In WTA, survives mean nothing
In PPSC, survives do give stuff. but draws are better.

Nearly everyone in the community hate those who play for strong survivrs

Technically in PPSC a strong second with 12 or more SCs is better than a three way draw and that is why I hate PPSC because a survive should never be worth more than a draw.

I wasn't aware of the exact formula for that, thanks Draug.

Don't play for a strong survive

I agree with Draugnar. PPSC affects the game in a negative way, some people are happy standing by and let another player win as long as they get points. According to the rules as written for the boardgame (2.ed anyway, wich is the one I have) there are no second place in Diplomacy, it makes no distinction between having 16 sc or being eliminated, there is one winner and the other six have lost.

But how does a draw/survive/win effect the Player Rank (the 657/1000 players thing)

I havent played any Winner Take All games. I assume a Draw would work the same in terms of splitting the points?

The ranking is based on how many points you have. If you play by points, you do what gets you more points.

Diplomacy is the same as NASCAR. If you ain't first, you're last.

@dyager - That rank is based on points. If it affects points, it affects that rank.

And yes, a draw is an even slpit amongst wll the drawees (I like to call them survivors without a winner).

Well damn, Winner Take All seems to be a way better format to play because the other method really rewards mediocrity.

It is. And when you win WTA you get a lot more points as well!

Surely playing to get yourself the most points possible out of the game is the only sensible way of playing. Therefore in WTA playing for a draw is the most sensible way to play it but it PPSC a survive may or may not be better than a draw (i.e if you have under 12 centres you should try to play for a 3-way draw rather than a survive). If everyone played in order to win the most points they possibly could I believe that is best for everyone. If people are going to moan about people going for survives in PPSC then just don't play them, play WTA instead, that is a game that is surely more suited to the "draw is more noble than survive" attitude.

Indeed. Now that I understand the broken system WTA is the only sensible game for competitive people to play.
Noone would watch a sports game where losing a game by 1 point counted for more than a tie after double overtime.

Course, if you suck I could see why one would prefer the "second place is great" method. I suspect that person was also very proud of his "participation ribbon" on field day as well.

"Course, if you suck I could see why one would prefer the "second place is great" method. I suspect that person was also very proud of his "participation ribbon" on field day as well. " - QFT and a big +1!

"Course, if you suck I could see why one would prefer the "second place is great" method. I suspect that person was also very proud of his "participation ribbon" on field day as well. "

Or those who suck can constantly play WTA in the vain hopes you will get something, like me ;p

@DW - If you are playing and *losing* at WTA, then you should play for the draw while still hoping to sneak in a back door solo, but everyone shoudl start a WTA game playing for the win. IT's the most points possible after all. People who play WTA for a draw from the start are as bad as PPSC players satisfied and playing with a strong second, never trying to win.

That said: gameID=113023

I was filling in for a banned player (banned before it ever got started so all my solo). If you find yourself in a PPSC game, use that strong second then stab them for the solo. That was a text book game. When I saw my opponent about to hit 17 before me, I stabbed so I was still on top and took it to the end, sacrificing an SC for position in the end game then taking it back for the win.

I've also never played a WTA game. Is there a drawback to it in that if a player looks unlikely to win, he'll start playing specifically to force a draw? As opposed to PPSC where he might continue trying to win, but if he fails he'll at least still get a decent number of points by surviving?

In WTA, people are more likely to form a statlemate to stop a solo. I wouldn't call it a drawback, though

I am apparently the only person that thinks playing for a strong second is completely legitimate. Anyone that doesn't want to play for a strong second in an appropriate situation should only play WTA.

A victory in winner take all only comes from the "others" not knowing what is going on. In my view, WTA games are never won, only lost. I prefer a game that can be won as opposed to "lost".

For the record, I am hyper competitive to a fault. I just think that the alliances and agreements are more interesting in a PPSC game than in a "lets all gang up on the guy going for the solo... whoops, someone missed a turn we lost" WTA game.

Seriously, why wouldn't anyone adjust their game to the rules? Doing otherwise isn't being competitive, just stupid.

Also, if everyone hates Strong Survives, why doesn't everyone play WTA. Seems to be a lot of PPSC games for a site where everyone hates that style of play.

So you prefer to not win? WTA games are "won" when you solo, or maybe when you draw (not getting into that debate, Draugnar)

And two people banding together against everyone else with an unbreakable alliance is more fun than stopping a solo?

Most of the forum hates PPSC, noobs play PPSC because it is the default option

"Seriously, why wouldn't anyone adjust their game to the rules?"

Because the rules of the game are "There can be only one" (to borrow a phrase). The game as designed was one winner and 6 losers. No points for second place. The point system here has corrupted the game in many different ways. Arguably, both WTA and PPSC are variants because there are no points in Diplomacy, the board game.

Points are the worst thing to happen to this website. PPSC is the second worst.

Amen, abge. I would love to see points done away with now that we have passwordable games.

So is your rank based solely on the number of points you have? So for example, someone who had won lots of games that weren't worth any points would have a lower rank than someone who won one game that was worth 500 , even if he'd lost 20 other games worth 5 ? Do people care about rank, or number of points? Or both? Or neither?

The official rank is based on number of available points and fluctuates wildly even amongst the high point holders as they get into high stakes games. But we have an unofficial rating amd ranking system called Ghost Rating (GR) named after its developer, Ghostmaker at tournaments.webdiplomacy.net and all games are equal in the eyes of GR. Your contribution is based on your current GR so that higher ranked players contribute more to each game. It is based around chess's Elo? system.

And yes, some players care about points and some about GR and it ruins the purity of the game.