Relative Merits of Scoring Systems

[NoPunIn10Did]

This is sure to open up a can of worms, but here we go!

What do you consider the positives and negatives of different Diplomacy scoring systems?

A few examples to chew on:

1. Draw-Size Scoring (DSS)
   
   1. This is what PlayDiplomacy uses (prior to any Elo adjustments).
   2. The two players in a 2-way receive 1/2 the points.
   3. The three players in a 2-way receive 1/3 the points.
   4. The four players in a 4-way receive 1/4 of the points.
   5. et cetera
   6. A solo is winner-take-all (plus a bonus on PlayDip, though that's not always standard for DSS).
   7. When used in tournaments, center count is sometimes used to calculate a tiebreaker (as with the PDET).
2. Center Count-Based Scoring (Example: Sum of Squares)
   
   1. In Sum-of-Squares, a solo is winner-take-all.
   2. In a draw, players receive a portion of points equal to the square of their own SC count (n) divided by the sum of all players' squared SC counts
   3. i.e. (n^2) / (F^2 + R^2 + I^2 + G^2 + A^2 + T^2 + E^2)
3. Rank-Based Scoring (Example: Carnage)
   
   1. Carnage has become popular in North American face-to-face tournaments.
   2. There are 28034 points at stake.
   3. A solo is winner-take-all (28034 for the winner, 0 for everyone else).
   4. If a game ends in a draw, players are ranked according to SC count and year-of-elimination.
   5. Scores:
      1. 1st rank: 7000
      2. 2nd rank: 6000
      3. 3rd rank: 5000
      4. 4th rank: 4000
      5. 5th rank: 3000
      6. 6th rank: 2000
      7. 7th rank: 1000
   6. Ties for the same rank split all applicable values (e.g. two players tied for 1st would get 6500 each).
   7. Each player also gets 1 points per SC held (effectively a tiebreaker value)
4. Hybrid Scoring Systems
   
   1. Dixiecon - Blends draw size, center count, and rank, solos are not winner-take-all
   2. C-Diplo - Blends center count and rank, popular in European tournaments

[NoPunIn10Did]

A few short thoughts of my own:

Draw-Size Scoring

• Positives:
  
  • Admittedly, it's the scoring method that best models the standard rules for a single game of Dip (though it is still a type of variant).
  • It provides strong incentive for smaller powers to insert themselves into the stalemate line.
• Negatives:
  
  • It works poorly in an environment where time limits apply.
  • It encourages player elimination for its own sake (draw-whittling).

Rank-Based Scoring

• Positives:
  
  • It provides a dynamic risk/reward conundrum for the endgame of players forcing the draw in an Anti-Leader Alliance.
  • It works well whether or not a game has a defined time limit (either years or real time).
  • Players are not substantially rewarded for draw-whittling.
• Negatives:
  
  • It admittedly breaks the "all surviving players share equally in a draw" rule from the original rules.
  • Eliminated players' scores depend on an outcome they no longer have any influence over.

[jay65536]

There's a bunch of discussion about this already, here: https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/vie ... 31&t=56617

[NoPunIn10Did]

There's a bunch of discussion about this already, here: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=56617

Thanks for pointing me to that. It would seem that it's >4 months old since the last reply there.

[Don Juan of Austria]

This is sure to open up a can of worms, but...

No "buts"

[V]

I think the scoring system used & recently improved by Super-Dipsy on PlayDip is just great. To be honest any other scoring system is totally irrelevant in my opinion, simply because we don’t use it (whatever it’s hypothetical merits).

[NoPunIn10Did]

I think the scoring system used & recently improved by Super-Dipsy on PlayDip is just great. To be honest any other scoring system is totally irrelevant in my opinion, simply because we don’t use it (whatever it’s hypothetical merits).

I think you’re confusing scoring system with rating system. The PlayDip Elo-based rating system, which Dipsy recently made upgrades to, could be used on top of other scoring systems on a per-game basis. At this time, that’s not the case.

[V]

I think the scoring system used & recently improved by Super-Dipsy on PlayDip is just great. To be honest any other scoring system is totally irrelevant in my opinion, simply because we don’t use it (whatever it’s hypothetical merits).

I think you’re confusing scoring system with rating system. The PlayDip Elo-based rating system, which Dipsy recently made upgrades to, could be used on top of other scoring systems on a per-game basis. At this time, that’s not the case.

In which case I not only like the rating system, but also whatever scoring system we use already, on the basis again that they are relevant & others are not (because we aren’t using them).
This rehashed debate (euphemistically called a “can of worms”) is dull, so I thought my contribution would be to point that out.

[NoPunIn10Did]

I think the scoring system used & recently improved by Super-Dipsy on PlayDip is just great. To be honest any other scoring system is totally irrelevant in my opinion, simply because we don’t use it (whatever it’s hypothetical merits).

I think you’re confusing scoring system with rating system. The PlayDip Elo-based rating system, which Dipsy recently made upgrades to, could be used on top of other scoring systems on a per-game basis. At this time, that’s not the case.

In which case I not only like the rating system, but also whatever scoring system we use already, on the basis again that they are relevant & others are not (because we aren’t using them).
This rehashed debate (euphemistically called a “can of worms”) is dull, so I thought my contribution would be to point that out.

Considering that we could hypothetically use an alternate system in the future, I don’t find other systems dull or irrelevant at all.

I’d personally like to see an individual game’s scoring system become an option upon game creation, much as it is over at webDip or vDip, with our Elo rating system used on top.

[Custer]

I don't care bout webdip, vdip, or any other dips.......get off my lawn......

The SHIV