I realized I could essentially play unranked games if I just didn't care about my score.  Would anyone see a problem with me creating an Ozyman-Unranked or Namyzo account and using it for games I just wanted to play for fun?

Of course I would never use that account & my main account in the same game.

Uh, yeah Ozy, think about the precedent you'd be setting there.

...I mean, sure you'll be honest about it and all, but...

...And think about gaming the points system, and how all the rest of us need to practice/learn boards to gain points - especially for CP's - and think about why would not everyone then have a "for fun" account and a ranked account for serious...

I get the request, but I would be hesitant in promoting the playing of Public Ranked games via a separate account so that you can play them as 'Unranked'.  Even though you would play them as Unranked they still effect other's Rankings.  Also I would be very surprised if they were not played in a different manner than as with the main, meaning it wouldn't hurt as much if you lost (that is the point) which I could see changing how you play the game.

Other account for Private/Board Design, then cool.  Other account also for Public games, not too cool. 

At least those are my thoughts.

ratsy wrote:

...And think about gaming the points system, and how all the rest of us need to practice/learn boards to gain points - especially for CP's - and think about why would not everyone then have a "for fun" account and a ranked account for serious...

Sure - I would expect lots of people to create unranked accounts.  I certainly wasn't suggesting I be the only one to do it.

The only real problem I see is that still affects others rankings, but I think it would be a small affect.

Ozyman wrote:

The only real problem I see is that still affects others rankings, but I think it would be a small affect.

I definitely agree the site needs to provide a way for people to play unranked public games, but unfortunately, I have to disagree with this solution, and the above quote.

There's no way to know what might happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if the people who are most likely to do this turn out to be the point leaders. I.e., they're strong players. Once ALL of the strong players start doing this (they would have to because the other strong players are doing it), the system would be messed up. 

All kinds of strange things could happen. For instance, consider a ranked game where the unranked player decides to try out some weird wild strategy that he would normally never attempt in a ranked game.  All players in the game should have the expectation that the other players are in the game with equal motivation.

M57 wrote:

...

All kinds of strange things could happen. For instance, consider a ranked game where the unranked player decides to try out some weird wild strategy that he would normally never attempt in a ranked game.  All players in the game should have the expectation that the other players are in the game with equal motivation.

This point is invalid -- the only things all players in the game should have as an expectation is there is no pre-formed alliance and that there are no duplicate players in the same game (i.e. no cheating). If I want to play completely outside the box and try something weird, that's my prerogative. And I do from time to time 

but then again I play and I don't care about score (most of the time) so I don't see what the whole point of this thread is. Frankly I'm surprised that this question was even seriously considered by someone that's been here so long. I agree there could be an easier way to open up extra seats in private games, but I don't think there should be public unranked games. Once you open that door, you're not going to be able to close it again. All kind of strange things might happen. For instance, most games will end up being unranked and you'll have to figure out how to convince players to play in the ranked games.

weathertop wrote:

This point is invalid -- the only things all players in the game should have as an expectation is there is no pre-formed alliance and that there are no duplicate players in the same game (i.e. no cheating). If I want to play completely outside the box and try something weird, that's my prerogative. And I do from time to time 

but then again I play and I don't care about score..

Carrying this 'nobody cares' logic out and applying it to all, there should be no need for ranked games at all.  I think the argument is very valid.  Speaking for myself (and I semi-care), I would reserve test strategies for un-ranked games, and if anything, I would be more likely to play considered and focused when the games 'count.'

Fact is, there are players here who take their rankings very seriously.

 ..but I don't think there should be public unranked games. Once you open that door, you're not going to be able to close it again.

Why not?  There are no stats attached to unranked games - that's the whole point.  Just stop offering them if they don't work out.

All kind of strange things might happen. For instance, most games will end up being unranked and you'll have to figure out how to convince players to play in the ranked games.

I think this was a more valid argument when the site was young with a smaller membership, but not so much now.

But let's assume that it happens. If more people want to play un-ranked games (and less ranked games), what's wrong with that?   What's wrong with letting members enjoy the site in a way that is most pleasing and comfortable to them?  If it turns out that there are fewer ranked games, then let the "Pros" duke it out in the "serious" arenas.

I'm not sure I'm following the point of this.  If you want an unranked game for practice or whatever why not just start a private game and invite people?  

Another possibility for abuse would be to use the 2nd account to lose a bunch of games and then gun for a top player. They lose a whole bunch of points more than if you had just beat them as yourself. Farfetched? Maybe, but the general concern is potential for abuse which seems legitimate.  

The reason why I wouldn't want to start private games is that I don't know which other players know a particular board, and would be willing to play in my private game.  So I'm hesitant to invite them.  And if the whole point of the game is to experiment, I have no idea who ELSE might want to experiment at the same time.

Just because I've played against you a bunch of times doesn't mean that I have any idea whether you like playing against me.  Or know what you're interested in trying to explore.  Public unranked games let the game be set up without my having to know those things.

> If you want an unranked game for practice or whatever why not just start a private game and invite people? 

That is what I sometimes do, but for example when I see Hugh has started a game of hex.  I think to myself: "I'd love to join that game, maybe pick up a few pointers from Hugh, but I know I'll lose, so I guess not."

Plus my private games are always with the same groups of friends, what if I want to branch out and play with more people?  Sometimes it's hard to find enough people to join a large private game.   If it's a private game, I have to invite by hand.  That means possibly annoying someone with too many invites.  It means either over inviting, and people get invites to full games, or invite exactly then wait around to see if someone declines or never joins.

Clearly everyone thinks this is ripe for abuse, so I won't do it, but I don't agree.  However I would play my unranked games (probably a bit less looking at the history, a bit more aggressively, a bit less heartbreak when the dice go against me, etc.), it would have no more affect on rankings than having another player on wargear with that sort of play style/personality.

btilly wrote:

The reason why I wouldn't want to start private games is that I don't know which other players know a particular board, and would be willing to play in my private game.  So I'm hesitant to invite them.  And if the whole point of the game is to experiment, I have no idea who ELSE might want to experiment at the same time.

Just because I've played against you a bunch of times doesn't mean that I have any idea whether you like playing against me.  Or know what you're interested in trying to explore.  Public unranked games let the game be set up without my having to know those things.

+1.  Ditto

Why limit the pool of players when you create a game?

Also, consider the noobie who doesn't know people, is interested in learning a new board (not to mention one with fancy factory rules or dice mods, which they know nothing about). They may even be uncomfortable creating games and prefer to just join games.  I can just about guarantee that I will not play Invention again until I can play it in an unranked setting.  I've been invited and played it, but with good players and I haven't enjoyed it.  On the other hand, I could see myself figuring it out the "hard" way in unranked games with regular players..

I just don't see how it would be "abused," but I do see it enabling people who would otherwise not play certain boards to give them a try.

Ozyman wrote:

That is what I sometimes do, but for example when I see Hugh has started a game of hex.  I think to myself: "I'd love to join that game, maybe pick up a few pointers from Hugh, but I know I'll lose, so I guess not."

For this very particular example, it really is as simple as inviting Hugh to a private game of Hex!! Others have done it and I find it fun. I'm sure many players feel the same way about their favorite maps.

I've always liked the idea of public unranked games as a way to encourage more action  on certain maps, but it sounds this is not a consensus opinion.

Maybe a more acceptable hack than 2nd accounts would be to create a simple google docs where people put in their user name and some maps they'd like to play and then a small circle of people could get some low-stakes experimental games going. Or maybe just a forum thread of, "Looking to try out that new complicated map..." style posts similar to the "Join my almost-filled tournament" thread.

I don't like the multiple accounts thing.  I see revenge accounts, attempts to join games to lower the top-player's ranking on a board with your saboteur account.  Mixing unranked play in ranked games doesn't seem to fit for me as well, it's like playing poker - even 5 bucks on the line is enough to keep people playing smart, but make it free and people start going all-in at the drop of a hat.

In terms of separating unranked & ranked games... beware of fracturing the player-base.

I can't edit that :(

I like the idea of allowing multiple accounts for 2v2 and 3v3 team games. There would have to be some stern restrictions to keep these from being cheat accounts.

Andernut wrote:

I can't edit that :(

I at least cleaned it up some as it broke the forums :P

If said accounts/ids can be limited to private games and private tourneys, I think that would be sufficient.

The ids for the additional accounts would tie back to the same email address and the additional ids would be xxxxxxx1, xxxxxxx2 - where xxxxxxx is the player's current id.

Thingol wrote: I like the idea of allowing multiple accounts for 2v2 and 3v3 team games. There would have to be some stern restrictions to keep these from being cheat accounts.

Those would not really be 2vs2 or 3vs3 games though...they would be 1vs1 with the ability to play multiple seats.

For the record, I'm not as against the Public Unranked Games idea as much as I was in the past.  I'm not entirely positive it would do more for the site in that it would gain more Players or keep Players longer necessarily, but possibly a nice Premium option (or some sort of limitation).

Non ranked games makes the players that compete for ranks the elite. -I'm not sure if that's good or bad or what, but I am kind of fond of carrying around the torch of my learning curve.  Having a separate account just so you can have an account that only counts for scores is silly, easy to abuse and against the spirit of public rankings.   It also takes score out of the equation when trying to size up competitors.  I don't think I like it. 

Correct Yertle, to your first point, though it need not necessarily be so. Some 3-player teams play so synergistically that they may join against a "team" which comprises 3ids of the same player.

I like the idea of hooking this into premium membership.