Whats the point of a 3 player game if it's all the same player?  That makes no sense to me at all.

Andernut wrote:

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.

Revenge account! Now that is a solid idea...

As a pseudo Hijack of the thread:

A number of thoughts that might help Ozy/M57/BTilly/others (who haven't spoken up) until the time that everyone agrees on usability of unranked games:

1) Use the top ranked players of a given board to find people who would accept private-game invites.  I've done then when trying to learn boards - Find the guys who are the best at that board, and then chase them down to bounce strategies off of.  If (s)he is top ranked, (s)he probably likes playing that board, and would be open to a private game on it.  Especially if you included a number of other top-ranked players (the best like playing the best)

2) We have a fully functioning forum/wiki, can't we make a place for people to add their names to that would be lists of people willing to accept private-game-invites for boards?
a) You could post a message in the forums telling people that you are looking for people to accept private game invites, and have people respond
b) (I haven't been to the Wiki much since the first day it opened, so pardon my ignorance but...) There was talk about making a Wiki page for every board, and on that page, we could make a list of people willing to get private invites, and players could add their own name to the list

3) Why not just invite all your WG friends (even those you don't know IRL):  I know that I get 1-2 dozen tourney invites per month from people I only know on WG, and I'm not offended by them, even when I hate the board.  I just decline and move on.
There's no reason someone couldn't do the same thing with private games.
If you invite twice the number of people to a private game as there are spots, I'm sure you'll fill it in no time. 

4) Use the public list of people who have volunteered to try out games for educational purposes:  the Board Testers list.

5) Add me to your list of random friends to invite to private games.  I'm not good at any board, and I'm not great at any strategy, but I'm willing to be anyone's guinea pig.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

As a pseudo Hijack of the thread:

A number of thoughts that might help Ozy/M57/BTilly/others (who haven't spoken up) until the time that everyone agrees on usability of unranked games:

1) Use the top ranked players of a given board to find people who would accept private-game invites.  I've done then when trying to learn boards - Find the guys who are the best at that board, and then chase them down to bounce strategies off of.  If (s)he is top ranked, (s)he probably likes playing that board, and would be open to a private game on it.  Especially if you included a number of other top-ranked players (the best like playing the best)

2) We have a fully functioning forum/wiki, can't we make a place for people to add their names to that would be lists of people willing to accept private-game-invites for boards?
a) You could post a message in the forums telling people that you are looking for people to accept private game invites, and have people respond
b) (I haven't been to the Wiki much since the first day it opened, so pardon my ignorance but...) There was talk about making a Wiki page for every board, and on that page, we could make a list of people willing to get private invites, and players could add their own name to the list

3) Why not just invite all your WG friends (even those you don't know IRL):  I know that I get 1-2 dozen tourney invites per month from people I only know on WG, and I'm not offended by them, even when I hate the board.  I just decline and move on.
There's no reason someone couldn't do the same thing with private games.
If you invite twice the number of people to a private game as there are spots, I'm sure you'll fill it in no time. 

4) Use the public list of people who have volunteered to try out games for educational purposes:  the Board Testers list.

5) Add me to your list of random friends to invite to private games.  I'm not good at any board, and I'm not great at any strategy, but I'm willing to be anyone's guinea pig.

Not a hijack - but these are not a solution for casual players and newbies who..

..don't know how to get to the wiki - this site is confusing enough as it is.  In fact, I would be tempted to advocate for Unranked games as being the default.

..don't go to board pages

..don't visit the "who's on top" pages.  (Why would they? - That's precisely what they're not interested in.)

..don't want to learn from real good players who (they think) are just going to kick their butts.

..don't want to post on message boards.

..don't want to take the time to learn to do any of the above.

 I wouldn't be surprised if all of the above constitutes MOST of the players on this site.

What I'm thinking is that these members DO want is to EASILY (in just a few clicks) find players to play a game in a less serious setting, where they can feel free to ask questions, possibly talk more trash, etc.  

In reply to Ratsy, there are some of us over here who would like to play some "team" games in 1v1 or 1vteam format (such as Axis and Allies). Think about that board for a second. Most games are played 1v1 on the boardgame itself, even though it is a team 3v2 game. The game-makers knew this would likely occur. They have recommendations for 1v1, 1v2, 1v3, 2v2 and the traditional setup.

I'm not sure why you can't envision people would find entertainment in the ability to control all roles on a aparticular team. It would save on the headaches of communication and collaboration. After all, in WW2, there was one supreme Allied commander (and his name wasn't Eisenhower, it was George Marshall).

Is it not possible to set up scenarios for that kind of thing then? 

 

I mean for the various combinations of players? 

M57 - I appreciate your response, and I my argument is as follows:

..don't know how to get to the wiki - this site is confusing enough as it is.  In fact, I would be tempted to advocate for Unranked games as being the default.

..don't go to board pages

..don't visit the "who's on top" pages.  (Why would they? - That's precisely what they're not interested in.)

..don't want to learn from real good players who (they think) are just going to kick their butts.

..don't want to post on message boards.

..don't want to take the time to learn to do any of the above.

1) Just to clarify:  I'm understanding you to be requesting a feature for a player who (from your description above) has invested exactly zero minutes and zero effort into the site?  I might question that user as providing enough justification for adding a whole new method to play.

2) Additionally, maybe the group disagrees with my statement in #1, and that that scenario is sufficient justification for unranked games, but then I propose that you should post the above argument to a thread that is discussing the merits of unranked games.

However, this thread (that I'm trying not to hijack) is discussing the merits of Ozy adding a second account for educational purposes.
And I would certainly describe Ozy as:

1) knows how to use the Wiki
2) does go to board pages
3) does visit the who's on top pages
4) does want to learn from real good players
5) does post to message boards
6) does learn all of the above on his own volition.

And that, my friend, would tell me that he's a perfect candidate for my solution, which (as I said in my original post) would cover his needs until that time which Tom makes a firm decision on unranked games.

Sorry @BTF - I misread a critical sentence in your post

A number of thoughts that might help Ozy/M57/BTilly/others (who haven't spoken up) until the time that everyone agrees on usability of unranked games:

Yes, there are workarounds for those who know their way around the site, and yes I'm probably getting carried away with trying to be a voice for a demographic that, while they haven't invested any effort in the site, are nonetheless very important and need to be considered.

Moving forward, and as far as consensus is concerned, by my count most here are not fans of the multiple account approach, and most (not all) are in favor of having Un-ranked games.

RE: the somewhat OT topic of 1 player playing the whole team / 1 player playing AA type games, etc. the issue has been discussed in other threads.  I couldn't find a single thread dedicated to the subject so perhaps someone could start one.

ratsy wrote:

Is it not possible to set up scenarios for that kind of thing then? 

 

I mean for the various combinations of players? 

Not that I know of. Perhaps Yertle or M57 can chime in? They've made plenty of boards. BTW, concur with Boris' posts.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

As a pseudo Hijack of the thread:

A number of thoughts that might help Ozy/M57/BTilly/others (who haven't spoken up) until the time that everyone agrees on usability of unranked games:

1) Use the top ranked players of a given board to find people who would accept private-game invites.  I've done then when trying to learn boards - Find the guys who are the best at that board, and then chase them down to bounce strategies off of.  If (s)he is top ranked, (s)he probably likes playing that board, and would be open to a private game on it.  Especially if you included a number of other top-ranked players (the best like playing the best)

2) We have a fully functioning forum/wiki, can't we make a place for people to add their names to that would be lists of people willing to accept private-game-invites for boards?
a) You could post a message in the forums telling people that you are looking for people to accept private game invites, and have people respond
b) (I haven't been to the Wiki much since the first day it opened, so pardon my ignorance but...) There was talk about making a Wiki page for every board, and on that page, we could make a list of people willing to get private invites, and players could add their own name to the list

3) Why not just invite all your WG friends (even those you don't know IRL):  I know that I get 1-2 dozen tourney invites per month from people I only know on WG, and I'm not offended by them, even when I hate the board.  I just decline and move on.
There's no reason someone couldn't do the same thing with private games.
If you invite twice the number of people to a private game as there are spots, I'm sure you'll fill it in no time. 

4) Use the public list of people who have volunteered to try out games for educational purposes:  the Board Testers list.

5) Add me to your list of random friends to invite to private games.  I'm not good at any board, and I'm not great at any strategy, but I'm willing to be anyone's guinea pig.

+1 Excellent Ideas!

I rarely turn down a private invite, and only if it's a board or setup I don't like (3 player no fog).  Often if I'm a little slow the game is already filled an running because so many agreed.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

M57 - I appreciate your response, and I my argument is as follows:

..don't know how to get to the wiki - this site is confusing enough as it is.  In fact, I would be tempted to advocate for Unranked games as being the default.

..don't go to board pages

..don't visit the "who's on top" pages.  (Why would they? - That's precisely what they're not interested in.)

..don't want to learn from real good players who (they think) are just going to kick their butts.

..don't want to post on message boards.

..don't want to take the time to learn to do any of the above.

1) Just to clarify:  I'm understanding you to be requesting a feature for a player who (from your description above) has invested exactly zero minutes and zero effort into the site?  I might question that user as providing enough justification for adding a whole new method to play.

2) Additionally, maybe the group disagrees with my statement in #1, and that that scenario is sufficient justification for unranked games, but then I propose that you should post the above argument to a thread that is discussing the merits of unranked games.

However, this thread (that I'm trying not to hijack) is discussing the merits of Ozy adding a second account for educational purposes.
And I would certainly describe Ozy as:

1) knows how to use the Wiki
2) does go to board pages
3) does visit the who's on top pages
4) does want to learn from real good players
5) does post to message boards
6) does learn all of the above on his own volition.

And that, my friend, would tell me that he's a perfect candidate for my solution, which (as I said in my original post) would cover his needs until that time which Tom makes a firm decision on unranked games.

+1

Thingol wrote:

ratsy wrote:

Is it not possible to set up scenarios for that kind of thing then? 

 

I mean for the various combinations of players? 

Not that I know of. Perhaps Yertle or M57 can chime in? They've made plenty of boards. BTW, concur with Boris' posts.

For the most part I believe Thingol is right.  There may be some complicated Design trickery to playing multiple positions for a single player, but for the most part it wouldn't be very robust or clean.  (The main obstacles being that today as a Player you have full access to all your territories for Placing/Attacking/Fortifying, rather than just a subset (ie Specific Seat/Position) for a defined part of a round.)

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

M57 - I appreciate your response, and I my argument is as follows:

..don't know how to get to the wiki - this site is confusing enough as it is.  In fact, I would be tempted to advocate for Unranked games as being the default.

..don't go to board pages

..don't visit the "who's on top" pages.  (Why would they? - That's precisely what they're not interested in.)

..don't want to learn from real good players who (they think) are just going to kick their butts.

..don't want to post on message boards.

..don't want to take the time to learn to do any of the above.

1) Just to clarify:  I'm understanding you to be requesting a feature for a player who (from your description above) has invested exactly zero minutes and zero effort into the site?  I might question that user as providing enough justification for adding a whole new method to play.

2) Additionally, maybe the group disagrees with my statement in #1, and that that scenario is sufficient justification for unranked games, but then I propose that you should post the above argument to a thread that is discussing the merits of unranked games.

However, this thread (that I'm trying not to hijack) is discussing the merits of Ozy adding a second account for educational purposes.
And I would certainly describe Ozy as:

1) knows how to use the Wiki
2) does go to board pages
3) does visit the who's on top pages
4) does want to learn from real good players
5) does post to message boards
6) does learn all of the above on his own volition.

And that, my friend, would tell me that he's a perfect candidate for my solution, which (as I said in my original post) would cover his needs until that time which Tom makes a firm decision on unranked games.

I believe that I am another person who fits your criteria for your solution.  But I don't like it.

Why not?

Because I like larger boards.  And I don't feel that I have a lot of people here who I know well enough to ask for the size of game that I like.  Furthermore if there is going to be a game for the point of learning, asking everyone to play it only for MY benefit feels selfish to me.  Doubly so since I'm not a fan of receiving invites for private games out of the blue myself.

However I have two alternate workarounds.

1. Stop caring about my rating.

2. Create scenarios under development which are just for learning the board.  Games on these could be advertised in the forums as, "I'm not really developing this scenario, this is just unranked for practice."

In the light, if I see a development scenario of Invention so advertised for M57's benefit, I'd jump in and play it as well.

btilly wrote:

see a development scenario of Invention so advertised for M57's benefit, I'd jump in and play it as well.

Unfortunately, you can't start a Dev game on someone else's board.  But I'm pretty sure you can start a public game on any board in Beta, right?

If so, if designers made copies of their boards and put them in Beta then anyone could play them un-ranked, right?

I'm now seriously thinking of doing this with some or most of my boards.

The problem is beta boards drop off beta after a month, so you'd have to remember to turn them all back on every month.

Also, by default players do not see games started on beta boards.  They need to go turn on an option.

Man I hate how copy/paste fails in these posts. 

When I started in TOS I didn't give a hoot whether I was playing ranked or unranked.

People join this site and the default when you play is that the site tracks your statistics.  It's not ranked vs unranked for new players, it's simply what is.  The site tracks your performance and you can compare your relative ability on a board to the others playing on it.  I don't see how it's a bad thing.

I can see people who really care about their statistics not playing a new board until they have it figured out... but really those people are probably motivated enough to create a private game sometime.  Personally, I just join the games. 

The really key games that would be nice to have unranked are probably 1vs1 games... and you know, we can already do that very easily with a private invite.

In response to M57, whose casual newbies don't care about who's on top - why would they care whether the game is ranked or not?

Now having been the victim of ill-informed players that are new to the site... I can see why some people pursuing board rankings don't want these newbies to destroy their game as they careen around the map bouncing off their unfortunate neighbor. But it just comes with the territory. 

Plus I'd probably yell at them until they are shamed into thinking about what they do, make me their number one enemy, or quit.

 

Now it probably sounds like I'm against splintering the player base... well I kind of am.  I think allowing unranked games reduces the number of people playing ranked games, or the rate at which those games fill up.  Already some players only play 1-day, 2-day or 3-day boots and will only join or create those type of games. 

I just want to think carefully about the benefits of unranked games vs the drawbacks.  Anything that splits players into different shards has the potential to reduce the quality of the wargear experience. 

 

Hrm.  Do you think unranked games would encourage players to try out more different boards.  I'm sure I'm biased as a mapmaker, but frankly I think it's a shame.  Tom has put a lot of work into giving us the ability to make maps that are truly different from the many different similar sites, and yet 99% of the games are on WGWF.

I think unranked games 'would' encourage more players to attempt more boards.

Thingol wrote: I think unranked games 'would' encourage more players to attempt more boards.

That was one of the points inbedded my "threat" to make my boards Beta.  I want them to get played. Even Cona Chris, arguably the best player on this site, was somewhat daunted by the prospect of having to learn War of the Roses (read the comments on his rating for the board), which he thought was probably too complicated, or had too much of a learning curve. I had to beg him to join some private games.

I think Andernut's point that newbies don't care about ranking has some merit, but I would respond that newbies don't remain baby newbies very long.  This site is set up to constantly remind them of the fact that they are being ranked with each game that passes.  There are some that may continue to not care, and some that embrace the race, but there will be others who are likely intimidated by these reminders, and I don't doubt that some of these just up and leave.