Why

...

WTA is WAT, Points per is Points per.

Write first reply before posting :)

I was recently involved in a game, gameID=32768, in which I was convinced the rules needed to be changed. First, I want to stipulate that I am not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, on the contrary, I thought the tactics and strategy used were excellent. My problem has to do with the idea on what the goal in a WTA should be. You should be forced to strive to be the sole victor. That alone will change the nature of every negotiation. The 4-way alliance that occured in this game would not be possible if all the countries knew the knives would eventually have to come out. It would be more difficult, true, but that should not discourage anyone who believes they have any talent at this game.

My proposal is this; in a WTA if a draw occurs, survivors get their buy-in back and no more. That will eliminate any incentive to play for a draw because there will be no profit in it. This should be possible to program (I'm not a programmer so I'm guessing), because I've noticed that the buy-in ammount is tracked.

Clearly it looks like those four countries didn't care as much for a solo as they did staying together, which is a valid strategy, it just doesn't yield wins. I especially like the super convoys, that's real trust.

the problem with your proposal is what if there truly is a country who stabs and is on his way to a solo then the remaining countries are able to stalemate? By the way you said it the defending countries can't win anything from a Draw, but lose everything if someone solos.

It would be possible to program, but the result would probably be very small in terms of the way people play. In the Masters tournament we have a win-only point system and there have only been a handful of wins.

Having this as a WTA option has been brought up before, fairly recently. I see some merit in it. The main thing I see is people not going into the game looking for a safe path to a draw.

As for the Masters, perhaps we're too set in our ways. On the other hand, maybe it is because people drew because they knew if someone one that particular game, they would be hard to beat for the overall championship.

As far as someone getting ahead and the other countries banding together to draw, yes, this is exactly what should occur. This is what I meant by wins being more difficult. The probable path to victory would more often than not be a 2-way alliance with a stab in the end game. As far as the point difference being negligible, I'm not really concerned about that, I'm more interested in the spirit of the game being played. If people know that a draw will yeild no profit, they won't play for it until there is no hope of the solo. I think this would be a version that is truer to the original board game. Also, if you don't like the idea of a draw being meaningless, you don't have to play WTA. I think the change I proposed would have a huge impact on the way people played.

Why not set up a passworded game with your variant, instead of asking for code changes?

In other words, set up a WTA game. If the game stalemates, agree to cancel. This allows only a 'win' to profit, without penalizing anyone who forces the draw

This will meet your need without impacting anyone else.

If you cannot find six other people, that would indicate to me that your idea lacks a broad base of support

I didn't say that the payouts wouldn't be different, but that the way people played wouldn't be very different, as shown by the Masters tournament, where, in fact, the number of wins was exceptionally low.

The spirit of the question is, how can one change the payout system to incentivize going for wins and discourage conservative "draw play". In FIDE chess, they have experimented with (gone to?) giving 1.5 for wins and .5 for draws. This encourages players to gamble a bit more if the game is close, rather than playing to "not lose" to stay in the running for first.

So.... with that in mind, surely this creative group could come up with something that would move us from the current behavior, which I assume all believe is imperfect, to something closer to perfect?

I'll throw out the first example, but focus the energies on brainstorming better variants, not just beating up this straw man: If you are in a draw, you LOSE points. Or..a 5 player draw, lose 90% of your points, a 4 player draw, lose 60% of your points.... the concept being, you don't settle for a draw until there is no possible superior outcome.
Or...if it is argued that that is what the behavior is today, then....1st place gets 70% of the points, 2nd place gets 30% of the points (I know that's not WTA), but this means that it may be better to fight for 2nd than accept a 4 way draw... Just think about what behavior would be desirable...

That seems overly complex. A draw is the norm in Diplomacy if everyone is actually trying to win. A solo win is a rare and precious event. I don't think you should actually be penalized for not beating the 6:1 odds.

I think what Ghost is saying about the Masters is important. when someone gets close to a solo, everyone else bands together to stop them. so solos become more rare in such a scenario. the idea that ppl START with a set alliance in order to draw is meta-gaming and shoudl be punished if possible - but I think its very rare in the higher level games I've been playing... maybe in league games a bit but thats because there is a level of meta-gaming to be expected with a 4-game series.

long story short, I think the suggested alternative would not be superior to the current WTA option.

I don't think an alliance is metagaming at all. If the system rewards draws and you think that your greatest chance of a profit is trying for a draw, then going for that is just smart play. Look, I'm not trying to rock any boats, if you are happy with this format, great. All I'm saying is that it doesn't promote players trying to win.