And "Concedes" in a PPSC/SoS game, how's that?

Total Points / Total SCs owned (neutrals and abandoned positions don't count) = Points per SC.
Multiple Points per SC by SCs a nation owns and that is how many they get.

So Russia wins with 18
France CDed with 3 left
Portugal is still neutral
Italy has 12
Everyone else is eliminated

Pot was 20 per nation (140 total pot)

18 (Russia) + 12 (Italy) = 30
140/30 = 4.66 PPSC
12*4.66 = 56 for Italy

In theory 18*4.66 = 84 for Russia but in reality, I believe Russia is capped at half the pot to prevent winners from waiting and trying to maximize their point gains (say, a 5 SC grab at the end for a solo was possibly, Russia might have held off to get an extra 3 SCs of points or 15 more points). We don't want to encourage unsportsman like conduct by rewarding it with extra points.

I can't easily find anything in my game history to conclusively disprove that you don't get more points for an overrun, but you definitely get (centres/total owned) rather than a flat 50% for hitting the winning margin exactly.

@CCR - a concede only goes through if everyone but one does it, at which point the game defaults to WTA since everyone else is marked 'defeated' rather than the 'survived, x centres' required for points to be distributed in a PPSC game.

It may be that it gives you the minimum SCs needed for the win. But I do remember when Kestas laid it out that PPSC did not reward overruns for just that reason. At one time, it did and he changed it before vDip came along (back in the phpDip days).

Thanks you all for the replies. Specially YCHTT, it was really helpful!

PPSC only engages in the event of a victory (solo), which is a bizarre concept since the losers are rewarded with points for failure. What's worse is that PPSC seems to encourage some players to allow themselves to lose because they gain more points than trying to force a draw.

I agree with Ruff on the political aspects of PPSC. I was just explaining the mechanics. There have been far to many debates about strong seconds and what not and honestly, using the eating system is a better way to move up the ranks. I wish we would do away with points and just say "rated" or "unrated".

YCHTT has it nearly correct - in the event of a solo the winning player gets points equal to pot*victory condition/total SCs, then the remainder are split among surviving non-CD'd players according to their relative supply counts. If all other players are 'Defeated' (either by losing all SCs and units, or by voting to concede) then all points go to the soloing player.

RUFFHAUS also has it correct in that it's a really terrible system - if it was PPSC for draws too it *might* be justifiable in some variants, but since it only kicks in in the event of a solo, it actively encourages players who are doing well to throw the game, by rewarding them with more points for doing so.

So a concede awards as if it were WTA? Interesting...

Also - I recently picked up Calhamer's (the creator of Diplomacy) book, 'Calhamer on Diplomacy', which he self-published in 1999. In it, he specifically dismisses the notion that surviving to a solo should be rewarded.

http://imgur.com/q2LYJHy

Sorry its a bit blurry. I took a photo of it because that debate comes up regularly on webdip, and whenever I say Calhamer hated PPSC they always ask for a source. First time I've posted it here, though :)

I find the concept of a "second place" useful for tournaments, Face-to-Face and fast games where a solo or draw is unlikely or undesirable, but I think the best system is "Winner Takes All" in solos, and "Draw-Size" in draws where every surving power gets the same reward.

@Captainmeme, where did you get that book? It's like, 620 pounds on Amazon, and I couldn't find it online!

Is there a debate on reforming vDiplomacy's way of awarding points, or even replacing points altogether?

Man, I hadn't looked at the new Amazon prices for it... I got it from a different seller on Amazon (World of Books) second hand for just under £14. Looks like I got very lucky with that since I think it was their only copy.

The points system likely won't be changed anytime soon, since oli only just came back to the site and there are many higher priority issues. That doesn't mean everyone shouldn't debate it, though.

I like that WebDip got rid of PPSC entirely - it stops me from accidentally joining PPSC games there, like I keep doing here (through inattention)!

Well, AC's logic that the fallback stalemate position is between two players is flawed and demonstrably false. Any number of lesser players could be in the lesser deadlock/stalemate position holding back the winner.

Well, we have debated this since time immemorial. The basic flaw is that we have a point system online, whereas real original board Dip has no such thing. For my whole first 30 years of playing people played for pride to maintain as many centers as they could, knowing that inevitably after 7 hrs at 3 am there would be no "solo". The online game is much different, so we should be playing to prevent solos, yet we reward with points.

PPSC creates an incentive in direct conflict with the original intent of the game.

That said, if you join a PPSC and another player plays in accordance with that, you really should keep your shock and dismay to a minimum.

Strongly disagree with the assertion that draws should be adjudicated in any way other than entirely equally. If no-one actually managed to win, then no-one should be rewarded above any other who survived to force a draw.

...but then, I am also entirely fine with the current implementation of PPSC, and will by preference play them, since if you cannot win or force a draw, being acknowledged as placing second is nice.

What happens when a PPSC game has a maximum number of turns after which the game ends and a winner is declared, and someone wins not because he/she has got the number of target SC's, but simply because that player has the most supply centers after the maximum number of turns? Does the winner get pot*target SCs/total SCs or pot*SCs owned/total SCs? Here 'Target SC's' is the number of SCs you need to win the game immediately.

If I recall correctly, everyone else is auto-conceded if that happens, so all points would go to the player with the most SCs.

Wait, shoudn't it be the opposite?
PPSC is only ppsc in the case of solo? Else, it is draw size?? Weird weird weird.
PPSC should be ppsc in case of *no solo* and WTA in case of solo!

SoS is weird, your score depend on relative strenght of the others.
A solo in a 18x16 awards as much as a 17 in a 17x15x2x1.
And a 17 in a 17x6x4x3x2 awards 46% more points than both.
(WebDip did not get rid of this)

SoS is only SoS in the case of a draw. If there is a solo in SoS, the winner gets the whole pot.

Better; yet it is weird, and the example above is still valid:
a 17 in a 17x6x4x3x2 awards 46% more points than a 17 in a 17x15x2x1.

Mouse wants a medal for participating. How nice. And exactly what is wrong with today's youth. Not saying you are a youth, mouse. Just using this as an example.

A fix for PPSC to eliminate strong seconds would be to cap the total earned points of any non-winner at however many points they would have gotten in a draw. Then there is no incentive to play king maker for more points. Instead, give the excess points to the winner so all the strong second players work is given away. Then everyone who fought and made it to the end still gets a little something, but no one except the winner gets more than they would have made in a draw.

@CCR - that's because SoS gives you points in a draw based on how close you are to a solo. You're far more likely to win in a 17/6/4/3/2 than in a 17/15/2/1.

Rancher suggests that the online game is different. How novel. Yes it is. Men and women are different too, but they don't change the basic rules for soccer form them. A goal is a goal, one point. Two eleven player teams on the field with one ball. The team scoring the most goals wins.

We do not *have to* reward failure with points. Doing so is giving out participation trophies to all teams as we continue the soccer metaphor. Continuing to participate in this practice dumbs down the level of play.

Scuba is correct in noting that we should limit our shock when points are awarded for surrendering solos. However, I think much of that is because the PPSC model is not understood/explained properly. I've learned my lesson the hard way, and simply do not sign up for such games. The problem is that many do, and accordingly many play *only* PPSC games, and are not learning how to play, only how to lose profitably.

YCHTT has (sadly) trotted out the Retillion argument (against the game designer's explicit intent) that there is in fact a stalemate line that could in theory be set up to prevent a soloing player from reaching all 34 supply centers, but the reality is that this line could only realistically be established by if a player set that as his goal of the game. This argument is kinda of like explaining how a raven flew a few thousand miles in a few hours, but we should ignore it because it's fantasy.

What is lost in all of this debate is that the game was intentionally designed to create situations where former enemies are forced to set aside lies, stabs, betrayals, harsh words,etc. to stop a solo or everyone else loses. That is the the essence of Diplomacy. And if ever there was a time where we needed it more in this world, it is now.

Kumbaya.

Ruff gets it. I hate participation trophies. I also hate points in general. Play for pride. Just have ranked or unranked games for vRanking purposes and do away with points.

And actually, CapMeme's image from AC's book referenced that. I just pointed out that it was a flawed statement on Mr. C's part (that the lesser stalemate would be held by just one other player). The rules are, you win when you have a majority. I'm good with those rules. Anything else is a variant.

@Cpt.Meme - I put these numbers as stalemated end games.
This is a circular argument. It only happens because it is SoS. He's only closer to soloing because the other four guys may try to earn more points for their survival, and a potential loser may throw the game on the process; while in the other case the guy with 15 is more happy.

Well said; Kumbayya, My Lord!