If there's a weighted system based on player experience, then if I play a game 2 times, then review the board, then play it 8 more times, and submit the same review, my review holds more water the second time around?

Seige07 wrote:

I have a feeling these weighted rankings are just going to skew the board ratings higher than they should be. The main part that is being missed is that if I like a board and rate it a 9, I'm likely to play it a lot more times and if I don't like a board and rate it a 2.

I can play a board once, figure out the perfect strategy, and decide I don't like the board. Maybe its due to design/gameplay/strategy....why should I have to play the board, a board I don't like, a dozen more times to make my rating count more.

I mentioned this earlier, although perhaps Seige had stated it more succinctly.

I suppose if a board is really bad and you want your panning vote to count, you could just bite the bullet, play it 5 times, and then vote a little lower for enduring all that pain and misery.

Edward Nygma wrote:

If there's a weighted system based on player experience, then if I play a game 2 times, then review the board, then play it 8 more times, and submit the same review, my review holds more water the second time around?

That's the idea...

Amidon37 wrote:

2 small suggestions -

1) Automatically include in the review the number of games a player has played on the board when they did their review.

e.g. "This review was made after completing X games on this board."

 

2) Include in a player's profile the boards that player has favorited.  Similarly could also include in the board description "Favorited by X people" with a link to a pop-up saying who those people were.

ok all discussions of rankings aside. Wouldn't number 2 be awesome!!! If you have a favorite board and you are having trouble filling a game or a tournament you could go and see who likes the board and invite them to the game/tourney. 

I think that would be great but I'm a little weird.

Seige07 wrote:

I have a feeling these weighted rankings are just going to skew the board ratings higher than they should be. The main part that is being missed is that if I like a board and rate it a 9, I'm likely to play it a lot more times and if I don't like a board and rate it a 2.

I wouldn't say that the grade inflation has been missed, because M57 and I both mentioned it. Although I agree it is undesirable, I think it will occur about equally across boards, so in terms of comparing boards it shouldn't wash out, and I think the positives of having these weightings is greater than the negatives of grade inflation.

Since the weighting system we have talked about caps out at 2x, you don't have to worry about one person having a huge disproportionate affect.

AdamN wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

2) Include in a player's profile the boards that player has favorited.  Similarly could also include in the board description "Favorited by X people" with a link to a pop-up saying who those people were.

ok all discussions of rankings aside. Wouldn't number 2 be awesome!!! If you have a favorite board and you are having trouble filling a game or a tournament you could go and see who likes the board and invite them to the game/tourney.

I think this is a great idea, for exactly the reason you stated.  Of course this person with the 'favorite' board is probably going to be pretty good at it, so you might be inviting someone to come kick your butt.

Ozyman wrote:

I think this is a great idea, for exactly the reason you stated.  Of course this person with the 'favorite' board is probably going to be pretty good at it, so you might be inviting someone to come kick your butt.

If they come then it's fine with me! I got some favorites that I have terrible records on.... wait I have terrible records on all the boards. ohh well!