I know there are two main road blocks to this*, but I am interested in discussing it regardless.

Why can't we have games that are open only too Players players of a certain rank?

I've seen too many games where the winner has been decided by the losers, not the winner. This often comes down to a player being new an not understanding the board, or them making random attacks that throw the game one way or another.

Now I have organised a few closed games where I have invited the higher ranked players, an while it was great fun, without any points actually being on the table, it did lose some vigour. Is there any light to this idea?

*Elitism, an how can a stat count if not everyone can compete

I prefer the +/- N% approach.  so that players with low scores can also keep out the elite players. 

How'm I gonna learn if I don't keep letting BD and MB beat me down?

And to some extent cona, but I've just given up on learning strategy to beat him. he's waaay to good with the numbers. ;0)

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Why can't we have games that are open only too Players players of a certain rank?

*Elitism, an how can a stat count if not everyone can compete

the Problem

I prefer the +/- N% approach.  so that players with low scores can also keep out the elite players. 

Of course, this has been suggested before, and I can't remember why it didn't gain traction. Can the site support this?  Are there enough players to play some of these boards in a range?  I suppose the market could tell (if it was optional).  Using this paradigm as a standard for viability, I might support a sliding +/-% scale if the scale was from 0 to 100%.

On the other hand, I ask myself, "Would I join such a game?" AND "Is there a way to game certain stats if this were an option, or would it be a detriment?"  I'm tempted to think the latter is the case, and so it is that I might not join such games.

This is semi - OT, but of much more value to me would be the ability to have Unranked games so that people could play boards ..to learn, and to not have to deal with the "stigma" of losing and taking a ranking hit - especially as we are now debating Ranks/Scores for every category of play.  There's no way to escape being Rated/Ranked.

Agree with M57 - Maybe someone can get these ideas onto the wiki.  I feel like if we have a good list on the wiki, it's less likely for things to fall though the cracks.  Eventually maybe we could vote on the wiki list and present the results to Tom.

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:proposed_general_site_features

Ozyman wrote:

I prefer the +/- N% approach.  so that players with low scores can also keep out the elite players. 

I'm torn on this.

Yes, a lot of worse players will want to avoid elite players.  But there is a class of player who will deliberately throw games so that they can get into the easy games and have the fun of beating people up.

Also if this option becomes too popular, then elite players may find that nobody wants to play them.  This can limit their ability to get into games.  Which is no fun.

>But there is a class of player who will deliberately throw games so that they can get into the easy games and have the fun of beating people up.

Another way to do it, it simply by # of games played on a board.  Divide players into experience levels based on # of games played (maybe <5 and >=5).   Although it might be hard to get a game to fill if you only allow players that haven't played it much before.

btilly wrote:

 This can limit their ability to get into games.

This has my biggest reason against this proposal in the past.  What this proposed system can essentially do is prevent or restrict players from joining games...which is what the ask is for, but also could mean that a very capable player may be unable to join a game that he/she could play.  If I'm new to a board or had a bad streak of games and my Ranking is down, then I don't think that necessarily means I can't play with higher ranking players but this sort of system would prevent me from joining, which I am not a fan of.

If it is identified that players with too little WG experience are the issue, then possibly something along the lines of X games until a Yellow/Red difficulty Board is available for play in the Open/Ranked setting, but I would still suggest that X be a relatively low number.

Yertle wrote:

 >>I don't think that necessarily means I can't play with higher ranking players but this sort of system would prevent me from joining, which I am not a fan of.<<

The proposed system is optional.  It certainly wouldn't stop you from starting games that are open to everyone.  I for one wonder how people would use such a system  (say with a sliding scale from 1 to 100% set by the game creator).

I don't know if this holds water, but it has been argued that if you only play with people who are in your range, it is very hard to rise because the ceiling is set.  Better is to play against people you can beat consistently.

In my mind it's a two edged sword.  As you say it could just as easily be used by lower ranked players to avoid playing with top echelon players against whom they would otherwise have no chance.   This manner of using it could be especially leveraged with dueling skill-based (low or no-luck) boards like Go-Geared and Hex, where you could do the math and effectively avoid playing the top player.  Though again, I'm not sure this is a bad thing.  Eventually, if you want to rise, you have to play that player.

Really, I'm not really sure if this is a bad idea or not.  I have no idea how I'd use it, if use it at all. Heck, I might even avoid joining such games depending on how things turn out,  but here are some possible alterations that could make it more palatable.

First, it should really be a Premium feature, and from there possibly Premium Members would be allowed to start a limited # or % of +/- games (in total or per board), etc..

Count me as opposed to either the +/- or the elites-only setups.  Either one would make it harder to move in the standings (in either direction).  Newer players can be loose cannons, sure - but that's part of the fun!  Even if they screw you in a particular game, remember that over the long run, they affect all players equally!  I think the cure here would be worse than the disease - and here's why:

If I have a 900 score on a board and can't play people with a 1500 rating, the +/- system forces me to take me much longer to achieve a 1500 rating myself. Each game will be worth fewer points to me, because I'm playing against people who are close to my own score - and therefore give me fewer points when I beat them.  Remember - low score is not necessarily low skill!

For players who are new, or (like me) play very few games at a time, the effect is to prevent us from accumulating points anywhere near as fast as the heavy users, even if we're excellent players when we do play.  If one guy plays 1000 games and builds up a high rating, and during the same time I play three games and win two (beating the more frequent player both times) I absolutely belong in the same game as him - and the only way I can keep up with his brute-force volume-based accumulation of points is by playing and beating players who are higher-ranked than me. 

Think of it this way: If a player signs up today who's better than Cona, that player should be able to start playing him and beating him immediately!  If that can't happen, the standings will congeal around the current elites because excellent new players will get discouraged before they break into the top circles.

The scores themselves already do a good job signaling who is experienced/not, and of leveling the risk/reward calculations.  Sure, as a 900-level player I might get trounced on some boards by the grand masters - but I don't give up many points when it happens, and I gain greatly when I do achieve the upset win!

BTdubs wrote:

If I have a 900 score on a board and can't play people with a 1500 rating, the +/- system forces me to take me much longer to achieve a 1500 rating myself. Each game will be worth fewer points to me, because I'm playing against people who are close to my own score - and therefore give me fewer points when I beat them.  Remember - low score is not necessarily low skill!

Just playing devil's advocate here.  So let's assume that players with a 1500 rating would want to exclude players (you) with scores with under 1000 points by creating games with a 66% total range. (I wouldn't - players in the 900s represent bread and butter points as far as I'm concerned - they probably haven't figured out the board yet).  This means you have to "crawl" your way up.  But once you get to 1500, and using the same logic, you can now "protect" your position by doing the same and excluding people with scores under 900.   BTW, it follows that you would also be excluding players over 2000, which would prevent your further rising in meteoric fashion.

Bottom line: I'm still neutral about the idea ..with a slight negative bent, not because I think it adversely affects the way people will play, but because I think more selective game perimeters will probably have a tendency to reduce the number of games played due to restrictions.  In short, it will be harder to find a game if the number "invited" to a given game is effectively smaller.  And if I'm right in my analysis in the first paragraph, people will eventually realize that it's not in their best interest to use the feature in the first place.

I don't like the idea as a whole.  Restricting games is the antithesis of what were doing here... right? Playing games? 

Excluding some players from a game based on rank is elitist. Like it or not, it's elitist. If you want public points, you gotta play the game with the public.  

If you want a game with just good players in it, the list is not that long of the really good ones, create a private game and invite people. Most of them will play with you. That is a currently available, and very effective feature. 

If you want a game with no noobs in it, make a private one, or be better than the noobs. If they do unpredictable things, change your strategy, if you can't: you've been playing the same peeps for too long.  Guys earn the top spots because they can beat many, many different players consistently. They are there because they can deal with both good and bad luck, and they are there because they can still win most games with most players.

Taking the ability for me to join Cona's games and have my hat handed to me over, and over and over again would take something away from the site, and if the only reason I can't even play - forget lose - those games is because he wants more players at his level, he should be playing private games with those players, and get no public points.

 It's the spirit of the thing that bothers me the most. I feel like I'm not going to get picked for a team to play football at recess.  And one of the things I like about this site, is that I don't have to rely on someone else to pick me. I can join and play and I'm free to suck or be good. 

Also, if some noob is joining and ruining all your games, set them as an enemy. Problem solved. I just don't see the upside to this one. 

(I just use Cona because he's currently top ranked)

Hmm...I don't disagree with a lot of what you say Ratsy and I need more time to reflect on my opinion.  But, I can say that I don't like using the term 'elitist' for those who want to consider the concept of having a ratings filter.  I can imagine there could be as many players with low rank who might want to filter out sharks fishing for points as there are high ranked players looking to filter out less experienced competitors.  I am sure there are those who look to abuse any system, but I would hope the motivation for using a ranking filter would be to generate a more enjoyable experience rather than trying to 'game' the system.

Rich excluding the poor, poor hating the rich, major and minor leagues, the olympics, frat houses, high and low ranked players not wanting to play with each other.  All examples of exclusionary practices (and in WarGear's case, practices that exclude large groups of people) that I am lumping into my use of the term "elitist".  It's a nasty word with lots of nasty feeling attached to it, but I think any exclusionary practice creates an us and them mentality, those that are included and those that are not, and I'm just not a big fan of being included, or excluded, especially in my gaming life, from my own hobby. 

I mean, I get that some games with the right players get epic, and their certainly more fun, but not to have to chance to play in that game until I... prove myself? Get in with the right crowd? Get the invite? Get a high enough Global Ranking score? (which the recent discussions have really made clear that you don't really have to be a good player for one of those, a specialized one will do) I don't like the qualifications. I feel like I would never have been a part of my first epic game in the first place... 

I think the tools that currently exist can pretty well streamline the gaming experience, with being able to set enemies, and to create private games.  Heck, if I wanted, I could build my own board, and only play it with my closest friends, and never worry about anyone else. And if they got pesky, I could bar them from playing any game I'm in. That's a pretty effective way of avoiding a player that's wrecking my fun. 

It also changes the overall psychology of the experience of the site, to allow barring of large groups. I like the points system because they are fun, have no real consequence, but still give you a reason to try harder, learn some things, or play more games.  If you filter based on rank, players are going to want to increase their rank to be able to get into the "top games" which makes the wargear experience intensely competitive.  Right now, CP's are competitive, but not because I can't play games if I don't have them, because I like seeing my number rise. Not a real big deal if it doesn't. I can throw a couple of games of Hex out there and have Hugh feed them to me, and it doesn't stop me from playing them, or any other game again. 

Okay. Enough ranting.  Now that I've talked through it some more:

I am intensely against this idea.  I think it's contrary to the spirit of open fun, I think it will discourage widespread play, and will make it difficult for new members to buy in, because they will feel like noobs, more difficult for middle of the road players to get better, and will make a negative impact on the open, accessible and friendly nature of the site. 

M57 wrote: ...once you get to 1500, and using the same logic, you can now "protect" your position by doing the same and excluding people with scores under 900.  

This is not in my view a positive.  It's stultifying! 

Isn't it more fun when hotshots can rise and the mighty can fall??

ratsy wrote:

Rich excluding the poor, poor hating the rich, major and minor leagues, the olympics, frat houses, high and low ranked players not wanting to play with each other.  All examples of exclusionary practices (and in WarGear's case, practices that exclude large groups of people) that I am lumping into my use of the term "elitist".  It's a nasty word with lots of nasty feeling attached to it, but I think any exclusionary practice creates an us and them mentality, those that are included and those that are not, and I'm just not a big fan of being included, or excluded, especially in my gaming life, from my own hobby. 

I mean, I get that some games with the right players get epic, and their certainly more fun, but not to have to chance to play in that game until I... prove myself? Get in with the right crowd? Get the invite? Get a high enough Global Ranking score? (which the recent discussions have really made clear that you don't really have to be a good player for one of those, a specialized one will do) I don't like the qualifications. I feel like I would never have been a part of my first epic game in the first place... 

I think the tools that currently exist can pretty well streamline the gaming experience, with being able to set enemies, and to create private games.  Heck, if I wanted, I could build my own board, and only play it with my closest friends, and never worry about anyone else. And if they got pesky, I could bar them from playing any game I'm in. That's a pretty effective way of avoiding a player that's wrecking my fun. 

It also changes the overall psychology of the experience of the site, to allow barring of large groups. I like the points system because they are fun, have no real consequence, but still give you a reason to try harder, learn some things, or play more games.  If you filter based on rank, players are going to want to increase their rank to be able to get into the "top games" which makes the wargear experience intensely competitive.  Right now, CP's are competitive, but not because I can't play games if I don't have them, because I like seeing my number rise. Not a real big deal if it doesn't. I can throw a couple of games of Hex out there and have Hugh feed them to me, and it doesn't stop me from playing them, or any other game again. 

Okay. Enough ranting.  Now that I've talked through it some more:

I am intensely against this idea.  I think it's contrary to the spirit of open fun, I think it will discourage widespread play, and will make it difficult for new members to buy in, because they will feel like noobs, more difficult for middle of the road players to get better, and will make a negative impact on the open, accessible and friendly nature of the site. 

Ratsy's impassioned and persuasive argument is swaying me more towards the -1 column  =)

SquintGnome wrote:

Hmm...I don't disagree with a lot of what you say Ratsy and I need more time to reflect on my opinion.  But, I can say that I don't like using the term 'elitist' for those who want to consider the concept of having a ratings filter.  I can imagine there could be as many players with low rank who might want to filter out sharks fishing for points as there are high ranked players looking to filter out less experienced competitors.  I am sure there are those who look to abuse any system, but I would hope the motivation for using a ranking filter would be to generate a more enjoyable experience rather than trying to 'game' the system.

To me it's less elitist and more tragedy-of-the-commons.  Whether you're new and scared of sharks, or a champ scared to defend your title, it hurts the overall site when you take yourself out of the common pool of points up for grabs.

M57 wrote:

Yertle wrote:

 >>I don't think that necessarily means I can't play with higher ranking players but this sort of system would prevent me from joining, which I am not a fan of.<<

The proposed system is optional.  It certainly wouldn't stop you from starting games that are open to everyone.

Anyone using it would potentially affect what games I have access to.

M57 wrote:

But once you get to 1500, and using the same logic, you can now "protect" your position by doing the same and excluding people with scores under 900.

The "protecting" scenario is one of the main issues I have with this this type of system. I'll pull an example from back in the day from ToS in which I had an issue with this type of thing...which included this one guy named Kobra Kai :). That guy would start games with some sort of setting, something like Average Turn Time could be long, due to the fact that the pool of players for that setting was bigger than the other pool of players. At times I believe this would restrict the game from my view and even if I got to it then I couldn't join. Now, how ToS handled it wasn't the best and that could be improved, but it definitely turned me off from ending up with pools of players that can/cannot join Open Public Ranked games, which is what this proposal could do.

...I wonder if that guy still plays online Risk...

ratsy wrote:

Rich excluding the poor, poor hating the rich, major and minor leagues, the olympics, frat houses, high and low ranked players not wanting to play with each other.  All examples of exclusionary practices (and in WarGear's case, practices that exclude large groups of people) that I am lumping into my use of the term "elitist".  It's a nasty word with lots of nasty feeling attached to it, but I think any exclusionary practice creates an us and them mentality, those that are included and those that are not, and I'm just not a big fan of being included, or excluded, especially in my gaming life, from my own hobby. 

I mean, I get that some games with the right players get epic, and their certainly more fun, but not to have to chance to play in that game until I... prove myself? Get in with the right crowd? Get the invite? Get a high enough Global Ranking score? (which the recent discussions have really made clear that you don't really have to be a good player for one of those, a specialized one will do) I don't like the qualifications. I feel like I would never have been a part of my first epic game in the first place... 

I think the tools that currently exist can pretty well streamline the gaming experience, with being able to set enemies, and to create private games.  Heck, if I wanted, I could build my own board, and only play it with my closest friends, and never worry about anyone else. And if they got pesky, I could bar them from playing any game I'm in. That's a pretty effective way of avoiding a player that's wrecking my fun. 

It also changes the overall psychology of the experience of the site, to allow barring of large groups. I like the points system because they are fun, have no real consequence, but still give you a reason to try harder, learn some things, or play more games.  If you filter based on rank, players are going to want to increase their rank to be able to get into the "top games" which makes the wargear experience intensely competitive.  Right now, CP's are competitive, but not because I can't play games if I don't have them, because I like seeing my number rise. Not a real big deal if it doesn't. I can throw a couple of games of Hex out there and have Hugh feed them to me, and it doesn't stop me from playing them, or any other game again. 

Okay. Enough ranting.  Now that I've talked through it some more:

I am intensely against this idea.  I think it's contrary to the spirit of open fun, I think it will discourage widespread play, and will make it difficult for new members to buy in, because they will feel like noobs, more difficult for middle of the road players to get better, and will make a negative impact on the open, accessible and friendly nature of the site. 

Ratsy, as I said above, I am not disagreeing with many of your points, just the term 'elitiist'.  Just because you want to be engaged with a certain group does not mean you are elitist.  Elitism requires a sense of superiority.  Someone can want to limit their group without feeling superior. If a bunch of noobs want to prevent a high ranking player from joining then that certainly is not elitism - I am not saying it is right or what the site should desire, but it isn't elitism.  If we are going to discuss the topic I would like to remove the stigma or name-calling from the topic.  I know you are passionate about the subject, but I am just as passionate about being insulted by being labeled an elitist.