berickf wrote:

  I don't know if it's the same for you but I get to a point when I invest a lot into studying a board where I start to play by instinct and not have to boil my brain each turn.  I can still win by boiling my brain in those first ten games, but, against good players I find it's more fun to play instinctively.

I just wanted to say that this is a good example of why I want unranked games.  I'd prefer to play ranked games once I have a bit of instinct about a board.  Prior to that point, taking turns takes a lot longer if I want to play well, and sometimes I don't have the time or mental energy to sit and really think think think about a turn.  With an unranked game I don't feel like I have to understand every nuance of a board, review the history, etc.  I can just jump in and have fun as I am learning, instead of learning being an exhausting process.

Ozyman wrote:

berickf wrote:

  I don't know if it's the same for you but I get to a point when I invest a lot into studying a board where I start to play by instinct and not have to boil my brain each turn.  I can still win by boiling my brain in those first ten games, but, against good players I find it's more fun to play instinctively.

I just wanted to say that this is a good example of why I want unranked games.  I'd prefer to play ranked games once I have a bit of instinct about a board.  Prior to that point, taking turns takes a lot longer if I want to play well, and sometimes I don't have the time or mental energy to sit and really think think think about a turn.  With an unranked game I don't feel like I have to understand every nuance of a board, review the history, etc.  I can just jump in and have fun as I am learning, instead of learning being an exhausting process.

But if it's unranked and you're not taking it so seriously, as you have described above... The instincts you develop could be flawed.  Plus, your opponent might not be playing up to standard and give you a false sense of having mastered the board when you really have not.  Since M57 started to push for unranked games I started to pay more attention to the DEV games and unranked games I am in and I'm seeing a major flaw with taking that approach to unranked games.  People just don't take them all that seriously enough to develop sound board instincts with that format.  Better to invite a great player to a private game and to tell them to not go easy on you and to give you pointers, I think.  Unranked games could be used to experiment new strategies on a board that you are already comfortable on, however, as players not playing seriously is ideal to get the basics for a strategy thought out before applying it to the real world and seeing if it pans out there too.

> The instincts you develop could be flawed.  Plus, your opponent might not be playing up to standard and give you a false sense of having mastered the board when you really have not.

Could be, but it would get me 80% of the way there.  For me it's more about having a low stress way to have fun, and not have the pressure of thinking "I really should be putting more time into this *game* so that it doesn't blow my rankings". 

For me the point of unranked games is mostly about Fun, capital F.

I will try to win, but will feel more relaxed, because there's no small part of me saying "but what about the points, BT, what about the POINTS?"

I can frame this with game-theory lingo about it being strategically different to play a single game without regard to the meta-game of points, but that's way too much logic for something that is fundamentally about The Feels.

Unranked games feel fun. Not better, not worse, just different. And fun.  I want them because they would be Fun.  And I come to this site because it is Fun.

I think the opposition to unranked games is based on concerns that they would spoil the fun of ranked games.  Maybe a bit of experimenting could tell us if this is true? Maybe say, give premium members the ability to create 5 unranked yet public games a month?

BTdubs wrote:

For me the point of unranked games is mostly about Fun, capital F.

I will try to win, but will feel more relaxed, because there's no small part of me saying "but what about the points, BT, what about the POINTS?"

I can frame this with game-theory lingo about it being strategically different to play a single game without regard to the meta-game of points, but that's way too much logic for something that is fundamentally about The Feels.

Unranked games feel fun. Not better, not worse, just different. And fun.  I want them because they would be Fun.  And I come to this site because it is Fun.

I think the opposition to unranked games is based on concerns that they would spoil the fun of ranked games.  Maybe a bit of experimenting could tell us if this is true? Maybe say, give premium members the ability to create 5 unranked yet public games a month?

This is the best answer I've seen yet for unranked games.  It's just about Fun.  End of sentence.

berickf wrote:

BTdubs wrote:

For me the point of unranked games is mostly about Fun, capital F.

I will try to win, but will feel more relaxed, because there's no small part of me saying "but what about the points, BT, what about the POINTS?"

I can frame this with game-theory lingo about it being strategically different to play a single game without regard to the meta-game of points, but that's way too much logic for something that is fundamentally about The Feels.

Unranked games feel fun. Not better, not worse, just different. And fun.  I want them because they would be Fun.  And I come to this site because it is Fun.

I think the opposition to unranked games is based on concerns that they would spoil the fun of ranked games.  Maybe a bit of experimenting could tell us if this is true? Maybe say, give premium members the ability to create 5 unranked yet public games a month?

This is the best answer I've seen yet for unranked games.  It's just about Fun.  End of sentence.

@B, If that's all you 'get' about it - that should be enough. I'm trying to play unranked games, but I'm now extra frustrated that normal rank and file members simply can't do it; they can't even see Dev games.  And even if they could, they might turn them off, thinking they are games in Development, not simply unranked games.

Ozyman wrote:

> The instincts you develop could be flawed.  Plus, your opponent might not be playing up to standard and give you a false sense of having mastered the board when you really have not.

Could be, but it would get me 80% of the way there.  For me it's more about having a low stress way to have fun, and not have the pressure of thinking "I really should be putting more time into this *game* so that it doesn't blow my rankings". 

I don't get the whole concept of 'blow my rankings'.  I mean I manage my ranking as much if not more then the next guy and the higher one's GR the easier it is to blow one's ranking.  I'm not going to write out the breakdown between different level players because I'm sure most of us are mathematical enough to know how GR works at different rank levels, but, does a 2k Gr'er really risk blowing up their rank from any single game.... Even a half dozen games?  A 1.5k player, even less risk of it.  Maybe a 3.5k player is risking a fair amount over the same number of games.  And the ability of each level to get any point losses back?  It's just another argument that doesn't really resonate with me as it's really just about sheltering their gains so they can play relaxed... The same argument then allows someone to shelve their rank all together as falker has done for years now, but, with unranked games he could  still be playing but with nothing on the line... Just running up their score and then sitting pat playing unranked games.  Is that what unranked games are for? Every argument I read for unranked games is fundamentally flawed except 'just for Fun'.  But, I'm not sure if Fun is worth the costs...

I relate to what BTdubs said because the first time I ran my GR up it was playing multi player games and it stalled out at 3259.  As the GR gets higher then about there, the only way to maintain it is to play 1v1's or to specialize in some way where you become neigh unbeatable at something.  But, I love and miss playing large player games on competitive boards!  So, I get the whole Fun thing and think I could benefit from being able to play unranked large player games, for Fun... But, it could also allow me to pull my points from competition completely once I think that I have reached the height of risk versus reward.  It's a more dangerous proposal then some are realizing and it is a stronger tool for those higher in rank then those lower in rank. 

An above average player with 1k gr has extremely little to gain from playing unranked games.  They are the many and largely the voiceless in that most do not participate in these forums, but, the amount of points an above average player with 1000 gr would 'save' by not risking via unranked would pale in comparison to what they could gain just by risking a small portion of their points each game.  When I first joined I was not afraid to play any game because most players were higher ranked and those lower ranked are low ranked for a reason.  Even at 2k I was still not worried because I still felt I was the best player in most games and would win more then I lost to keep pushing up in GR. 

As incompetent players lose focus and desire, and consequently leave the site, the average rank of most active players even trails above the starting amount and it's not until you pass the average that an above average player need worry about where their score will settle and how turbulent it'll be up and down from that settling point.  It's not until a player out performs their settling point that they might and perhaps should start yearning for unranked games.  Or, they could have manufactured a new settling point by sticking strictly to a niche game/style as I have done.  At that point one might desire unranked games to play games that will undoubtedly have a negative impact on their GR... But for Fun...  Or they could come up with a whole myriad of other reasons.

I really don't know if the pros truly outweigh the cons and I think I could probably use it more to my advantage then many could use it for theirs...  But is that good?  If everyone else is using something to more of an advantage then the other player then what that player thinks is an advantage is actually a disadvantage.  I'm not sold on it, but, it could be Fun!

As a side note... How does every thread divert to unranked games these days?  This one is supposed to be about enemies...

I don't know if I can dispute the details, because much like playing ranked games, this conversation is starting to wear me out.

For me it boils down to:

ranked games sometimes beget additional pressure which is worse for boards I am less familiar with, and can make the game less fun when I don't have the time/energy to investigate the game history, previous games, board explorer, wiki page, etc.  This leads me (and others) to be less likely to try out new maps, and makes learning new maps less fun and more like work.

I personally don't care if unranked games allow a tiny fraction of people to manipulate their rankings.  Players who are willing to put the time and energy into figuring out how to maximize their rankings will always have that advantage no matter how wargear is structured.

Ozyman wrote:

I don't know if I can dispute the details, because much like playing ranked games, this conversation is starting to wear me out.

For me it boils down to:

ranked games sometimes beget additional pressure which is worse for boards I am less familiar with, and can make the game less fun when I don't have the time/energy to investigate the game history, previous games, board explorer, wiki page, etc.  This leads me (and others) to be less likely to try out new maps, and makes learning new maps less fun and more like work.

I personally don't care if unranked games allow a tiny fraction of people to manipulate their rankings.  Players who are willing to put the time and energy into figuring out how to maximize their rankings will always have that advantage no matter how wargear is structured.

Yep, if maximizing the numbers is the goal, a player can simply stop playing a board whether or not unranked games are available.   If they still really want to play as it stands right now, they can simply start a private game or get into a tournament.

My only problem with Ratsy is that his last guy on any given board is near invincible.  He's the card chain blocker from hell!  

For the original thread.  Enemies only works against standard players. I've used it primarily as a reminder to me of the untrustworthy.  The little red underline reminds me who is a truce breaker or murder/suicide risk.  

itsnotatumor wrote:

My only problem with Ratsy is that his last guy on any given board is near invincible.  He's the card chain blocker from hell!  

Just that guy tho... seems like all the other ones just go over and surrender themselves 

ratsy wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

My only problem with Ratsy is that his last guy on any given board is near invincible.  He's the card chain blocker from hell!  

Just that guy tho... seems like all the other ones just go over and surrender themselves 

Lol, good point. I always forget to thank those guys.

I beat a guy way above my rank and then he tagged me as an enemy.  I couldn't join a game with him in it, lol.  Silly

Ozyman wrote:

I don't know if I can dispute the details, because much like playing ranked games, this conversation is starting to wear me out.

For me it boils down to:

ranked games sometimes beget additional pressure which is worse for boards I am less familiar with, and can make the game less fun when I don't have the time/energy to investigate the game history, previous games, board explorer, wiki page, etc.  This leads me (and others) to be less likely to try out new maps, and makes learning new maps less fun and more like work.

I personally don't care if unranked games allow a tiny fraction of people to manipulate their rankings.  Players who are willing to put the time and energy into figuring out how to maximize their rankings will always have that advantage no matter how wargear is structured.

Hey Ozy, if I want to learn a board without pressure or 'have fun' I think playing tourneys is the way to go. Although you get a tourney ranking , I don't pay any attention to it. What do you think about that?

SquintGnome wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I don't know if I can dispute the details, because much like playing ranked games, this conversation is starting to wear me out.

For me it boils down to:

ranked games sometimes beget additional pressure which is worse for boards I am less familiar with, and can make the game less fun when I don't have the time/energy to investigate the game history, previous games, board explorer, wiki page, etc.  This leads me (and others) to be less likely to try out new maps, and makes learning new maps less fun and more like work.

I personally don't care if unranked games allow a tiny fraction of people to manipulate their rankings.  Players who are willing to put the time and energy into figuring out how to maximize their rankings will always have that advantage no matter how wargear is structured.

Hey Ozy, if I want to learn a board without pressure or 'have fun' I think playing tourneys is the way to go. Although you get a tourney ranking , I don't pay any attention to it. What do you think about that?

Many people do that, but it is still a ranking. Once your ranking starts going up, it gets hard to ignore.

KokoWar wrote:

I beat a guy way above my rank and then he tagged me as an enemy.  I couldn't join a game with him in it, lol.  Silly

It is petty on his part.  Also, fyi, if you were premium the block would no longer apply.

Amidon37 wrote:

It is petty on his part...

..unless you were rude, insulting or used excessively inflammatory language.

SquintGnome wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I don't know if I can dispute the details, because much like playing ranked games, this conversation is starting to wear me out.

For me it boils down to:

ranked games sometimes beget additional pressure which is worse for boards I am less familiar with, and can make the game less fun when I don't have the time/energy to investigate the game history, previous games, board explorer, wiki page, etc.  This leads me (and others) to be less likely to try out new maps, and makes learning new maps less fun and more like work.

I personally don't care if unranked games allow a tiny fraction of people to manipulate their rankings.  Players who are willing to put the time and energy into figuring out how to maximize their rankings will always have that advantage no matter how wargear is structured.

Hey Ozy, if I want to learn a board without pressure or 'have fun' I think playing tourneys is the way to go. Although you get a tourney ranking , I don't pay any attention to it. What do you think about that?

Yeah, that's generally what I do too, but some boards don't work so well for tournaments.  For example any board made to play with more than 3-4 players.  And it's harder to get a tournament going than just a single game.

What I've started doing is just caring less about my ranking.  I play more new boards and get creamed, and I try not to care.  If I like the board I play it more, and hopefully get good enough to get back some of my lost points.  I'd still rather have unranked games, but I care less now.