious reasons why this game (3817) should have ended with draw? Messy, sure. Difficult, I can imagine. But plenty of potential gains, alliances (many possible combinations with 4 remaining powers) etc. i.e. unused diplomatic means (as Braveheart very well put it). This game surely could have had a single winner. So could You FC explain to old (school) stupid me, what were the obvious aspects that this WTA game ended with draw?

I named this thread merely as an 'observation', thus I don't jump off the roof if the number of draws won't drop. But the way the game is played on this site (i.e. the spirit of the game or we could call it even spirit of the site) definitely influences everyone. So I don't share the view that unless You are not in that specific game, it's non of Your business (would You say the same in case of multi-accounters or meta-gamers? So, if You are currently in the game with some, it's none of Your business?). As I also expressed in my original observation, I do think that this kind of behavior also has an effect on the points system (speeding up the point inflation through easy profit from quick draws). I have also had games when during the first year someone approaches me and offers the end-game deal to make a WTA draw, sic! This clearly suggest for a business model - 2 powers working together from the start, could be easily unbreakable alliance (without other knowing as well, so there can't be much of a organized resistance to that) and more/less guaranteed split the whole pot...

Ah, a situation I well recognise from a few recent attempts at entering a game late, taking up a CD nation, and discovering the reality of a business duo. No meaningful response to diplomacy whatsoever - pure point-farming.

The reasons why 3817 ended with a draw might not be obvious, and you'd probably need each surviving players individual take on why they accepted a draw to get the full picture.... but I think it's something like this:

As France, the smallest survivor, with a mere 5 centers, having fecklessly attacked every other survivor except Austria, I was highly unlikely to be the winner who took all. I had, however, managed to wield a degree of influence on who held Munich, and would have continued to do so.... my best strategy, as far as I could tell, was to ally with Italy (who I'd just stabbed), and then Austria, and then Italy, etc, my allegiance shifting, from turn to turn, to whichever of the two happened to be weakest at the time, perhaps with the proviso that neither was to attack England. Ridiculous. Then the draw was offered....

England, with eight centers, and not in a great position to attack anyone (except perhaps me), was, I think, in much the same position. It seems to me that our best survival strategy was for each to continue to stand in defense of the other. In effect, our powers foreign policy might have constituted the basis of a stalemate as effectively as any line of units ever could.

Austria and Italy, I guess, realised all this. To pull a victory out of such a diplomatic mess would have been a nightmare.

So, why shouldn't any power involved be at liberty to pursue a draw, when continued aggression was likely to result in an ongoing stalemate, at best, or in elimination?

And no, Rait, I don't think that the nefarious activities of multi-accounters or meta-gamers are nobody else's business, and I fail to see the relevance here.

Interesting.

Alright, well looking at the game, I'm a little sorry that it has been drawn, because regardless of outcome, I'm sure it would have been intensely interesting to play to the end. Diplomatic chaos is intimidating, but it's truly the most interesting.

It's ridiculous to try to predict what would have happened had you not drawn, because the situation was far too complex to predict. I think that a solo win would be just as likely as a stalemate, in fact, I think it would be more likely. Obviously, the crux is that it's quite impossible to see who would take that solo win. I understand the reasons for the draw, but I still dislike the soft draw and would have preferred play to continue toward a solo win or a hard draw.

If we're playing very prudently, and for point profit only, rough mathematical expectations should be used... For example, in the simplest measures, the draw gave each player 1/4th of the pot, and a decision to continue on the solo win would require an individual player to believe they had at least a 1 in 4 chance at the full pot. In these simplest measures, if all players were equal in probability to win at one point, they should probably keep on playing, just as they would at the very start. Though at the start the probability is not quite equal... though that see Italy asking for a draw right off the bat. If there were any inequality in the player's chance to win, the one's with a higher chance should continue to play and gamble at a shot at the whole pot, with a higher mathematical expectation. So, in all cases, the game should continue until it can no longer continue (hard draw) or someone has won.

Of course, that was incredibly simplistic, and doesn't account the possibility of merely improving from a 4-way draw to a 3 or 2 way draw. But let's try extending this logic a little. Let's say the players decide they want to try to get a larger share of the pot by eliminating one player and getting a 3-way draw. If all players had an equal chance of being eliminated and being part of the draw, then they each have a 3/4 chance at 1/3 of the pot. This comes out to a mathematical expectation of 1/4, the same expectation for the 4-way draw. So if all is equal, there is no reason to necessarily end the game there, though no real reason to continue on either. However, far more likely, is that there is an imbalance between who would likely survive for the three-way draw, and who would not. In this case, the people more likely to survive would have a higher mathematical expectation from the pot if they continued to play, so they should.

I think it can be demonstrated in most cases that for any soft draw, that there is at least one player who has forfeited a superior mathematical expectation, though they may think they are slowly profiting, they are not playing the odds.

That sounds reasonable, but I really don't see how it relates to the situation in that game. The two minor powers had no hope of winning, as far as I can see. If Italy, a major power, had attempted to fight on, the minor powers alone could have crushed it (if numbers are anything to go by). If Austria, a major power, had attempted to fight on, it would have had to attack an Italy supported by the minor powers, and it would have been crushed. I simply don't see how it was in anybody's interest to continue that game. I can't see a viable strategy for anyone.

In any case, there is a big difference between

"the people more likely to survive would have a higher mathematical expectation from the pot if they continued to play, so they should"

and

"the people more likely to survive would have a higher mathematical expectation from the pot if they continued to play, so they MUST."

I'm damned if I'd play a game which requires me to fight on after all the fight has been kicked out of me....

See, I don't think that would have happened. You paint the picture as if nobody could have won that game if it had kept on going. Someone would have won it, in all likelihood, and they missed out on the chance. At the very least they could gamble for a lesser draw.

The point I was trying to make wasn't that soft draws should be banned. I was trying to make an empirical case for the irrationality of soft draws. I don't demand rationality from players, but I like to encourage it.

I think I've adequately shown that there is only an appearance of a safe profit in agreeing to a soft draw. The people who want a soft draw should be the ones that would have a greater mathematical expectation from obtaining their draw. And if they can convince their superiorly placed opponents to agree to a draw, than that's diplomacy in and of itself. I would argue that a large part of diplomacy is for rational players to convince less rational players that they should commit irrational actions, while giving the appearance of rationality.

I would also encourage you to fight on. It's your commitment to the game. Obviously, if you've had all the fight kicked out of you, you will probably do worse, and in addition to your material disadvantage I can see why you wanted the draw... but your lack of fight and material are someone else's opportunity, and it is to them that I say carry on.

A draw should occur when all units on the map hold. If it was an unfinalized CD on everyone's part, then I guess it wasn't interesting enough to keep going. But more interestingly, will the players be willing to risk not doing anything to get the draw. They can be supporting holds also. So long as no moves, convoys, or move supports occur.