I'm pretty sure the topic has been discussed before. In fact, I'm thinking I brought it up, but I can't find it.

I would like to be able to create and join games open to the public that don't "count."  There are more and more boards on this site that have a learning curve.  Inviting people to private games is just not a very workable option, especially for players who don't "know" a lot of other players.

A few months back I played a game of "Invention".  I liked the idea behind the board and kind of understand its mechanics, but I got my butt kicked and I barely understood how it happened. At this point, I want to play that board board in an unranked setting 4 or 5 more times before venturing into a ranked game. Unfortunately, I can't easily do this, and I'm just vain enough about my stats and rankings that as a result, I'm probably not going to play that board again.

Take boards like Go-Geared and Hex.  The learning curve is not too steep, but a first or even second time player really doesn't stand a chance against a seasoned player.

I can't remember the cons to having a non-ranked category of public games, but I think one of them might have been that at the time it was first proposed, the site participation was too small to support another class of games.  This may still be the case, but other things like board complexities have changed.

One solution that I though of using would be to open a thread in the forums inviting players to "sign-up" for private practice games; but this is messy, and those posts are not likely to be found by nOObies and others who might most benefit from such an arrangement.

+1

I think there are more positives than negatives here.

But, to take a stab at why we didn't have the option - implementation and communication difficulties. But, maybe something simple like attaching an automatic "(UNRANKED)" to the game name would do the trick.

What happens if the player with the highest score refuses to play anymore ranked games?

Does that make it possible to dethrone them?

ratsy wrote:

What happens if the player with the highest score refuses to play anymore ranked games?

Does that make it possible to dethrone them?

This already happens. I'm pointing my finger at you, highest scorer on Wargear Warfare!

It's always possible to dethrone that person, at least in principle. (Topic for another thread perhaps)

However, since that highest scorer can already avoid playing public games, adding the feature for public unranked games doesn't give any additional "gaming the system" options.

You could put a cap on unranked games per board, but that would gain little, for the same reason Hugh mentioned, just delayed a bit.

Also, the feature could let experienced players help newer players with the ins and outs of some of the more complicated boards.  It would be a shame to cap their ability to do this.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

M57 wrote:

I can't remember the cons to having a non-ranked category of public games, but I think one of them might have been that at the time it was first proposed, the site participation was too small to support another class of games.  This may still be the case, but other things like board complexities have changed.

I think this was one of the cons originally, but personally as long as Ranked is still the default then I think it would work out fine.  I guess the one thing I wouldn't want to see is a shift to where most/all games are Unranked, then Rankings could get to the point where they are meaningless, but I don't really see that happening.

May make it a Premium Feature and you could add in the Invite/Hold a Spot process as well (with something like 7 days until that spot is opened).

Not sure what to think of this yet.  If unranked public games were offered, then as was mentioned above, I would think there would be a tendency for the 'not good' players to play unranked games.  This would leave only the 'good' players left to play the ranked games.  One would think this would lead to lower rankings since these players would not win as high a percentage of these games - not sure if this is good or bad.  Also, the ranking would not indicate how good of a player you are on a certain board against all players who have played, only how good you are relative to the other good players. Again - not sure if this is good or bad. I am not sure if this makes the ranking more meaningless or more meaningfull?  Hmmm.....

M57 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the topic has been discussed before. In fact, I'm thinking I brought it up, but I can't find it.

I would like to be able to create and join games open to the public that don't "count."  There are more and more boards on this site that have a learning curve.  Inviting people to private games is just not a very workable option, especially for players who don't "know" a lot of other players.

A few months back I played a game of "Invention".  I liked the idea behind the board and kind of understand its mechanics, but I got my butt kicked and I barely understood how it happened. At this point, I want to play that board board in an unranked setting 4 or 5 more times before venturing into a ranked game. Unfortunately, I can't easily do this, and I'm just vain enough about my stats and rankings that as a result, I'm probably not going to play that board again.

Take boards like Go-Geared and Hex.  The learning curve is not too steep, but a first or even second time player really doesn't stand a chance against a seasoned player.

I can't remember the cons to having a non-ranked category of public games, but I think one of them might have been that at the time it was first proposed, the site participation was too small to support another class of games.  This may still be the case, but other things like board complexities have changed.

One solution that I though of using would be to open a thread in the forums inviting players to "sign-up" for private practice games; but this is messy, and those posts are not likely to be found by nOObies and others who might most benefit from such an arrangement.

I feel your pain.

My global ranking got to within the top 70.  And then I decided that I would try a lot of new boards.  My global ranking is now..substantially worse.  And the fact that I keep landing in boards that I am just figuring out is continuing to hurt my ranking.  I've just given up my vanity and accepted that once I get back in the top 100 I will be a more rounded player.

If the purpose is primarily to allow players to learn a new board, how about a per board limit on starting unranked games.  Maybe 10 games?  You could still jump in to fill games where someone else is still learning, but if you want to play the map you have to make it count.

I understand how hard you guys work for your scores, and what it means for them to change and move and stuff.

However: I think if you wanna be the champ, you gotta fight the contenders.

Plus, having to defend you title makes the rankings dynamic, giving the players a challenge. Granted, BD's been on top for a long time, but otherwise lots of people have moved around in the top 100, and I think that's great!

I also think that if the conglomerate score you guys beat to death comes into play, players are going to be encouraged to go a learn alot of boards.  Sure, you might be a strategy GrandMaster but if the guy your playing is really/only good at Antastic, you gotta learn to be better, and that means taking the time, failing a bunch and earning the score.  

There is no: oh by the way I get to practice, and then you show up to have the title bequethed to you.

Ratsy, have another on me.

SquintGnome wrote:

Not sure what to think of this yet.  If unranked public games were offered, then as was mentioned above, I would think there would be a tendency for the 'not good' players to play unranked games.  This would leave only the 'good' players left to play the ranked games.  One would think this would lead to lower rankings since these players would not win as high a percentage of these games - not sure if this is good or bad.  Also, the ranking would not indicate how good of a player you are on a certain board against all players who have played, only how good you are relative to the other good players. Again - not sure if this is good or bad. I am not sure if this makes the ranking more meaningless or more meaningfull?  Hmmm.....

Yes, the player scores would probably trend lower, in part because players won't be picking up garbage points from nOOBs. I see this as a good thing. Heck, I'll bet there are a number of players who currently specialize in getting their points that way. 

It has additionally been suggested that unranked play may become so popular as to cut significantly into the sheer volume numbers.  But I see no harm in any of this.  In fact, I wonder that some numbers (the important ones, such as number of games played), would even spike. There are probably a number of players out there who have visited the site only to leave because are intimidated by the fact that they are constantly being rated.  For one, I would likely try out a number of boards I've never played before, not to mention those that I know would otherwise bring my ratings down to the delight of those aforementioned specialists. Why shouldn't unranked play be available for those who wish to be unranked?

Yertle wrote:

May make it a Premium Feature..

At first glance, I liked this idea, but then I was thinking that it defeats the purpose of letting newer members get acquainted with the site in less painful fashion.

 ..and you could add in the Invite/Hold a Spot process as well (with something like 7 days until that spot is opened).

+1

I wrote:

Yes, the player scores would probably trend lower, in part because players won't be picking up garbage points from nOOBs. I see this as a good thing. Heck, I'll bet there are a number of players who currently specialize in getting their points that way. 

Come to think of it, I'm one of those people. I create public Go-Geared games with the intention of coaching joining players who are new to the board.  I have even purposely 'skipped' a turn to maintain a semblance of parity on the board.  My current options are to pick up garbage points or intentionally lose.

SquintGnome wrote:

Not sure what to think of this yet.  If unranked public games were offered, then as was mentioned above, I would think there would be a tendency for the 'not good' players to play unranked games.  This would leave only the 'good' players left to play the ranked games.  One would think this would lead to lower rankings since these players would not win as high a percentage of these games - not sure if this is good or bad.  Also, the ranking would not indicate how good of a player you are on a certain board against all players who have played, only how good you are relative to the other good players. Again - not sure if this is good or bad. I am not sure if this makes the ranking more meaningless or more meaningfull?  Hmmm.....

I like this post. I view the rankings as something fun we do. It gives us some goals. They don't measure skill very precisely.

Pitting good players against other good players... Interesting idea! This is really why I support the idea. I was told by another Hex player that he doesn't start public games if I'm online. I get avoided. I don't like that. I want to play games against BOTH good and bad players. I think people would be generally be braver against good players after some practice games. (They should just be brave now, but they aren't!!)

Hugh wrote:

Pitting good players against other good players... Interesting idea! This is really why I support the idea. I was told by another Hex player that he doesn't start public games if I'm online. I get avoided. I don't like that. I want to play games against BOTH good and bad players. I think people would be generally be braver against good players after some practice games. (They should just be brave now, but they aren't!!)

Just had an interesting thought. Haven't even considered the ramifications, but I figure I'd throw it out there before I forget it.

What if players could "sign up" to play a board, and a queue was created that somehow randomly created games?

To prevent people from either partnering and/or avoiding, they would sign up for a "range"  E.g., WarGear Warfare (Ranked) (Light to Medium Fog) (3-5 Players) (2-day timer).

M57 wrote:

 There are probably a number of players out there who have visited the site only to leave because are intimidated by the fact that they are constantly being rated.  

I'd be surprised if this was a significant use case in which players leave based solely or partly because of this. 

what about tournaments? it might affect your tourny record, but who really cares. :)

j-bomb wrote:

what about tournaments? it might affect your tourny record, but who really cares. :)

My tournament record is important to me. I'm vain about all my stats.  Besides, if tournament records are ever included in an aggregate score..

What if there are no tournaments for the board you are interested in?  ..or if there is, what if you're not sure you want to do a round robin with 24 participants?  What if I don't like the trophy (or it offends me), and I win the tournament? I hate it when that happens.

Really, what's so bad about just having Non-Ranked games?

Seems to me that on Warfish the set up was for UN ranked and ranked games and I got the impression that it worked fine!

It allowed you to learn without it counting for or against you.