berickf wrote:

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?

Just a few hours ago - I've also started a few Beta (UNRANKED) games - I'll post one for Go-Geared right after I post this..

For that tournament you linked, there is an overabundance of red winning.  Was that typical for the board, or, just how that tournament ended up?

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. 

I would never deign to directly contact Tom to ask him for a feature.  This is the kind of thing that needs to be sussed out by the community, and Tom does whatever he wants - it's his site.  So the question becomes, should I create a post in the Suggestions Forum asking for Beta boards to be made available with no time limit?

What would be the point of that?  Why should I ask for something that I don't want?  Beta is a poor solution.

berickf wrote:

For that tournament you linked, there is an overabundance of red winning.  Was that typical for the board, or, just how that tournament ended up?

Honestly, I don't remember - and the stats are gone - I tweaked and tweaked that board while it was live to the point where I felt is was pretty damn fair.. Lee may have been at a slight disadvantage according to the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that it was much better than 45-55%.  Probably more like 48-52%

M57 wrote:

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. 

What would be the point of that?  Why should I ask for something that I don't want?  Beta is a poor solution.

Sort of like the point of you creating a work-around for non existent features in the designer.  They're not ideal, but, they are a stop gap.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

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. 

What would be the point of that?  Why should I ask for something that I don't want?  Beta is a poor solution.

Sort of like the point of you creating a work-around for non existent features in the designer.  They're not ideal, but, they are a stop gap.

A workaround is something we can do as members, which I am doing - I'm using the Beta section. My experience is that when it comes to features, Tom doesn't do "work-arounds."  Besides, how would this particular workaround make ALL boards available for Unranked play?

Remember on TOS how we could take someone else's map and create our own delta version of it?   I wonder how hard that would be to implement here?  Of course, that may invite quite a bit of chaos.

Thingol wrote:

Remember on TOS how we could take someone else's map and create our own delta version of it?   I wonder how hard that would be to implement here?  Of course, that may invite quite a bit of chaos.

This is the subject of a different topic - but it is relevant in an interesting way.  The point of Wargear NOT having the features you describe is precisely so that designers have more control over how fair boards are, which is very important on a site where public stats are so meticulously kept in such detail and held in such high esteem by members, complete with a overlay of artificially created scores, rankings, and ultimately, ranks.

Really, it's a completely different paradigm than TOS, almost the opposite, and I understand that by arguing for unranked games, I am perhaps stepping on that mindset.  But I don't see it as a slippery slope. Quite the opposite. I see it as a recruitment tool and training grounds for aspiring members as well as an opportunity for those who do not wish to participate in the larger over-layed competitive environment.  Do you really want to by racking up points playing people who are just trying to figure out how to play the game - or would you rather that your points are hard-earned against players who are ready to bring their games?  Or put another way.. Do you really want to be competing against players who are racking up points playing people who are just trying to figure out how to play the game?

Yes, I see your point.  I never understood why some folks took enjoyment out of beating up on newbies - it's kinda like Muhammed Ali beating up a 4-yr old.  But Yertle and Cram make some good arguments as well.  Perhaps retiring the boards is not the best solution (and I speak from experience as I had retired several of mine years ago, some purposely, some accidentally).  Once you go that approach, it's not an easy recovery.

Thingol wrote:

Yes, I see your point.  I never understood why some folks took enjoyment out of beating up on newbies - it's kinda like Muhammed Ali beating up a 4-yr old.  But Yertle and Cram make some good arguments as well.  Perhaps retiring the boards is not the best solution (and I speak from experience as I had retired several of mine years ago, some purposely, some accidentally).  Once you go that approach, it's not an easy recovery.

Why did you retire some of your boards (the purposeful ones)?

Lack of play.  It wasn't a vindictive thing.  I just thought the Boards tab would be better off without them.  I should have done a bit of checking first as I later heard from some players that they were playing private games on them.

On the accidental ones, it was a combination of trying to rename the board and/or taking the board off-line to make a few changes.  Turned out to be a bad idea.