Page 7 of 11

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 13 Nov 2010, 15:04
by AndyCooke
If we adopt DIAS, I'd suggest that 2-player draws get more recognition than other draws - as they have to be 17-17. We might describe that as a "tie" and view it better than a draw.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 13 Nov 2010, 17:09
by echotwo
AndyCooke wrote:If we adopt DIAS, I'd suggest that 2-player draws get more recognition than other draws - as they have to be 17-17. We might describe that as a "tie" and view it better than a draw.


Andy, you've missed out the (IMO non-existent) logical step between 'they have to be 17-17' and 'they should get more recognition'.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 14 Nov 2010, 00:54
by AndyCooke
echotwo wrote:
AndyCooke wrote:If we adopt DIAS, I'd suggest that 2-player draws get more recognition than other draws - as they have to be 17-17. We might describe that as a "tie" and view it better than a draw.


Andy, you've missed out the (IMO non-existent) logical step between 'they have to be 17-17' and 'they should get more recognition'.


There are many possible permutations of centres between players in a 3-way draw. In a 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) there is but one: 17 SCs each.

A 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) is therefore more difficult and should be far rarer. To get there, you have to extinguish all other players and manage to stop another player who was in spitting distance of a solo. A 3-way draw can fall out that each player was a fair way off of a solo, and could therefore be more easily negotiated between the players. A 2-way draw in a DIAS game would provide colossal incentive to stab for the solo (just one more centre and far greater opportunity. If you've managed to prevent your lone opponent from doing so, you've pulled off a feat.

So eliminating players down to 3 is one thing. Whittling them from there down is far more difficult, and if you stop the solo-run of another player right at the absolute final gasp, alone, you deserve more recognition than a multi-player draw. In my opinion, of course. Odds are that a 2-way draw (under DIAS) should be the rarest outcome (far rarer than 3,4,5-way draws, and rarer than solos).

(Incidentally, would we restrict the maximum number of draw survivors? That is, you cannot propose a draw with more than x number of players left in the game? Or would we allow 7-way draws?

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 14 Nov 2010, 13:21
by bb82
With using the rules of the game, i.e. DIAS, getting a 2-way is nothing to brag about. It is extremely rare and if you get one, it is usually because you were whittling without any regard to getting into position to solo or that you had an 'unbreakable' alliance. Both of which are contrary to the primary goal of the game.

I would feel worse with getting a 2-way than with getting a 3-way.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 14 Nov 2010, 14:33
by QueenOfHearts
bb82 wrote:With using the rules of the game, i.e. DIAS, getting a 2-way is nothing to brag about. It is extremely rare and if you get one, it is usually because you were whittling without any regard to getting into position to solo or that you had an 'unbreakable' alliance. Both of which are contrary to the primary goal of the game.

I would feel worse with getting a 2-way than with getting a 3-way.

I would disagree with this bb.

IF you are whittling, then certainly, that would bring no satisfaction. But there are some legit instances where a 17-17 draws are achieved. For instance, what if you get lucky on a lot of things, and then it's just a race to the stalemate line, seeing that the other superpower is doing the same thing?

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 14 Nov 2010, 14:55
by bb82
QueenOfHearts wrote:But there are some legit instances where a 17-17 draws are achieved. For instance, what if you get lucky on a lot of things, and then it's just a race to the stalemate line, seeing that the other superpower is doing the same thing?


I'm not saying it isn't possible. But I am saying it usually happens because someone isn't 'playing' the game with the primary goal to solo. In the situation you describe there would usually be another nation that is holding on to some critical territory, hence a bigger draw than a 2-way.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 14 Nov 2010, 15:12
by echotwo
QueenOfHearts wrote:
bb82 wrote:With using the rules of the game, i.e. DIAS, getting a 2-way is nothing to brag about. It is extremely rare and if you get one, it is usually because you were whittling without any regard to getting into position to solo or that you had an 'unbreakable' alliance. Both of which are contrary to the primary goal of the game.

I would feel worse with getting a 2-way than with getting a 3-way.

I would disagree with this bb.

IF you are whittling, then certainly, that would bring no satisfaction. But there are some legit instances where a 17-17 draws are achieved. For instance, what if you get lucky on a lot of things, and then it's just a race to the stalemate line, seeing that the other superpower is doing the same thing?


The problem is that it's in fact the opposite of what QoH says. If you're whittling, then the result (you've achieved what you've set out to achieve, after all) brings considerable satisfaction. If you're playing for the win, then a 17-17 stalemate is deeply frustrating and disappointing.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 14 Nov 2010, 21:06
by raphtown
I think it would be helpful if someone could sum up the various points made here and what is or is not disagreed upon. I for one am a little confused at this point by all the differing ideas/opinions.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 08:49
by Ceebs
It can happen that 17-17 draws come about naturally with both parties trying their damnedest to solo the whole time. This was the case in one game i had i while back (19542).

While it is true that this was considerably more difficult to get than a 3-way, making the 2-way work proportionately more would detract from the relative value of a solo and give players the incentive to collude in whittling draws down from 3 to 2.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 16:12
by echotwo
AndyCooke wrote:There are many possible permutations of centres between players in a 3-way draw. In a 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) there is but one: 17 SCs each.

A 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) is therefore more difficult and should be far rarer. To get there, you have to extinguish all other players and manage to stop another player who was in spitting distance of a solo. A 3-way draw can fall out that each player was a fair way off of a solo, and could therefore be more easily negotiated between the players. A 2-way draw in a DIAS game would provide colossal incentive to stab for the solo (just one more centre and far greater opportunity. If you've managed to prevent your lone opponent from doing so, you've pulled off a feat.


If you want to argue based on rareness, one could say that a 17-12-1-1-1-1-1 split is even rarer than a 17-17 split, but I don't think it should be more highly rewarded. Similarly, there are plenty of things that are more difficult. Germany taking Tunis, for example, or Smyrna. England taking Sevastopol or Serbia. Austria taking Liverpool or Norway.

More to the point, a 2-way draw can very easily be negotiated by the players, if that's what they're aiming at. It happens all the time on this site. Similarly, I don't think it's particularly relevant that in a 3-way draw it's possible that 'each player was a fair way off of a solo'. If you've got a (genuine) two-way draw, you're in a situation where neither player has any chance at a solo, beyond the 'tactic' of waiting for someone else to NMR. You're not 'closer' by virtue of being on 17, if you've got a single player (or indeed alliance) that can hold the other 17 dots against you. A draw with a high SC-count means that you're accepting that you're not going to get to 18.