I've just retired "Appomattox Campaign".  As far as I can tell it can't be revived unless I resubmit it for Review, which is fine - I have no intention of doing so.  I've made it available as a Beta board, partly as a test - I'm not sure but I think Beta boards expire after a few months?

One of the reasons I'm doing this is because I'm thinking of retiring all of my dueling maps, including Go-Geared and Battle of Waterloo. I'm concerned that they are just too skill-oriented, and because there's no way to play them unranked, well-intentioned good players who enjoy the board not only end up racking all the points, but end up 'turning off' beginners, who are likely to never play the board again.  I feel that way about Hex and Iwo Jima too. I don't play them because it's fruitless; They are outstanding boards, but I know I'll get my butt kicked every time.  Heck, I don't even create games of Go or Waterloo these days for the same reasons.

PLZ DONT

I understand your premise, entirely. I've played a few games on Iwo Jima, as an example. It's a great board, and I lost every single time to the same great player. I knew I was outclassed on an even playing field, much moreso on a map they knew and I didn't. But I kept playing some friendly rematches in hopes of learning more about the map. I certainly lost a lot of points, but grew as a player.

Despite being able to identify with the crux of your argument, though:

It would be a shame to lose well made maps in order to patch over a missing site feature (unranked games). The map makers around here haven't exactly been churning out new product (guilty as charged). Contraction would make that problem even worse.

If you're doing this to turn up the heat on getting unranked games as an option, it just might work. I ask that you go about your campaign differently, though. Scorched earth burns everyone.

I disagree with retiring boards mainly because those Championship Points become "locked", therefore those that have top scores cannot lose them and no one in the future can work to dethrone them.  Definitely more of a bash to the community than keeping them available in my opinion. 

To be clear, I'm retiring AC because it's obsolete given the newer designer features.  Its retirement is long overdue.

I will admit that there's more than a small part of me that hopes yanking the others duelers puts the pressure on for unranked games, but I've given it a good amount of thought, I've also come to the conclusion that it's unhealthy for the site to have boards that turn people off because they don't get the opportunity to play them "competitively," thus giving a de-facto advantage to the point-chasers in this Ranked Wargear environment.  I believe this is also the case for most any board that incorporates advanced design features, but it's particularly egregious with the duelers.

I've tried a number of ways to get around it so the site is more enjoyable for me personally, but they all involve a work on my part and tend to be unsatisfying because I don't get to play those boards with the non-posters/non-point-chasers.

I've tried making my boards available in Beta before, and of course they don't get played unless I start them.  But I'm willing to give that a try again ..if only I end up the only player using them ..though I'm not sure, but possibly there's a sub-conscious fear of Dev games out there (if only for fear of playing a broken board).

Yertle wrote:

I disagree with retiring boards mainly because those Championship Points become "locked", therefore those that have top scores cannot lose them and no one in the future can work to dethrone them.  Definitely more of a bash to the community than keeping them available in my opinion. 

Yes -this is a strong point, and one that has weighed quite heavily in my internal debate on the matter.  I am quite reticent of locking in a leader ..but then on the other hand, I've never been a fan of CPs.

M57 wrote:

thus giving a de-facto advantage to the point-chasers in this Ranked Wargear environment.  

I still think you just solidified this by retiring it, not helped it. Possibly if it was caught very early before people had Championship Points on it.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

thus giving a de-facto advantage to the point-chasers in this Ranked Wargear environment.  

I still think you just solidified this by retiring it, not helped it. Possibly if it was caught very early before people had Championship Points on it.

Yes - retiring a dueling board is a two-edge sword in that regard - but it also reinforces the point about the problem with  CPs.  Its a loop that feeds on itself.  Leaving the loop may be one of the best ways to illustrate that point. 

I don't want my arguments to be seen as vindictive - because that's not at all what they are. I'm here to play and have fun first, and secondly to support the site, but I need to do that in a way that I feel is constructive in the long run.  But I will admit that it's been quite frustrating watching my duelers being "tested" by many - but quickly abandoned as the cognoscenti rack up the easy points.  My options are to stand by and watch it continue or to be pro-active.  I've been 'standing by' but making my arguments for unranked games for a few years now, but I don't see any changes on the horizon.

M57 wrote:

but it also reinforces the point about the problem with  CPs.  Its a loop that feeds on itself.  Leaving the loop may be one of the best ways to illustrate that point. 

What do you mean by this?

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

but it also reinforces the point about the problem with  CPs.  Its a loop that feeds on itself.  Leaving the loop may be one of the best ways to illustrate that point. 

What do you mean by this?

Possibly the most obvious inequity of the the current system is the the way in which CPs are only allocated to a VERY small percentage of the players of a given board.  There have been systems presented that spread the love.  For example: Option I, which make CPs available to any player who can post a 1000+ points on a given board. Retiring a board under the OI system would have a negligible impact on the the overall CP ranking system, pretty much leaving nothing more than bragging rights for the top players for those boards in perpetuity.

Retiring a board under the current system both magnifies and highlights its lack of egalitarianism.

Now that you have retired this "Appomattox Campaign" ... "because it's obsolete given the newer designer features", I'm curious to see what was wrong with it.  Is there a way to view retired boards?  Couldn't you fix it with the new designer features and then re-release it as an improved board?

berickf wrote:

Now that you have retired this "Appomattox Campaign" ... "because it's obsolete given the newer designer features", I'm curious to see what was wrong with it.  Is there a way to view retired boards?  Couldn't you fix it with the new designer features and then re-release it as an improved board?

Never even considered that. It would need a complete make-over to be be up my standards.  And really, it's the type of board that needs either token territories or some kind of movement count system to make it viable or worth the time.  Funny how it seemed cutting edge' at the time.

Anyway I did make it available in Beta.  Let me know how easy it is to find and if you are able to create a game on it.

Now that you have retired this "Appomattox Campaign" ... "because it's obsolete given the newer designer features", I'm curious to see what was wrong with it.  Is there a way to view retired boards?  Couldn't you fix it with the new designer features and then re-release it as an improved board?

Go to the Boards page, click on the Beta (bug) icon, that will bring up a list (currently 5) beta boards

and beta does go away after 30 days i believe.  

weathertop wrote:

Go to the Boards page, click on the Beta (bug) icon, that will bring up a list (currently 5) beta boards

and beta does go away after 30 days i believe.  

Yes - I was trying to make a point about how it is not so easy to find boards in Beta (by not explaining how to do it).

One problem I'm having is that it seems that I'm no longer able to access previous games so as to learn by watching histories of the better players.  Also, it no longer lists who was good at it either.  I launched a Beta Waterloo, just for kicks, but, I'd like to be able to do my homework before trying Appomattox Campaign and it seems you have stolen that from me and, as-such, I'll need to carefully and systematically go through the board explorer to understand all its ins and outs before attempting a Beta.  And, even if I were to do that, it'll apparently be gone in 30 days... Seems like this idea of yours might be a little ill advised.

In lieu of unranked games, perhaps you should just leave the original up and put the Beta, as you have, but then request that Tom allows Beta to stay Beta without a time limit.  That way people can go to the original board to learn it via histories but then go to the Beta board if they want to play without consequence?

berickf wrote:

One problem I'm having is that it seems that I'm no longer able to access previous games so as to learn by watching histories of the better players.  Also, it no longer lists who was good at it either.  I launched a Beta Waterloo, just for kicks, but, I'd like to be able to do my homework before trying Appomattox Campaign and it seems you have stolen that from me and, as-such, I'll need to carefully and systematically go through the board explorer to understand all its ins and outs before attempting a Beta.  And, even if I were to do that, it'll apparently be gone in 30 days... Seems like this idea of yours might be a little ill advised.

The Board View Page is still available.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/6262

As is the designer..

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/6262

But you are right.. the board itself is lost - as is a record of all games..

Ahh.. the cost of retiring a board..

However, you can find tournaments..

http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/105

and watch games in action.

Thanks though... I might try to learn Go-Geared over the next thirty days via this Beta method you have provided.  When did you create those Betas?

berickf wrote:

In lieu of unranked games, perhaps you should just leave the original up and put the Beta, as you have, but then request that Tom allows Beta to stay Beta without a time limit.  That way people can go to the original board to learn it via histories but then go to the Beta board if they want to play without consequence?

This would work for me if in fact Beta boards..

• ..could be found by the game creators just as easily as ranked games.
• ..were not called Beta/Dev, but called Unranked

In other words, why not just have an "This is a Unranked Public Game (anyone can join)" radio button on the Create A New Game page?

This isn't just about my boards.. What if I want to learn an Ed Nygma board?  There are no extant Beta versions.  Ed is not around to start Dev versions either.  I don't want to have to ask board designers to make their boards available in Dev. Besides, half of them probably don't even visit the site anymore.