It's one thing when people join a bunch of games as individuals and never come back to the site -- that just slows down games, but it doesn't necessarily impact the result of those games in an unfair manner.  On the other hand, with team games it can be a death sentence.

I propose that new members not be allowed to join public team games until they have completed at least one game as an individual.  This would demonstrate they have a minimal commitment to the site.  At the very least, it demonstrates their ability to navigate back to the site, remember their password, log in, and take a turn.

I can't agree more with that !

+1. Good point.

Should be the same for tournaments. It's a pain in the a... when someone joins 1 or several tourneys on his first day and never comes back, getting booted 15 times in a row in the case of a Round Robin 16 player tournament.

I would love to see this taken care of in a more systematic way.  I've talked before about progressive disclosure, and I still think it's a great idea.  I think it would be fun for people new to wargear 'earn' their way to new parts of the site.

Things you need to earn:

• Team Games
• Tournaments
• Yellow Maps
• Red Maps

Any more?

Ways to earn things:

• taking N turns.
• finishing a game(s)
• winning a game(s)
• ???

If I remember well, to enter a tournament you must finish at least 5 (public or private) games.

Ozyman wrote:

I would love to see this taken care of in a more systematic way.  I've talked before about progressive disclosure, and I still think it's a great idea.  I think it would be fun for people new to wargear 'earn' their way to new parts of the site.

Things you need to earn:

• Team Games
• Tournaments
• Yellow Maps
• Red Maps

Any more?

 

Ways to earn things:

• taking N turns.
• finishing a game(s)
• winning a game(s)
• ???

 

People would never be able to play any of my maps!  Plus, if wanted to say convince a friend to sign up and play with me, would they be able to, on a team or one of my super complex maps, or would there be hoop jumping before it's possible?  

Lets not penalize the good guys to mitigate the bad ones here.  I like Wargear cause it's not complicated. 

ratsy wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I would love to see this taken care of in a more systematic way.  I've talked before about progressive disclosure, and I still think it's a great idea.  I think it would be fun for people new to wargear 'earn' their way to new parts of the site.

Things you need to earn:

• Team Games
• Tournaments
• Yellow Maps
• Red Maps

Any more?

 

Ways to earn things:

• taking N turns.
• finishing a game(s)
• winning a game(s)
• ???

 

People would never be able to play any of my maps!  Plus, if wanted to say convince a friend to sign up and play with me, would they be able to, on a team or one of my super complex maps, or would there be hoop jumping before it's possible?  

Lets not penalize the good guys to mitigate the bad ones here.  I like Wargear cause it's not complicated. 

How about if a direct game/tourney invitation circumvents the restriction?

+1 to Ozy's idea...could even have a little "Achievement Unlocked" growl pop-up :-D

Something like what Ozy said would/could be cool, but it may also be overkill -

Keep it basic for now and say no team games till you complete 1 game - and to ease ratsy's point make it a public or private game -

I am currently in a team game with 8 teams/16 players.  Only two teams made the first few rounds without a booted player.  I am on one of those teams because I chose a teammate I knew would stick around.  But the game is a little ridiculous and certainly frustrating for the other players.

Ben Dover wrote:

If I remember well, to enter a tournament you must finish at least 5 (public or private) games.

I don't think so BD. Probably on another site ?

I can't find the 5 games restriction on the "help/faq" section. All I see is : in order to join a tournament you must first set a profile pic on your Profile page.

but i do remember playing some private games with a friend to be abble to enter a team tournament and i have never played on other sites

Anyway, i am favorable to :

- 5 completed games for entering a tournament + 24h timelapse (as said above, this will proove that the new player knows how to navigate on the site, remember his password and a minimum of commitment)

- 1 completed game for entering a team game + 24h timelapse

and maybe another suggestion:

I joined wargear a bit more than a year ago with 4 other friends who are not playing anymore. I started a tournament not long after joining and this tournament is still on. Luckily, the people i am playing with are still hanging around so it is ok, but a lot of teams have lost players.

Considering that people can not commit for long period, could it be possible to replace teammate in team tournament when they disapear ?

Ben Dover wrote: 

and maybe another suggestion:

I joined wargear a bit more than a year ago with 4 other friends who are not playing anymore. I started a tournament not long after joining and this tournament is still on. Luckily, the people i am playing with are still hanging around so it is ok, but a lot of teams have lost players.

Considering that people can not commit for long period, could it be possible to replace teammate in team tournament when they disapear ?

Your suggestion makes sense. I am not sure about how difficult it would become to calculate rankings.

An AI player would make sense too : http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1472p2/AI_player(s)

Ben Dover wrote: 

...

Anyway, i am favorable to :

- 5 completed games for entering a tournament + 24h timelapse (as said above, this will proove that the new player knows how to navigate on the site, remember his password and a minimum of commitment)

- 1 completed game for entering a team game + 24h timelapse

+1, this was also my idea a few years ago, with no sucess :

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1275/Hardening_tournament_access

 Of course, Ozyman's progressive disclosure idea is the best way to make things look like a challenge. You must earn the right to get into a tournament.

Toto wrote:

 Of course, Ozyman's progressive disclosure idea is the best way to make things look like a challenge. You must earn the right to get into a tournament.

Sounds good but I don't like the way it discriminate new players : none of us had to "earn" anything in here.

I rather a system that filters the players that register and never come back, usually they are the one that make problem. when i go to a team game i check when they join wg, esp on A&A, but unless you are the last to join the game, you can always get surprised.

concerning tournament, what about a system where you have access to the account of the disappeared player for the tournament only ? no probleme with ranking calculation then (but probably a lot of coding pb for Tom !)

Ben Dover wrote:

what about a system where you have access to the account of the disappeared player for the tournament only ? no probleme with ranking calculation then (but probably a lot of coding pb for Tom !)

I like this idea; it is a viable alternative to the controversial, if not messy, progressive disclosure system approach -- but it should not grant access to the account -- just access to the game only for that account.  But I think there is a problem with ranking calculations beyond just coding.  It's not fair if a better player plays at a lower ranking, not to mention one that is likely much lower that his/hers.

Accommodations would need to be made for ratings purposes.   Playing a partner's turn (even once) should automatically convert the ratings of both players to the lower of the two for scoring purposes. This would be a necessary penalty to discourage people from trying to take advantage of the system.

The 'Play for Partner' option would kick in only after partner has been booted (an additional penalty, and a strong disincentive to cheating).

A similar approach could be applied to tournaments using substitute players, although I think it would be hard to find players willing to step in.

I like the "play for partner" option with both players getting the HIGHER rating as a penalty. There will be a calculation to do if you think you are likely to lose anyway so you might not want to get the penalty for nothing. Also, what for teams with more than 2 players ?

Toto wrote:

I like the "play for partner" option with both players getting the HIGHER rating as a penalty. There will be a calculation to do if you think you are likely to lose anyway so you might not want to get the penalty for nothing. Also, what for teams with more than 2 players ?

 

Oops -- My bad -- You are correct -- HIGHER!

..for teams with more that 2 players, I'd say any or all may play for the booted player, with the scoring applying to the highest player's ranking.

Edit:  there's a problem with this ..what if two access at once?  How 'bout first come, first serve.  Only one player plays for the booted player.

The current tournament restriction is that you must have completed the minimum number of games (1 for regular tourneys, 5 for team tourneys).

How hard would it be to make a complete 1 game restriction for team games?

Yep pretty easy - done!

Awesome -- It probably should be added to the FAQ/Help section.  I don't know how you implemented it, but I would hope that when a newbie tries to join a team game, they get a pop-up message that suggests that they finish a regular game, etc..