Currently, these games count quite high on the HoF rating schedule. For example, on my list I appear to lose nine point whenever I lose a 1v1 while I win only 5 if I win a 1v1.

Secondly, I also feel as though these two games are nothing alike. To me, ranking 1v1 games and other diplomacy games on the same schedule is like including a person's Phys. Ed. grade into their Chemistry grade - apples and oranges kinda deal.

I am wondering if others have this same opinion. So long as I am attempting to get my rating back where I believe it belongs, it is doubtful I will waste my energy on 1v1s despite quite enjoying that challenge.

In addition to the above, we have capped the betting in 1v1 games to 1 per player. Perhaps this type of compromise may allow the new rating schedule to be more accurate.

I don't frequent 1v1 games, as I have the same opinion that it's not really "diplomacy" at all. In my opinion they are more akin to Chess or Checkers then diplomacy since there is absolutely no communication/cooperation or intent of communication like in gunboat games, between other players. They shouldn't be factored into the rating system or perhaps should have their own rating system.

@ Jimbozig : I fully agree with you ! As a matter of fact, I have already said that several times in the discussion about the new ranking system. I am very glad that you too agree with that point !

A 1v1 game has no diplomacy at all !

1v1 games already are weighed less than larger games. A 7 player game is broken down into 6 1v1 matchups. So, it is worth 6 times more than a 1v1. They are also weighed according to how much better one player is than the other.

In my last 2 games, I won a 1v1 and gained 2 , but the other one I survived a 7 player game, and lost 54 . This demonstrates both the greater weight for a multiplayer game, and the fact that I was expected to do better in both games.

I actually looked into my stats a little bit more. A very rough tally (I might have missed the odd game) is that I have won 46 1v1s and lost 54 1v1s.This has netted a score of (114) on my HoF rating. I still think this is weighted too high.

As a further note,I appreciate that the HoF is in a table format on the website so it is easily copied into Excel.

You also picked up 191 HoF Rating from a single win in your last game.

1- 7 player game=191 HoF
100- 2 player games=114 HoF

That doesn't sound like it is too heavily weighted to me.

Also, the 7 player game was gunboat. So there was no diplomacy in it either.

If that is truly your opinion of gunboats the community thanks you for not playing in them ;-)

What do you mean? I play gunboats.

Sorry, I just assumed....

What I mean is that your statement that there is not diplomacy is gunboats is simply untrue. Diplomacy is about deal-making, relationships, communicating intents and reading other people. All of this occurs in gunboat games, just there is only one medium in this variant (compared to three, for instance, in Grey Press).

My implication was that players who do not see these qualities of the variant are a hindrance to great gunboat games.

Without words, there is no deal-making. There is only presumed deals.
Relationships are unsubstantiated and tenuous, without words.
Communicating intent is uncertain and limited, without words.
Reading other people... well that comes into play even in 1v1 games.

Of course, it is important to try to figure out why someone support held someone else. And it is important to know when to stop attacking, and supporting your neighbor. But, to call that diplomacy is not really giving adequate credit to what true diplomacy is about.

@Devonian - I disagree. Without words, there is no lying, NOT no dealmaking. There are ONLY deals, not presumed deals. To not understand this is to short change gunboat. Just because you don't like it, there is no reason to put it down.

Disclaimer: I am not a gunboater.

That said, looking at it as a neutral outsider, I cannot see how anyone disagrees with Devonian. Without words, it is impossible for there to be a deal. One party might BELIEVE there is a deal, but without speaking to the other side, there is no way to know whether a deal has been struck. Perhaps jimgov or jimbozig would care to explain how you know a deal has been made and not that you're just assuming a deal has been made?

@drano - By opening with a disclaimer that you don't play gunboat, you can't then jump into what actually happens in gunboat. You just don't know, which is OK. But, it doesn't give you any insight into gunboat. I am playing in a game on another site (I'll be deliberately vague) and am in a duel with a neighbor. Meanwhile, another country is starting to gain on the field. Not far enough ahead to be in immanent danger of a solo, but cruising past 10 SCs. While I am defending myself against my neighbor, he suddenly orders his units to hold me and retreats his nearest fleet. I immediately turn my complete attention to the real threat and leave just a few units on the border. We both are now holding for each other and fighting the real threat. Diplomacy happened. We both understood the situation. He made his intentions clear. I responded. THAT is how diplomacy happens in gunboat. Or at least one example of it.

And as for presuming a deal has been made...in Diplomacy? You mean because someone tells you that they are your ally that they really are? Actions speak louder than words. I am not saying that gunboat is superior to traditional Dip. It's not. But it is not some sort of bastardized game for idiots. Give it a try. Not just one game. Get in a few with some good gunboat players. Then let me know how you feel.

Gunboat vs. Full Press should probably have its own thread, to continue discussion without derailing the thread. I'll go start one :)