Figure I'd put this in the official Forum as a request.

The following is somewhat of a cut, paste and edit from a different thread. I've numbered them if anyone would like to reference a specific argument.

1. I want to learn boards without having to worry about them "counting".
2. I want to play boards without having to worry about them "counting". 
3. I want to teach boards without people having to ask me if they want to learn them.
4. I don't like to bother people with invitations.  And I'm an extrovert.  Imagine the mindset of an introvert in this regard.
5. With the previous statement in mind, I'm guessing there are a number of people who do not really like it that that ANY of their games count, or maybe they like some of them to count but are looking to play some games (under the influence of recreational drugs) that don't count. Bottom line: the all-but-forced rating system this site is just too intimidating.
6. Under the current conditions, you may have to invite upwards of 50 players to fill an unranked ten player game, and you can't invite more than 16 at a time, and you have to wait until some join or decline to invite more. It's untenable. Bottom line: It is a PITA to have to invite people to private games - and intimidating and even more time and energy consuming if you don't know people on the site.
7. Assuming one is willing to jump through the hoops, How do they know who's looking to play unranked games? Chances are - those people are decidedly NOT the people who post here, i.e. the point-chasers.
8. There are a number of boards on this site that I would only like to play or learn in unranked games, AND some I have no intention of EVER playing them in a rated game.
9. I don't necessarily want to learn boards by playing them against the better players.  While for some, it may be true that the 'best' way to learn is from the the best players, it's a fallacy to assume that this is true for all, and even less that it's the way that people want to learn. It's certainly not the most entertaining way. Sometimes I want to compete, and sometimes I want to have fun. Bottom line: It's a poor way to expect people to be able to learn boards (assuming they don't want to loose points in any ranked category - including tournaments.

I would also like to see an option for public unranked games. It would be nice to get a few learning games in on a new board without it counting. I was on another site before joining here. It had an option for ranked and non-ranked games. I think I only ever played a few ranked games. I just don't care that much about those things. I just want to play a game. I know I would join more games and try out more boards if they were not ranked.

This is not directed directly at you koosh, you're just the last to post, but, others have posted the same argument. 

Anyway, I find it a bit strange that people say that they don't care about rank, then in the same breath say that that is why they want unranked public games for learning the board.  This is a contradiction.  Obviously if you want to learn the board and don't want to 'risk' points it is precisely because you DO care about rank!  If someone truly did not care about rank or points then they'd join ranked (or unranked) games without care, and many players do just that!  Advocating for unranked games is precisely because of a 'care' for rank because this is an avenue to allow such players opt to not want to risk their points or their rank... because it means that much to them.

Unranked games would also not hurt, and would in fact help, the best players of the game as well.  A top ranked player is most vulnerable when he/she is learning a board and can lose a LOT more points from a mistake then a rookie does later on losing a game after the pro has 'figured it out'.  Losing to most players costs top ranked players more then 60 points.  Beating the same player nets top ranked players less then 6!  In this line of thinking unranked games take away the opportunity for lower ranked players to take points away from top ranked players when they are most vulnerable and gives top ranked players a new avenue to casually master games before putting their points on the line.  Since points are the crux of the issue here (whether to risk them or not to risk them), my gut tells me that the proposal for unranked games helps top ranked players to not risk at all, more so then it helps lower rank players to mitigate their point risks over the fear of losing so few points!

I also think it is a misnomer that high ranked players are 'predators' seeking to take all their points from the unsuspecting WarGear minnows.  I rarely even look at the join-games list and 'jump in' on unsuspecting players on boards I'm great at.  If you make a game on such a board, 99% chance I don't even enter it even if I see it.  Last time I entered such a game it was on BoB against Vyro as I already had respect for his game play and figured he could handle it.  He won.  I create my own games on those same boards and let players decide if they're ready to jump in on my games, or not.  From what I have seen, Cona Chris and Mad Bomber seem to do the same for the most.  They make their games and let people join or not and don't run around jumping into games to try and take points from people they think they can beat easily. Furthermore, I have a winning record against nearly every high ranked player and the top of my opponents list (players I have played the most) is full of many great players and those who are not, it wasn't like I jumped into their games to beat on them, most of the time they were jumping into mine because those two players truly do not care about rank and seem to jump in on their favourite boards regardless of points being a factor!

Nothing against unranked games, though for learning I already use private games for the same and to greater effect because if it's to learn it's best to invite the best to learn against.  I'm a bit opposed to the the philosophy of unranked games being a good learning platform just as I'm opposed to Tournament games being seen for the same.  For learning it's the board-explorer, watching histories of the best players and then trying a couple private games against high ranked players.  And, so long as you have not made my, or my wife's enemy list, I'm more then willing to accept private games if anyone wants to learn against me without risking their points. I will not, however, enter 1v1 unranked games on boards that I have already mastered, unless requested and therefore no different then an invite to a private game.  I think most high ranked players are of this same philosophy and are willing to enter private games and give players pointers, or, to even give pointers on ranked games you have had with them if requested.  I frequently hand out unsolicited advice if I see egregious plays taking place.  I have only met one high ranked player who stated himself to be of an alternative perspective to this point, which surprised me, but, it is what it is, I guess.

Unranked games, however, would allow me to play many more large player games not for learning, but just for fun without risking my points, so, I wholeheartedly welcome them because sometimes I don't want to risk 60-80 points and stress myself to always make the perfect move or be in a futile game simply because one's rank has attracted you so much attention and it has become pick-on-the-most-threatening-guy by rank kind of game.  I think this reinforces what I was saying above though, in that this does more for high ranked players then low ranked ones.  It opens up more avenues for them to play risk free because they are the ones that are truly risking with every game.  In a situation where the high ranked player risks many points the players who might think they are helped by unranked games are sacrificing opportunities to get 60+ points from some players to protect them self from potentially losing less then 6 points!  That seems like a mismanagement of risk/reward more then anything.

No problem with unranked games, but, some of the arguments for them should perhaps be reconsidered because you might not get what you are looking for or you might lose more then you gain!

berickf wrote:

This is not directed directly at you koosh, you're just the last to post, but, others have posted the same argument. 

Anyway, I find it a bit strange that people say that they don't care about rank, then in the same breath say that that is why they want unranked public games for learning the board.  This is a contradiction.  Obviously if you want to learn the board and don't want to 'risk' points it is precisely because you DO care about rank!  If someone truly did not care about rank or points then they'd join ranked (or unranked) games without care, and many players do just that!  Advocating for unranked games is precisely because of a 'care' for rank because this is an avenue to allow such players opt to not want to risk their points or their rank... because it means that much to them.

I do not believe there is necessarily a contradiction here.. As I said in a different thread, for some it's not about being ranked, it's about being judged.  (I used the Planet Fitness analogy).

Unranked games would also not hurt, and would in fact help, the best players of the game as well.  A top ranked player is most vulnerable when he/she is learning a board and can lose a LOT more points from a mistake then a rookie does later on losing a game after the pro has 'figured it out'.  Losing to most players costs top ranked players more then 60 points.  Beating the same player nets top ranked players less then 6!  In this line of thinking unranked games take away the opportunity for lower ranked players to take points away from top ranked players when they are most vulnerable and gives top ranked players a new avenue to casually master games before putting their points on the line.  Since points are the crux of the issue here (whether to risk them or not to risk them), my gut tells me that the proposal for unranked games helps top ranked players to not risk at all, more so then it helps lower rank players to mitigate their point risks over the fear of losing so few points!

The reality is just the opposite.  Top ranked players simply don't lose anywhere near as many points to rank beginners than they make.  On a dueling map like Go-Geared, when theres a 60:6 Win-lose ratio, then the expert will win much more than 10:1 times.

I also think it is a misnomer that high ranked players are 'predators' seeking to take all their points from the unsuspecting WarGear minnows. 

I agree with you on this point.  I believe I used the phrase "well-intentioned point chasers".

For learning it's the board-explorer,

For 95% of players on this site, this will do NOTHING  with boards that use factories creatively.  I can't make sense of trees in Invention.  There's simply nothing like playing to learn.

watching histories of the best players and then trying a couple private games against high ranked players.

And how likely is it that the introverted casual Journeyman player, much less a noobie is going to hunt down a strong player and ask for a private game? ..much less the 4 or 5 private games they may need to play to get their chops up?

And, so long as you have not made my, or my wife's enemy list, I'm more then willing to accept private games if anyone wants to learn against me without risking their points. I will not, however, enter 1v1 unranked games on boards that I have already mastered, unless requested and therefore no different then an invite to a private game.  I think most high ranked players are of this same philosophy and are willing to enter private games and give players pointers, or, to even give pointers on ranked games you have had with them if requested.  I frequently hand out unsolicited advice if I see egregious plays taking place.  I have only met one high ranked player who stated himself to be of an alternative perspective to this point, which surprised me, but, it is what it is, I guess.

There is no question. Community his is one of the great strengths of this site. But there are only a very small percentage of players that actively participate in that community.  Nope, most casual players don't have the balls to ask.

Unranked games, however, would allow me to play many more large player games not for learning, but just for fun without risking my points, so, I wholeheartedly welcome them because sometimes I don't want to risk 60-80 points and stress myself to always make the perfect move or be in a futile game simply because one's rank has attracted you so much attention and it has become pick-on-the-most-threatening-guy by rank kind of game.  I think this reinforces what I was saying above though, in that this does more for high ranked players then low ranked ones.  It opens up more avenues for them to play risk free because they are the ones that are truly risking with every game.  In a situation where the high ranked player risks many points the players who might think they are helped by unranked games are sacrificing opportunities to get 60+ points from some players to protect them self from potentially losing less then 6 points!  That seems like a mismanagement of risk/reward more then anything.

No problem with unranked games, but, some of the arguments for them should perhaps be reconsidered because you might not get what you are looking for or you might lose more then you gain!

As you can see, I pretty much disagree with your conclusions.  As far as your math is concerned. If only players who wish to compete sign up for ranked games, the competition may be a bit more fierce.  Games with 10+ players will have a lower percentage of lesser players, or players who simply are having fun and not really spending energy trying to optimize their play.  For these reasons, I would argue that it will be harder to get higher numbers, but I wouldn't be a surprised if the result is net zero.  Regardless, it doesn't really matter - scores are relative.

M57 wrote:

I do not believe there is necessarily a contradiction here.. As I said in a different thread, for some it's not about being ranked, it's about being judged.  (I used the Planet Fitness analogy).

This could be an interesting debate... First of all, I have no idea what planet fitness says about judging, or does to avoid it, never even been into one nor seen an ad.  That said, as far as WarGear goes, do unranked games stop people from being judged, if that is their concern?  Private games can accomplish this because they are hidden from view, but, public is public, I can view their public games in their games list.  Also, are they trying to avoid being judged as a poor player, or conceal that they are a strong player by keeping their gr at 1000 by never putting any of it on the line by entering a ranked game? 

So, a player enters my unranked game because they don't want to be 'judged'.  I click on their name, which brings up their profile showing a GR of 1000.  The next obvious thing is to click on their games list to see what kind of player I'm dealing with.  If they don't want to be judged it is most likely that they lack confidence in their game and their game's list will be a string of mostly losses and they are judged anyways, fairly or not, but this time it's two fold... They are not a strong player AND they are too cowardly to ever get the courage up no matter how many unranked games they play to figure stuff out.  Alternatively, maybe their games list is full of wins and I'm looking at a person so humble in their winning ways that it must be the second coming of Jesus!  The joke being, if a player is that good, would they really conceal it in a perpetuity of unranked games? 

I guess what I'm saying with all this is unranked games don't actually escape 'judgement' but only escape putting a number and rank on your quality and style of play.  If you are looking to escape 'judgement' maybe you should be asking for an 'open' invite system for private games so that no record is left to judge such players on?  Like an invite everyone who is currently online button, in private games?

The reality is just the opposite.  Top ranked players simply don't lose anywhere near as many points to rank beginners than they make.  On a dueling map like Go-Geared, when theres a 60:6 Win-lose ratio, then the expert will win much more than 10:1 times.

You are actually proving my point here.  'Top ranked players simply don't lose anywhere near as many points to rank beginners than they make.'  This is because top rank players do their homework and once they have mastered the board what you have written is the result.  What I was writing about however, is that a Top ranked player is most vulnerable during their first few games on a board and unranked games might give them an avenue to perfect their craft before putting any of their points at risk by providing top players another avenue to build their confidence and instinct on a board once they have studied the mechanics of it!  Then, we're back to your original statement where they mostly cleanup from there on out.  So, while they might lose 1 out of ten down the line, in their first ten games they're most vulnerable to losing 2 or 3 of them instead of the 1 they'll settle into.  When I first started playing Iwo publicly Cona Chris jumped into one of the first couple games I launched.  I asked him if he could refrain again from doing so till I had ten games under my belt as I did not, at that time, feel comfortable on that board yet.  It might not be a good example because I won the game anyways and he was the reigning champ on that board, but, the fact of the matter still stands that I did not feel comfortable on that board and if I was going to make a boneheaded mistake, if I was going to lose above the average I would eventually settle into, that was the time.

I agree with you on this point.  I believe I used the phrase "well-intentioned point chasers".

Since I usually keep a bunch of games open, who's chasing who's points when they enter my games?

For 95% of players on this site, this will do NOTHING  with boards that use factories creatively.  I can't make sense of trees in Invention.  There's simply nothing like playing to learn.

I didn't say it was the board explorer alone, I said it in conjunction with watching histories.  Put together the board mechanics start to materialize.  I don't even know why invention is brought up as an example for this.  That board is simple to understand, mechanics wise, and the only questions are 'best strategies' which can be digested by watching histories.  Even I lost a fair amount when I first tried that board, but, it was not for lack of understanding it.  It was because I was trying to get too sneaky trying alternative strategies till I settled on 'best practice' strategies.  Essentially, I disagreed with what the histories had to say and wanted to go my own way till I had my own strategies and that cost me a few games.  But, I have my strategies now!!!

And how likely is it that the introverted casual Journeyman player, much less a noobie is going to hunt down a strong player and ask for a private game? ..much less the 4 or 5 private games they may need to play to get their chops up?

An introverted Journeyman should have no problem getting as far as looking at the board explorer and watching histories and learning the board mechanics and what has worked for the best players.  While they might not feel comfortable inviting strong players to private games, are unranked games really a good learning tool?  So, they beat up on a few of their less studious peers because they have a better understanding of the board or had better dice, but, to truly aspire to greatness, at some point, private or public, you have to throw your hat into the ring against the best of the best!

There is no question. Community his is one of the great strengths of this site. But there are only a very small percentage of players that actively participate in that community.  Nope, most casual players don't have the balls to ask.

Since I'm of the perspective that unranked games actually have more to offer to point watching, active members and are actually a mixed bag when it comes to reclusive players with low scores who have very little to protect by them...  But yes, the community here is awesome!

As you can see, I pretty much disagree with your conclusions.  As far as your math is concerned. If only players who wish to compete sign up for ranked games, the competition may be a bit more fierce.  Games with 10+ players will have a lower percentage of lesser players, or players who simply are having fun and not really spending energy trying to optimize their play.  I wouldn't be a surprise if the result is net zero.

Yes, we seem to disagree on many fronts here, though, we both agree that unranked games could be a valuable addition, but, for different reasons.  I don't think the competition would be all that more fierce though in regular games because of unranked games.  Like you say, most don't take an active participation in the forums, but, are you being a voice for the silent majority, or, would those same players just join games, ranked or unranked, just as indiscriminately?  Is rank or judgement really bearing on so many's minds that it keeps them from playing?  If you have a GR of 1000 and you risk so few points per game, then is it so important to decline from participating in the point/rank rat race?  The one fear I've heard that might be somewhat daunting, is that a player feels they can't start a dueling board for the fear that a top ranked player might jump in on them and spoil their fun... I don't think most top players do that, but, if this is one genuine fear, perhaps a games filter that says only players +/- whatever% of my points (on this board, or of my GR, no idea) can join this game?  Of course, this would achieve 'fun' games for them hopefully, but would represent a terrible learning mechanism akin to unranked games or tournaments  As for large player games, those are the ones where lower ranked players can really reap the rewards of stealing victory.  I rode my GR up to 3259 the first time on the back of large player games, but, those losses to low ranked players who do inevitably sneak off a victory here or there in those types of games does start to hurt north of 3000 gr, even north of 2500...  If I could ensure that only high gr players were to enter my large player games then I would be risking a heck of a lot less and reaping a heck of a lot more!  Another win for high ranked players if it actually worked out the way you are describing it, but, I think most those players are just indiscriminate and very little difference would be seen in who enters such games whether other unranked games were available, or not.

The % +/- game invite idea has been suggested before - and it has pretty much been shot down because it is quite discriminatory. In the case of some boards, you could be restricting play to just a handful of members.

Like I said, with unranked games the effect on actual scores could go either way or be net neutral. I doubt it, but yes, it could even let the top players dominate even more (with a wider point spread) per your description - but that might actually be preferable in something like an Option I system, where CPs are much less progressively distributed.

My hope would be that a large percentage of players (like half) opt for unranked play, leaving the point chase to the big boys. Yeah - you may not lose as many to someone with 800 points, but you're going to lose a lot more to a higher percentage of better players - and come to think of it - that player with 800 points is likely to be a better player than the current batch of 800s - so maybe you will lose to them just as much, again offsetting the advantages you speak of.

And yes, I hope my opinion on this represents a less vocal demographic on this site.  But speaking for myself personally, there are times when I just want to play with no rank and therefore no judgement implications, and other times where I want to know where I stand.  If I'm experimenting with a particular strategy for play, the former description applies.  ..and I HATE to be forced to hunt down players with private games.

M57 wrote:

The % +/- game invite idea has been suggested before - and it has pretty much been shot down because it is quite discriminatory. In the case of some boards, you could be restricting play to just a handful of members.

For the players we're talking about, who are not point chasers, and hence more then likely have an average score... How exactly would % +/- restrict them to just a handful of players?  Seems like most players of their ilk would fall exactly around 1000 GR +/- x percent?  A heck of a lot of players should be available for those games!  For players with a really high GR, would % +/- defeat their ability to prey on the weak, or, would it limit their point losses and increase their point gains by restricting their play to better players... I forget if we're trying to protect weak players from the strong, or the strong from the weak, or just let players play what they want to play when they want to play it.  I mean, arguments can be made all over the place, but, in reality, they're all just tools that players would play with and game with, including unranked public games.  if you're worried about on a per board basis for +/- %, it can be based on global GR instead.  Or, either or could be chosen in the game creation?  I don't know about all these arguments that try to suggest discrimination be it % +/- or invitations for private games.  Even one could say that unranked games are exceedingly discriminatory because they allow players to take their points out of play!  Sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me, on all fronts.  I for one, would welcome all tools made available to me and figure out how I'd use them be it unranked games, +/- %, invitations for public games... etc.

I was cherry-picking - That particular argument carries both to players toward the extremes as well as to less popular boards.  I'm not completely against the +/-% idea, though if implemented it would have zero impact on my particular set of reasons for wanting to see unranked games on the site. Sometimes I don't want to play ranked games ..against anybody. Nevertheless, the thread(s) saw a fair amount of activity, and if I'm not mistaken, consensus was nowhere near arrived at - there is somewhat of an overarching reticence to allow players to pick their opponents when it comes to ranked play.  In this regard it's seen as a slippery slope type of feature.