Alpha wrote:

My vote. 

...

+1

I don't really like the idea of non-ranked games. On ToS they were never very popular and there was endless confusion about why the game was unranked.

tom wrote:

I don't really like the idea of non-ranked games. 

Yet we have them here.  We call them Private.  Distinguishing between Public/Private and Ranked/Non-Ranked doesn't have to be confusing.

As for popularity, I don't know, but I have observed this. Considering that the only way to play an unranked game is to make it Private, I'd say unranked games are pretty popular here. This based on the fact that a not insignificant percentage of games played on any board are Private.  For instance, almost 10% of all WarGear Warfare games played have been private, with everyone of those requiring individual invitations.  

I don't know what's best for the site, but I know I would be playing a lot more boards if I could try them out in unranked play, and I'm loathe to go invite a bunch of people to a board that I don't even know that I will like.

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

I don't really like the idea of non-ranked games. 

...

I don't know what's best for the site, but I know I would be playing a lot more boards if I could try them out in unranked play, ...

+1

Yertle wrote:

I still disagree with players having the ability to filter out who they play against, at least in Ranked games.  I really think it's a bad idea.

Yertle's getting a lot of +1's.  but what does this mean?

are these people in favor of unranked games where all can be invited?

or are they in favor of unranked games where creators can filter out opponents based on their ranking

or are they against unranked games in general?

or are they against filters in general?

M57 wrote:

Yertle wrote:

I still disagree with players having the ability to filter out who they play against, at least in Ranked games.  I really think it's a bad idea.

Yertle's getting a lot of +1's.  but what does this mean?

are these people in favor of unranked games where all can be invited?

or are they in favor of unranked games where creators can filter out opponents based on their ranking

or are they against unranked games in general?

or are they against filters in general?

Yes.

..or are they in favor of unranked games where creators can filter out opponents based on their ranking

or are they against filters in general?..

You can't be for both of the above.  ..or were you just being facetious?

Personally I'm against:

• Unranked games where creators can filter out opponents based on their ranking
• Filters in general? (For Ranked games that is, probably includes Tournament Public Ranked games as well.)

I'm not necessarily against Unranked Public games (not sure about personal inviting all of the player base though), although I did see tom's point and could potentially be easily swayed that it's not too good of an idea to add Unranked Public games because it could potentially thin out the player base for Public games.

For instance, almost 10% of all WarGear Warfare games played have been private, with everyone of those requiring individual invitations.

Also, for this sort of thing I'd almost bet that still 8-9% (aka a high number of those private games) would continue to be private rather than turning into unranked public games since people do want to play games specifically with friends/family.

While I like the idea of something like a 25% filter for unranked games, I will admit that I would probably not use it much if at all. 

Yertle wrote:

I'm not necessarily against Unranked Public games (not sure about personal inviting all of the player base though), 

I guess we could call this (where all members are invited) an Unfiltered Unranked (UU) Game.  I am for it. Tom is against it.  Yertle is on the fence.

I would reiterate my point that not having this feature effectively prevents me from playing more than half the boards on this site because I can't easily "try them out".

Honestly, I don't understand why having UU games is a bad idea.  If the argument is that it will cut down on the number of ranked games, my rebuttal would be "What's wrong with that?" Is the success of the site based on Ranked play?  In fact, having UU games might do just the opposite.  Consider how many boards out there are not being played because rank-conscious players are unwilling to risk learning them for fear of seeing their rankings fall.

In fact, I wonder that there are some people out there that aren't comfortable being ranked at all. The site may actually be losing potential customers who would prefer to play UU all the time.

If the argument is that the feature would fragment the site, I would say that a), to the degree that this might happen, the site is now large enough to handle this, but more importantly b). Just the opposite might occur, with more people playing more boards, it would be leveraging one of WarGear's greatest features.

If the argument is that it could confuse players who are joining games, I believe fixing this is just a matter of getting the "Join Games" page set up clearly, with perhaps both an Unranked Icon in the Icon column and the word "Unranked" underneath the "Game Name" ..similar to how the "Scenario" is now found underneath the "Board Name".  In my mind this is a better solution than having a separate table of Unranked Games (which could fragment things).

...

Just to be clear, when we say all members are "invited" to these games, we don't mean individual invitations.  We mean that the game simply shows up in the Open Games Page.

How about a "warmup/practice" period for new boards?  Similar to bowling.  First 1,2,3 games would be warmup and un-ranked by default (player could always choose to end the warmup period).

From what I see now, high-ranked players are trying new maps out via private games or tournaments.  Some just risk the points out in the Public games.

~ATH

P.S. M, yes I was being facetious above :)

AttilaTheHun wrote:

How about a "warmup/practice" period for new boards?  Similar to bowling.  First 1,2,3 games would be warmup and un-ranked by default (player could always choose to end the warmup period).

This could be quite hard to implement.  You have an open table, your first game, I have played 4 times, do I see your game, is it ranked if I join, is in unranked no matter what and vice versa I create a game ...

From what I see now, high-ranked players are trying new maps out via private games or tournaments.  Some just risk the points out in the Public games.

I am guilty pre-gaming; I probably play 70% of the new boards prior to their release and 40% of them multiple times so when they come out I am already familiar with the design.  Most of the ones I haven't played, I have looked at or heard about.

For the most part, I have stop playing tournament on boards that I have never played before, but I did do this in the beginning.

As for the last part, I join ranked tables to learn a board as well.  Losing points early isn't that bad.  On vertigo, I dropped to 884 and climbed to 1461.  This is in about 30 games for what it's worth.

Alpha wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

How about a "warmup/practice" period for new boards?  Similar to bowling.  First 1,2,3 games would be warmup and un-ranked by default (player could always choose to end the warmup period).

This could be quite hard to implement.  You have an open table, your first game, I have played 4 times, do I see your game, is it ranked if I join, is in unranked no matter what and vice versa I create a game ...

From what I see now, high-ranked players are trying new maps out via private games or tournaments.  Some just risk the points out in the Public games.

I am guilty pre-gaming; I probably play 70% of the new boards prior to their release and 40% of them multiple times so when they come out I am already familiar with the design.  Most of the ones I haven't played, I have looked at or heard about.

For the most part, I have stop playing tournament on boards that I have never played before, but I did do this in the beginning.

As for the last part, I join ranked tables to learn a board as well.  Losing points early isn't that bad.  On vertigo, I dropped to 884 and climbed to 1461.  This is in about 30 games for what it's worth.

So what's your position of having UU games?  I'm not sure, but it sounds like you don't see a need for them because you feel that you can bounce back.  This may be so, but I doubt that most people think that way when they consider whether or not to play a new board.

As for Normal vs. Tournament Games, for those of us who value both rankings, there is still little in the way of options.

Facetiously, yes. 

That is; I see no reason for unranked public games, but I am not against them (along as they are in a separate category on the join page, not mixed in).  This is because you can fall initially and climb back without too much work as stated.

As to the second part, I quit using tournaments to learn boards after joining a few where I was stuck playing a board that I didn't like.

Alpha wrote:

...

That is; I see no reason for unranked public games, but I am not against them (along as they are in a separate category on the join page, not mixed in).  ...

I am in favor of public, unranked games.  Though I would only use them as more of a training ground for new maps, I can understand how there would be a group of players who would play them exclusively in order to eschew the rankings race. 

So assuming there would be this category of games, then Alpha (and other posters) have some good points:

- How to separate them effectively from public, ranked games to avoid confusion?

- How to ensure there is enough of a need to avoid cannibalizing players from the public, ranked games?

- How to ensure the continued credibility of the ranking system? (i.e., if there is an excellent player who doesn't care about rankings and only plays unranked games)

Here's a proposal, although it's tailored to how I would use the system, and not necessarily the best overall solution:

Setup a new tab called, "Training Ground" (or "Boot Camp" or "War Room" or whatever other terminology makes sense for the site) where the games would be excusively unranked, public games.  Private games in their existing functionality (i.e. inviting specific players) would then become a subset of this tab.

~ATH

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Setup a new tab called, "Training Ground" (or "Boot Camp" or "War Room" or whatever other terminology makes sense for the site) where the games would be excusively unranked, public games.  Private games in their existing functionality (i.e. inviting specific players) would then become a subset of this tab.

~ATH

This is a very good idea, but more important is how/where does the general membership see these games and how do they differentiate them from ranked games?

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Setup a new tab called, "Training Ground" (or "Boot Camp" or "War Room" or whatever other terminology makes sense for the site) where the games would be excusively unranked, public games.  Private games in their existing functionality (i.e. inviting specific players) would then become a subset of this tab.

~ATH

This is a very good idea, but more important is how/where does the general membership see these games and how do they differentiate them from ranked games?

Great point.  What is the market for these types of games? I'm not sure tom could get this info without a general poll...

I don't have an opinion on ranked versus unranked public. A few early losses can be overcome by good play in the long run.

The original suggestion of +/- N ranking filters is interesting. It's not an easy system to game because at best, you're only controlling variation, not the expected outcome. The dissenters have said they dissent, but not why, so I'll guess:

One thing that happens with chess tournaments and online chess with rating filters is a bit of snootery. You lose that cozy chess club feeling where everyone plays everyone, happy to just be playing games on a Wednesday night. However, the snootery is not the norm: most people like the filter because you get better games. That is THE goal. The system itself (and your skill) protects your higher-than-thou rating; the filter doesn't.

However, as tom suggested, we don't have the percentages or the numbers to _need_ filters. In chess, a 400 point rating difference corresponds to a 90% estimated chance of winning for the better player. As a player, you REALLY want to be playing within your filter. Our games, for the most part, don't have that amount of separation.

The original poster's example does hint at the kinds of games that might benefit most from a filter (Five, Seven, Octagons, etc).

I like the idea of a non-ranked Section of game lists.  Public games on boards that don't count against ranking.  It's good for people who want to try maps without risking rank to learn them.  For maps that have people way up the ranking who jump in every game, it would be nice to be able to try them risk free.  I think it would increase the number of boards played.  It's also good for people who want to play a casual game, but don't have a bunch of friends on here to start one with.

It should definitely be under its own tab though, not on the home page.  I like the Training Grounds/Boot Camp/ War Room idea.