I think le_4TC brought up some interesting issues in the below quoted posts
This is proposing a very different sort of objective, relative scoring (along with suggesting no eliminations) as opposed to the winner takes all type of objective that I’ve set out for this game. This is analogous to playing to maximize one’s score rather than to maximize one’s chance of winning in standard Go. There are far more distinct outcomes in such a game, since each possible integer for relative score is a distinct outcome. Further, by playing for relative score, a player might be happy to settle for a “strong second”, where they actually help another player secure the win, since they might judge that to be the best approach for securing the highest score for themselves. This introduces new considerations involving risk tolerance, since a player in a “strong second” position might not want to go for the win, since they fear that it could easily backfire and worsen their relative scoring position. Of course, in a winners take all perspective, settling for a strong second is only taking a loss with certainty, and hence players are incentivized to knock off the leader.
Of course, as a technical aside, it is unnecessary to shift the scores into negative numbers (setting the leader to 0). Counting the area score as normal, with eliminated players having 0 points, gives the same relative scoring effect.
In the game of Diplomacy, there is also some debate about what the objective of the game should be. In that community, the more serious players generally prefer the winner takes all mentality and disdain the “strong second” philosophy. On some websites, like webdiplomacy.net, there even used to be two types of game scoring available, “winner takes all” vs “points per supply center (PPSC)” (analogous to relative scoring). The PPSC system was eventually discontinued due to the unpopularity of the “strong second” effect.
I didn’t want to publicly respond to this rules suggestion, even in the other general variant thread, since perhaps @le_4TC is using such a suggestion to influence the strategic approach taken by other players. From a leading position, you would ideally want the other players happily to settle for a “strong second” and not challenge you, rather than taking a firm winner takes all mentality where they try to knock you off the hill.
This uncertainty about other player’s preferences and intentions (especially when they are in a weak position) is a very important aspect of Diplomacy. This type of uncertainty is an example of “incomplete information”, where the players don’t fully understand the others’ preferences, which may include all sorts of considerations for how all of the players finish the game.
As another aside, Diplomacy is also, of course, a game of “imperfect information”, since moves are kept secret until revealed and executed simultaneously. This aside is just me being pedantic in illustrating the difference between “imperfect” vs “incomplete” information.
Ultimately, the personal outcome of a game is not just the “win”, “draw”, or “loss” individually handed out to each player, but rather the collective joint results of all players. For example, one might be the type to hold a grudge, and hence have a preference for seeing one’s greatest rivals/betrayers also lose, and make moves toward that effect, even if one is not able to prevent one’s own loss. Some might even hold onto grudges so tightly that when they feel that there is only a slim chance of winning (and especially when this was caused by a painful betrayal), they will go so far as to further worsen their chance of winning while just focusing on maximally punishing those that hurt them. Such retaliation could be viewed as following through on a “non-credible threat”, but it certainly does happen quite often in regular Diplomacy, and is perhaps rational from the perspective of building a reputation as someone not worth betraying (in the context of repeated games).