Actually, I'm for enjoying the game - in all its diversity, with all its variants - and not obsessing over WTA vs PPSC.... what is "pure Diplomacy"... what is the strict definition of metagaming....

But when folks argue about "the goal of diplomacy is" and "whether going for an intentional 17 17 is 'right' or 'wrong" ....surely they are referencing "how the game was MEANT to be played". And if they want to make that the standard on which they judge the one and only true way Dip should be played...then surely the intent of the person who created the game...would be the driving piece of data in that argument.

Having said that, I agree, AC's quote didn't say "attack the highest rated player at the beginning of the game". And I don't actually do that - for me, it's much more about compatibility with a potential ally. BUT having said that....Any ultra-competitive player in Hearts or Cosmic or other games....tends to try to deal with and favor the less capable players...and target the best player...from hand one.... Is there any cut-throat Hearts player here that will tell me that when playing against a shark and two medium sized fish, they won't immediately target the shark, even if the two medium fish are a little bit ahead??

I generally, in Diplomacy, will join up with the most competent looking person in the short term. And I do similar things in Hearts. If I feel I can drop a bunch of points on anyone and make the game end while still pretty confident in my lead, I will. Because you don't want to be the nail that sticks its head up either.

You know the competent person is a danger to reverse the flow, so you mark him for it.

I don't really think it's a creator intent issue, I think it's more of...everybody likes to play the way they've always played and thinks their way is right.

@Indy - "Based on this, he would have supported not only ganging up on the current leader, but at the beginning of the game, when no one was ahead," - you seem to be drawing inferences where none exist

@Draugnar, regarding your first response, I did say "more than likely".

But regarding your second response, I have to disagree. If you are setting up a grand alliance and some putz doesn't do his part right, that's your fault too. When I'm trying to stop a solo I discuss with each other person what we need to do, down to the necessary moves. If I have to, I'll outright tell them what to do, but in a diplomatic way of course.

As an example, in what I believe was my last survive, we had a 5 way alliance against Italy. I was Russia. Austria was in Portugal and France had 4 or 5 centers. We had the stalemate and then Italy pulled back to give France the chance to take out Austria. But Italy moved back at the same time and France took out Austria yes, but broke the stalemate line in doing so and Italy won the next year. While I told France not to do it, I should have pointed out how to do it and not break the line if possible.

I was Russia and France fucked it up, but by my book, I fucked it up too. Don't give me any "it was someone else's fault" crap. I'm not buying.

In any case, this is just my opinion and is very different from what we have now so doesn't even really matter that much, take it for what you will.

Oh, and one more thing. Again with what I'm suggesting is not something to compare penis sizes. It is a raw measure of your experience. So if someone solos and you survive and it really was completely not your fault, tough. Play another game and you'll be fine.

I'm talking about the system only showing if you are an Apprentice (0-4 exp), Journeyman (5-19 exp), or Master (20+) or something like that. Just enough to tell if a person has experience playing here without telling you how bad or good they are.

A ratings system changes how the game is played, so I'd rather not have it at all. Points were meant to help with CDs, but there are other ways to deal with that, such as a no-NMR option.

Those who want number of completed games to form 'rank' - how would you feel if you'd already been playing Dip for years and years?

@Alderian - Sorry if I offended you. I can see your point of view, but I've had plenty of games were n00bs were convinced to give away the win because they didn't understand the rules and would hate to see someone take a hit for that. But you are right. If you take a little one point hit, so what.

Ironically, you're better off eliminated than surviving a solo...

@fig, I'd use charlesf as an example. He played PBEM for years, came here excited, and left presumably frustrated. Just because you've played for years elsewhere doesn't mean you'll be good or happy playing here. And look at the scale I suggested. It won't take long to get into a decent neighborhood.

@Draug, pfft, not offended at all, we're just having a fun little discussion here. Actually, I'm not even sure what I said that lead you to think I might have been offended. If you feel like mentioning it, feel free to PM, I'd rather not clutter it up here.

And yes, can't put too much blame on the first guy out for what happens after that. Granted someone may give the game away on their way out, but I'm not trying to be perfect, just trying to get a sense of a webdip player's webdip experience.

Although maybe just separating the PPSC and WTA game stats would do that well enough. Still leaves some people playing based on the rating system rather than just playing the damn game.

@Figle - That applies to a lot of things in life. I've been autocross racing for years but would still have to qualify for a rookie spot if I wanted to race in one of the historic classes at Watkin's Glen or something. It's the price of joining a community - you have to earn your stripes.