So I've been playing a lot of iPhone chess lately.  One of the cool features there is you can create a "challenge" (open game) where you can specify the highest/lowest rank you're willing to play.

I just thought it might be an interesting addition to WG.  Here are a couple scenarios I've seen this being a help to:

1.  JimBob the newb wants to try out Five.  Mongrel (not the predatory type, I know) joins up and shoots for an easy win.  Wouldn't it be nice for JimBob to set the ranking cap at 1000 or 1100 to play other wg'ers more at his skill level?

2.  Other side of the coin.  Let's say a player is toward the top of the charts.  Some might be more inclined to start up a game with higher ranked players, so there's less skin on the table. (Especially in 2 player games like 5, when a loss to an 800 rank can be devastating.)

I have no idea how hard this would be to implement, it's just a brainstorm I had.

I like this ides. 

People are going to have a problem with how this intersects with public games, and the rankings that go with them.

But, this would be a very cool add-on for the public, non-ranked games idea that gets brought up from time to time.

good add

Amidon37 wrote:

People are going to have a problem with how this intersects with public games, and the rankings that go with them.

What is the problem with the rankings?  Is it just someone setting the caps low so that they have easy pickings?

How about if instead of allowing arbitrary rank boundaries, you can instead only select: "only allow people within N ranking points of me to join this game".  Maybe N is 100 or 150 or something.

How about if instead of allowing arbitrary rank boundaries, you can instead only select: "only allow people within N ranking points of me to join this game".  Maybe N is 100 or 150 or something.

Yeah this would work, that way there could be a set deviance to prevent foul play. 

i thought this came up awhile back and was subsequently shot down?

That's true WT. You can read this one for example http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1078p1/Unjust_Ranking_Calculation

Good post Chogyam. You have my full support.

Toto wrote:

That's true WT. You can read this one for example http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1078p1/Unjust_Ranking_Calculation

Good post Chogyam. You have my full support.

 

 

Chogyam's suggestion would also help with the thread topic Toto posted.  Cap the ranking of the opponent, and there is inherently a cap on the number of points lost/gained.

I still disagree with players having the ability to filter out who they play against, at least in Ranked games.  I really think it's a bad idea.

Yertle wrote:

I still disagree with players having the ability to filter out who they play against, at least in Ranked games.  I really think it's a bad idea.

I guess I'm at a loss for the biggest reasons for concern.  

Top ranked players only play within their own rank, and so are tougher to take down? Would that be your main issue?

I just can't really think of any competitive arenas where there is no ladder or brackets to split up the ranks.

**Also, I'm not saying 'do away with open challenges'.  I just thought it might be a nice additional feature. 

I have some reservations about the idea but I think it should ONLY be used for non-ranked games. We can make those games right now by inviting a few friends and then leaving it open to other also. You would just be adding a filter for who sees the open non-ranked game.

Like I said not my favorite idea but certainly I am totally against it for ranked games. 

I like keeping it for the non-ranked public games like Amidon37 suggested, if/when they show up.  

I'm also not trying to shake anybody's tree here... but what are these reservations? What is the nightmare scenario?

Chogyam wrote:

I like keeping it for the non-ranked public games like Amidon37 suggested, if/when they show up.  

I'm also not trying to shake anybody's tree here... but what are these reservations? What is the nightmare scenario?

Nightmare scenario would be players who never made it out of their "ranking band." 

But with +/- % of pts. filters, your band would move along with you (there would be no "absolute" ranking band for players).

One impact of this change is that the huge ranking swings would stop.  Especially for those maps highly dependent on luck/starting position vs. skill, you wouldn't see cases of low-ranked players taking out the high-ranked players.

Poll the top 25 ranked players, and I'm sure most will tell you they avoid games with very low ranked players for these types of boards.

With a game like Chess I totally see the point of ranking caps - it's a deterministic 100% skill game. A top ranked player will beat an amateur 100% of the time But with a strongly luck biased game like Risk even the worst player will get a win every now and then.

I have seen this done informally on other sites where the host would put a note in the game title.  " + / - 200 ranking points please" or something like that.   

I am not sure where I stand on the issue about limiting opponents for public games.  On one-hand I can understand a highly ranked player not wanting to loose a bunch of points playing a low rated player who gets incredibly lucky.  But it seems somehow.... hmmm...just not quite right.  I will have to think about it more and read what others say.

Most of the discussion seems to revolve around the high ranked players, but I think the real benefit here is for new players, or people that just aren't that good. 

Expanding on the idea of a band of points - I don't know what the distribution of rank points is, but assuming they are bunched up around 1000, a more usable bound might be something like:

+/-  (100 + abs(X - 1000)*.25)  (where X is the host's rank points).

A host with 1000 points would allow players between 900-1100 to join, but  a host at 1400 points would allow players from 1200-1600 to join.   And a host with 600 points would allow players from 400 to 800 to join.

Personally I think if we had enough players to support it, this should be the default, and players should have to check a box to have an 'open' game that anyone could join.  I just think it would make for more fun games for everyone involved to play against people that are around the same skill level as you.

SquintGnome wrote:

I have seen this done informally on other sites where the host would put a note in the game title.  " + / - 200 ranking points please" or something like that.   

I am not sure where I stand on the issue about limiting opponents for public games.  On one-hand I can understand a highly ranked player not wanting to loose a bunch of points playing a low rated player who gets incredibly lucky.  But it seems somehow.... hmmm...just not quite right.  I will have to think about it more and read what others say.

With the current system, it seems the best strategy (not saying I do this) for new boards would be:

1) Play a bunch of tourney games/private games to get really good at a map.

2) With the in-going board ranking of 1000, play against the highest-ranked opponent possible for maximum potential points and minimum potential loss.  Thus a good player at a new board could potentially reach the top ranks in very few games.

Ranking caps would make this a non-factor and essentially regulate the ranking climb.

EDIT:  All the above, is for better or for worse

My vote. 

I agree that I like this idea for open non-ranked games as these games are just for fun and I can see that it might be more enjoyable for some players to play against opponents that are roughly at their same skill level.

With that said, I also think that in general it is not a good idea to only play opponents that are at your skill level.  If you are not seeing alternative tactics and strategies it is pretty hard to improve.  I would also suggest that many of the best players on the site are willing to suggest general strategies and such to other players to improve the competitiveness of their opponents.

This opponent  limitation may work in general for Wargear Warfare and similar boards, but there are certainly not enough players above 1600 for me to ever start a game under this scheme.  Effectively, you could climb (or conversely fall) out of the arena of having any opponents available, let alone any willing opponents and this seems very unfavorable.  Thus, I cannot see how this could become the default as it is too limiting for both the top and bottom players to ever get a game off the ground.

In general, I think that as tom stated, most of the boards on this site are based on both luck and strategy and that in any given game, each player has a chance to win.  The open ranked games should stay open to all opponents.  A high ranked player risks a lot every time they play and a low ranked player risks much less.  I think of the open tables as being a chance for any player to challenge a top ranked player and as a challenge to a top ranked player to defend their title.  Of course, the top player can choose not to play a board any longer in ranked play and thus other players have to play to surpass the bar which has be set.

Lastly, under the current system, different players have ascended to the top of the board rankings and thus shown against all the risks of great point losses at the alike that they have a better strategy or have extremely good luck and can win more often than their general opponents.  Dud on Wargear Warfare and Blackdog in general come to mind.

In short, I agree with Yertle.

I vote for a non-ranked games solution.   Currently there is not even way to create a non-ranked game that is open to all, short of personally inviting everyone.  That needs to be implemented first, with the idea of adding the capability of creating a range for the iinvitation.

So on the Create Game page you might have something like this.

Game Type

This is a Ranked Public game (anyone can join)

I like M's solution.