@ Enriador -

My entire post was based around the idea that *obviously* the rulebook doesn't mention points, and thus cannot explicitly reward them (points or scores, whatever we want to call them).

I agree with you that "share equally in a draw" refers likely to that no one can be considered as having done "better" than another person in the draw, and that you all share the same "position" - that is, a draw. Doesn't matter if you have 17 SCs, or 1, ou're equal.

My point is that the rules as stated can easily be adapted to points will very little logical deduction. If you "share equally" in the draw and have the same "position" so to speak, then surely your reward for that should be the same - hence, equal points.

To me, Draw-Sized-Scoring isn't intuitive. What does it mean to a new player? Points are divided based on the size of the draw presumably. It doesn't imply if it's equally divided, or if the top SC getter gets more, and smaller powers get less, nor does it imply what happens if someone hits the VC.

And while "Rulebook scoring" admittedly isn't self-explanatory either, it ties in that the scoring is based on the original rules, and is the closest we can get to the original concept, given that we are using points instead of an abstract "victory" and "draw".

As I've said many times, I'd prefer using neither, and that every game stood alone as just win-draw-lose with no points, but that obviously isn't going to happen. Until then, acknowledging that the current WTA style scoring is as close as we can get to the original rules when we're using points by calling it "Rulebook Scoring" seems warranted to me.

Stongly disagree with any system that does not split draws equally (with the possible exception of turn restricted games, though that more comes down to what you call the end-state at turn length with no solo having occurred).

Compared to WTA/rulebook scoring, a draw split based on centres actively punishes smaller players who recognised a solo attempt and banded together to stop it, while rewarding those who defected and did the mininum to assist while whittling down those actually attempting to contribute to the game.

I can understand opposition to PPSC, but any arguments actually valid there for removal or alteration of the system (namely, those concerned about its impact on site culture effecting other games) apply equally to a system like the one proposed that perverts the intent of a draw (forced into it by a stalemate or a concerted effort to stop a solo) by actively encouraging infighting amongst those that should be cooperating to ensure they peg a result rather than a loss.

Sure, if people want such a system, let them play it, but *add* it to the options rather than remove PPSC as all that does is remove options while perpetuating the valid reasons to desire a change.


(as an aside, when it comes to naming, when I first saw 'DSS' I assumed the 'size' referred to number of centres you had when a draw was forced (ie. a draw that split scores based on centre count rather than equally) thus I would argue that calling it such is more likely to promote confusion than the alternate options).

Mouse, the scenario you present does occur, but it is rare, and you're making some wild leaps in suggesting that larger powers are oblivious to an impending solo. I do not disagree with your preference for WTA games. And in all candor I prefer to see draw rewarded equally regardless of center count. That option is still available, too. However, VDiplomacy is a variant community, and many of the variants have significantly more supply centers than the standard map, which in some respect increases the degree of accomplishment among finishers. VDiplomacy is alos very fixated on maintaining points and ratings, so this isn;t a bad way to go about awarding them. First of all no one is rewarded anything for losing now. Thats a huge improvement on it's own. Additionally I have seen the type of system nopun is describing implemented at previous Dip sites, and seen it work very well over several years of accumulated results.

All nations in a draw succeed in preventing a solo. This system merely proposes to reward it proportionately. There is no vehicle to quantify the specific importance of this behavior on the map. And sometimes it is the smallest nation left doing the most work, as you suggest, but not always. In my experience this type of scoring system will encourage players to explore diplomatic relationship with former enemies in an effort to stop the solo because they have tangible incentives to do so. It is not at all more likely to promote confusion. It is more likely to point players to the objective of the game, which is to solo while stopping others from soloing against you. The PPSC system was a perverted concept from the everyone gets a trophy school of thought.

To pick out a single point purely from lack of time in which to post extensively - 'well you can still play rulebook scoring games' is not an argument for swapping out a ranking system that distorts win-based results for one that distorts draw-based results. It is, rather, an argument to simply *add* the new system as a third option (4th if you count unranked) for people to customise how they wish to play the specific variant they select for that game.

I think I have to agree with mouse on this one. As terrible as PPSC is, I think it would be easier, if not better, to simply implement a fourth scoring system for people to choose from.

Mouse, Uber16, all. Do not forget ppsc itself must be fixed. As far as I understand, under the current system, it is only ppsc in the case of a solo result; otherwise the ppsc game grants equal points to all, effectively working as a DSS game. It is perverse because it turns to rational the following behaviour: players are rewarded allowing a solo while trying to get more SCs, *especially the larger powers*

So, I’m worried that this thread is devolving into a debate about whether all scoring systems should be held to the “all players share equally in the draw” standard, which was not my intention.

My hope was to bring vDip’s scoring and solo-determination code more into line with webDip’s. The term “Draw-Sized Scoring” (DSS), for instance, is not a term I made up on my own, but rather one that has existed (in one form or another) in the wider Diplomacy community for some time now. You will already see it on this site’s help page, which appears to have been hastily copied from webDip already. While vDip clearly has more variant development, the core code of this site largely relies on development updates from webDip. Until this site has a reliable team of developers, I highly suggest you keep its core systems as similar to webDip as possible.

Almost all of the changes to PPSC I described would be in line with that goal. Some additional work would be required to preserve a version of PPSC rather than solely implementing Sum-of-Squares scoring (the question of whose inclusion on this site should be handled separately, IMO).

As for having two versions of PPSC, that might be necessary at least in the short term simply to ensure games already-in-progress retain the status quo. However, it might not be possible to implement without some exceedingly messy hacks. Whether such backward compatibility can be cleanly implemented is therefore an unanswered question, so some other solution might be necessary (like modifying PPSC games currently in progress during the transition to be unrated instead).

Because this site is so dependent upon volunteer coding efforts, I must reiterate that keeping its core systems as similar to webDip’s as reasonably possible is currently the only sustainable path for future maintenance.

How did webDip handle the issue of current games in progress when they implemented these changes?

I’ve posted a thread on the Development forum on webDip to ask that question.

nopun - you did start the thread by saying "let's improve PPSC by making it into an unequal draw split instead", with no mention of the motivation being primarily to maintain ease of the codebase, so discussions as to the validity of the result of the proposed change should be somewhat expected...

If it's a purely codebase decision - well, I disagree, and would likely stop participating in PPSC games (a setting I currently enjoy from time to time for a 'lighter' game), but you have to do what you need to to keep the site running :/

That’s fair, Mouse. I guess I’m just surprised at finding people holding so tightly to equal-draw-sized scoring that aren’t also believers in winner-take-all scoring.

Update:
I'm unfortunately not going to be able to take on this project after all. I apologize for stirring up an argument over future development that someone else would have to take on.

I do think that this would be a good direction for your site and a good way to port over existing webDip code and then improving upon it.

I came here from webDip, because of the withdrawal of PPSC. I am no longer prepared to spend any more of what little remains of my life in restating the same arguments. I'm with mouse on this one. Not that anyone gives a shit, but you remove PPSC, you remove me.

Don't get me wrong, I think *adding* a draw split based on supply count would be a worthwhile feature (even if I only see a use for it in the case of the stated 'Change 2', as a method of more accurately recording the results of limited turn games). It's just that as a feature I would make minimal use of, I would strongly oppose it *replacing* a feature I do use and enjoy.

Oddly enough, in the UK a game was initially worth a point, with a draw splitting that point between all active survivors. Frankly, adaptations occurred to stats with the postal game, mainly because my very good friend Richard Sharp loved statistics and started recording performance stats based on the sum of all previous performances so that a win against successful players would carry an augmentation so that all players could be ranked.

But variants were never included because of the low populations and the lunacy of making a win in a rule complex variant equivalent to a relatively simple standard Diplomacy game. The one as much rewards comprehension of the rules as the other does diplomacy and strategy.

+0.5 mouse (rounds up :-) ) : this is a _simple_change that reverts the malefic effect of current ppsc. Though it should replace the old ppsc:
RESULT: POINTS OLD PPSC / "NEW" PPSC
Draw: survivors share equally (ugh) / share pro-pro-rata per SC (yeah)
Solo: survivors share pro-rata per sc (ugh!!!) / winner takes all (yeah!!!)

Why haven't it been done yet??

+1 Chumbles, with the notes above.

Yeah, no, draws being split unevenly is a strict downgrade. As noted, I wouldn't oppose it bring added as its own thing, as more options for people to play is good, but replacing something occasionally enjoyable with something that is only good (imo) for fixed length games only (again, imo) makes the site less enjoyable.

If CCR's view is 'done' I'm gone. finis

My impression about the way things actually work is: changes are made at Webdiplomacy, and then vDiplomacy makes the same changes, so that the two sites remain synced up. This would imply that the best place to debate changes would be Webdip.

Debating the merits of the best PPSC scoring systems is like debating what the best forms of Syphilis are.

I basically always play as if every game is WTA / DSS anyway. :P

@kingofswords, We already added a new scoring system at webdip a while ago and then PPSC was turned off. It would be very easy for that new scoring system Draw Sized Scoring which is very close to the changes people are proposing, to be brought over here without turning PPSC off.

@jmo - Ah, well, in that case, it is worth discussing here. I personally don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but some folks obviously care a great deal about exactly which options are available.

I just play every game because I enjoy it. I don't give a shit about points and ratings. In my actual opinion this whole discussion is pointless.

nopunin10did:

"Moreover, draw-size-scoring, wherein different amounts of points are allocated based on the size of the draw, is itself a variant (since the rules provide no guidance whatsoever on points)."

The rules do provide guidance: "all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally in a draw." These instructions tell you exactly how to divide winnings in the event of a draw. PPSC and WTA scoring systems follow these instructions. Sum of Squares does not.

"Instead of arguing what is and isn't in the rulebook, is there some aspect of PPSC's current implementation that you actually enjoy today?"

Yes. Not that I have much time to play or even check this Forum today, but I have spoken ad nauseam about this for years. A major one is encouraging players to take over positions without flushing their points down the drain. PPSC provides a fair points system to judge performance from the point you take over a position. Another major one is actually encouraging players to play for the win rather than enter draw votes in the mid-game. With WTA scoring, players act like big chickens with thick plumage. I've been very disappointed with the quality of play in several games that would have been much more interesting had my opponents actually tried to win the game.

nopunin10did:

"I guess I’m just surprised at finding people holding so tightly to equal-draw-sized scoring that aren’t also believers in winner-take-all scoring."

Were you sleeping when we were having these debates over on webDip?

First forum post, only played a few games so far on this site.

I was a few turns away from solo-ing in a PPSC game when I learned by word of mouth that solos only get their fraction of the points. This seems non-nonsensical to me.(I think a solo should be awarded all the points, because in a solo all other players lose equally).

I stayed on to solo anyway, but really, from a site-status (i.e. multi-game) scoring perspective, what is the incentive to solo, or more importantly, what is the incentive to cooperate to prevent a solo?

#2 leading center-count guy may be more eager for the solo to happen (before he loses dots) than the ultimate soloist (who is perversely incentivized to hold off on reaching the solo until he can maximize his last-turn sc-grab above and beyond required for solo.)

The standard for games is to have WTA (winner takes all) instead of PPSC. In that case, the winner gets all the points. On a sidenote, who really still cares about those points since we've got the vdip scoring system?

FuryOfThe Northmen:
1. The incentive is that you get more points if you solo.
2. Last-turn SC grabs do not translate into extra points. The winning player will always get the same share of the pot no matter how many SC's the winner ends the game with (unless, of course, no other players remain on the board). If you notice that the math didn't come out that way, put in a bug request.