I'm ambivalent about elite players keeping out new players.   I don't play a lot of public games, so I don't know how big a problem this is, but if it really impacts the enjoyment of top players, I don't have a real problem with it.

What I do think would benefit the site, is some way for new players to try out new boards without getting stomped by the experts.  Either unranked games, games limited to players under 1250GR on a board, or games limited to players who have only played a board 5 or less times, or a mentorship type program where new players have an experienced player show them the ropes.

This site is ridiculously complicated to new players, and I think doing something to help new players with some of the more advanced boards & site features is worth it.

SquintGnome wrote:

Elitism requires a sense of superiority.  Someone can want to limit their group without feeling superior.

Okay.  I have no desire to insult any one, and I apologize for the name calling. It's uncalled for.

The superiority is the crux of the issue, and I see how it could sit poorly - and how it's different from my use of the term. I have no desire to insult any one, and I apologize for the name calling. It's uncalled for.  To be honest, I really respect your opinion SquintGnome.  :)

Ozyman wrote:

I'm ambivalent about elite players keeping out new players.   I don't play a lot of public games, so I don't know how big a problem this is, but if it really impacts the enjoyment of top players, I don't have a real problem with it.

What I do think would benefit the site, is some way for new players to try out new boards without getting stomped by the experts.  Either unranked games, games limited to players under 1250GR on a board, or games limited to players who have only played a board 5 or less times, or a mentorship type program where new players have an experienced player show them the ropes.

This site is ridiculously complicated to new players, and I think doing something to help new players with some of the more advanced boards & site features is worth it.

+ 1 to Unranked Public Games.

I (and I think some others) have been suggesting/requesting this for years. If the fear is that some members won't ever get involved in competitive play, I can live with that.  Compromises include things like limiting the number of live UPGs to 1 per board.

Thanks Ratsy, I appreciate your sentiments. :)  I do agree with your point in general and I share your concerm about introducing filters into public games. 

The root of my motivation is the point cap, which, at 100, I feel is too high.  This has been discussed before, so I don't want to revive the topic, I just want to explain where I am coming from.

When playing dueling boards it occurs more often than you might think where you can lose 80-100 points in a game.  Given the influence of luck on these boards it is not possible to improve your rankings in situations like this, since even an expert player will win only 65-70% of the time and you end up losing points winning at the maximum possible rate.  So...you stop playing the board.  This is what prompted me to initially request a range filter - not because I wanted to exclude low ranked players, but more because I felt the point cap was too high. 

I would much prefer a lower point cap instead of a range filter because I am uncomfortable with any filter on public games.

Anyway...a complex problem to solve.  

SquintGnome wrote:

Thanks Ratsy, I appreciate your sentiments. :)  I do agree with your point in general and I share your concerm about introducing filters into public games. 

The root of my motivation is the point cap, which, at 100, I feel is too high.  This has been discussed before, so I don't want to revive the topic, I just want to explain where I am coming from.

When playing dueling boards it occurs more often than you might think where you can lose 80-100 points in a game.  Given the influence of luck on these boards it is not possible to improve your rankings in situations like this, since even an expert player will win only 65-70% of the time and you end up losing points winning at the maximum possible rate.  So...you stop playing the board.  This is what prompted me to initially request a range filter - not because I wanted to exclude low ranked players, but more because I felt the point cap was too high. 

I would much prefer a lower point cap instead of a range filter because I am uncomfortable with any filter on public games.

Anyway...a complex problem to solve.  

Well stated, but I don't see this as a problem.

It's like we all (myself included) forget this is a game that uses dice, which we actually think that we can somehow tame and then distill accuracy from.  We believe it's all but impossible for a 15th seed to win in the first round of March Madness even as we acknowledge that luck can play a part in these things, but basketball isn't played with dice so it doesn't happen.

I say Goliath has to fall occasionally so we can all believe it can actually happen.  The difference is, here he can just get back up to fight another day.  It's a game.

Hey M, I am not bemoaning the fact the underdogs win, quite the opposite.  I fully acknowledge that everyone has a chance to win - and they do and I am not surprised.

What I am saying is that a scoring system is flawed when someone wins the maximum possible % on a board but loses points doing it.  On many dueling boards it is not possible to win more than 3 out of 4 (75%).  However, right now, you can play some opponents 4 games and win 3 of them and still lose points.

I am not saying that it can be fixed or even that we need to try to fix it - but I don't like it.   

SquintGnome wrote:

Hey M, I am not bemoaning the fact the underdogs win, quite the opposite.  I fully acknowledge that everyone has a chance to win - and they do and I am not surprised.

What I am saying is that a scoring system is flawed when someone wins the maximum possible % on a board but loses points doing it.  On many dueling boards it is not possible to win more than 3 out of 4 (75%).  However, right now, you can play some opponents 4 games and win 3 of them and still lose points.

I am not saying that it can be fixed or even that we need to try to fix it - but I don't like it.   

Even so the best player on the board still has the highest ranking and isn't that what really matters?

In many cases it is difficult to make a run at the top player because of this Xray.  Often, when a board is released players will make a run at it and get the top spot.  Months later when the board becomes more popular the scenario I describe above can occur.