For the first time ever, a player has managed the three-peat - berickf takes home March, April and May $50 competition prizes. Is this man unstoppable?!

May 2015 Competition Winners

1		berickf	2243
2		YuriZ	1805
3		Amidon37	1672
4		Vyro	1669
5		mike k	1639
6		crazyivan2010	1598
7		Dud	1573
8		keedy black	1541
9		fiveRocketCars	1529
10		charlesdale	1524

The June competition is now underway... good luck everyone!

I would like to thank asm, Slander, Korrun and Ozyman for making it all possible!  Thanks guys!

35 wins out of 35 public games of Iwo Jima.  I can see how it helped.

Congratulations!

Ok (not to rain on berickf's parade, but...)  this is good example of why we need unranked games.

A newb who plays berickf in Iwo Jima is almost 100% guaranteed to lose, probably get trounced pretty bad.  Same for if they play Cona Chris, or even me or anyone that's played it a few times.  It just requires some time to learn - I don't think that's a bad thing, but how many of those players that just got killed and lost some ranking from it, are going to decide they want to play another game and again almost assuredly lose?  Not many... 

Some will decide they don't care about their tournament score and maybe learn it there, if they are sufficiently intrigued.  But in 2 years, the only one playing it will be the board revival group. ;)

Ozyman wrote:

35 wins out of 35 public games of Iwo Jima.  I can see how it helped.

 

Congratulations!

....

But in 2 years, the only one playing it will be the board revival group. ;)

Don't forget 56 of 58 tournament games for a total of 91 of 93. ;-)

....

I do try to be friendly and to give pointers to anyone interested, so as not to discourage players to badly.  I hope in tournaments everyone will find some competitive and fun games.  Even if Cona, Vyro, Babba, Timmy, myself and a few others try to run the field, there should still be another half dozen opponents that should still have some fun and evenly matched matches while they are still learning the board!  I think the fact that there are now more then half a dozen competent/dangerous players on the board is a testament to the great community we have here and that we're willing to teach and encourage each other to be better!

Even BA only has about a half dozen really awesome players, so, I think Iwo can still have a perpetual  life as a tournament GR booster and not die to the BRG!

....

Well done though Ozy, it's a great board!

I hope I have contributed to giving your board some traction by getting a lot of players playing it and hopefully interested in playing it well.  We should have a good voting turn out for this board competition at the least!

Ozyman wrote:

Ok (not to rain on berickf's parade, but...)  this is good example of why we need unranked games.

A newb who plays berickf in Iwo Jima is almost 100% guaranteed to lose, probably get trounced pretty bad.  Same for if they play Cona Chris, or even me or anyone that's played it a few times.  It just requires some time to learn - I don't think that's a bad thing, but how many of those players that just got killed and lost some ranking from it, are going to decide they want to play another game and again almost assuredly lose?  Not many... 

Some will decide they don't care about their tournament score and maybe learn it there, if they are sufficiently intrigued.  But in 2 years, the only one playing it will be the board revival group. ;)

 

To a certain extent I agree. However I kinda see tournaments the place to learn new boards without my main rankings taking a hit. Also during tournies, there's the possibility to play multiple times and learn a board.

I have to admit I have not started any public Battle of Blandensburg games even though I love the board cause I figure Berickf will join immediately and trounce me. Its total garbage how he gets 6 extra bonus units/turn, 5 extra attacks and 2 extra fortifies in Battle of Blandensburg and Iwo Jima. Can Tom finally look into this obvious bug?!

Having a blast in the Battle of Blandensburg tournament though.

I feel your pain Xray - I avoid play on a number of boards for these reasons.  Having unranked games is the solution to this problem.

IR - Your argument holds no water for me because I value tournament play (and its accompanying ratings) as highly as my Board GRs and CPs.   Unranked games is the only way I'll be playing these boards.  Nor are private games the solution - I can't be bothered to try and round up the players.  I've been known to do it on occasion, but it's a pain and it's too intrusive.

I don't avoid it for ranking purposes...I couldn't care less about my ranking(s) and take each individual game as its own war...and don't see the point of signing up for a war with a 0% chance of winning. So I still wouldn't start unranked games. Thats just me though.

Xrayjay wrote:

I have to admit I have not started any public Battle of Blandensburg games even though I love the board cause I figure Berickf will join immediately and trounce me. Its total garbage how he gets 6 extra bonus units/turn, 5 extra attacks and 2 extra fortifies in Battle of Blandensburg and Iwo Jima. Can Tom finally look into this obvious bug?!

Having a blast in the Battle of Blandensburg tournament though.

You could pm me and request me not to join your games until you have a better grasp of the board.  I would not be offended and would oblige by your request.

berickf wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

I have to admit I have not started any public Battle of Blandensburg games even though I love the board cause I figure Berickf will join immediately and trounce me. Its total garbage how he gets 6 extra bonus units/turn, 5 extra attacks and 2 extra fortifies in Battle of Blandensburg and Iwo Jima. Can Tom finally look into this obvious bug?!

Having a blast in the Battle of Blandensburg tournament though.

You could pm me and request me not to join your games until you have a better grasp of the board.  I would not be offended and would oblige by your request.

That's great, but not all players would acquiesce in such a civil manner. The larger problem still remains.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

I have to admit I have not started any public Battle of Blandensburg games even though I love the board cause I figure Berickf will join immediately and trounce me. Its total garbage how he gets 6 extra bonus units/turn, 5 extra attacks and 2 extra fortifies in Battle of Blandensburg and Iwo Jima. Can Tom finally look into this obvious bug?!

Having a blast in the Battle of Blandensburg tournament though.

You could pm me and request me not to join your games until you have a better grasp of the board.  I would not be offended and would oblige by your request.

That's great, but not all players would acquiesce in such a civil manner. The larger problem still remains.

Cona jumped in on my first or second public game on Iwo, before I felt comfortable on the board.  I asked him if he could please wait till I got 10 games under my belt and felt more comfortable before he jumped into one of my games again, and he respected my wishes... I think most the best players are considerate folk and would help aspiring players before just trying to frustrate them.

I do not like to ask people not to join.  Besides, I don't really care if the better players to join - but I don't want it to count.

Bottom Line: I don't want the games to count - and I don't want them to be private.  I would like anyone to be able to join.  I feel that these games will fill faster, and be populated by players who I would never think to invite.

To be even more clear about a previous post I made in this thread. I don't play MOST boards on this sites because I can't play them easily in unranked fashion.

M57 wrote:

I don't play MOST boards on this sites because I can't play them easily in unranked fashion.

And the larger point is that M57 (and I) probably represents a large percentage of other WG players.  I'd wager most players feel this way.  This isn't really about those of us who post on the forums, because we know enough to work around it - joining tournaments, inviting friends and near-friends, watching histories, etc. 

But we represent like .1% of the site.  The vast majority of players never post on the forums, probably don't know we have a wiki, don't join tournaments, etc.  Unranked games are really for them.  

And even though I know I can join a tournament, put together a private game, etc.  I rarely do.  Why?  Because it's work.  There is a concept in UI/UX of "friction", which is a measure of how much of a pain in the ass it is to do something.  In general companies strive for a 'frictionless' experience for their users.  They want plug-and-play, easy sharing, etc.  This is the sort of thing that unranked games represent.  It's something that would benefit the majority of users.  As much as I want token territories, or real time factories, or movement costs, etc. unranked games would affect my wargear experience a lot more than any of those.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

I don't play MOST boards on this sites because I can't play them easily in unranked fashion.

And the larger point is that M57 (and I) probably represents a large percentage of other WG players.  I'd wager most players feel this way.  This isn't really about those of us who post on the forums, because we know enough to work around it - joining tournaments, inviting friends and near-friends, watching histories, etc. 

But we represent like .1% of the site.  The vast majority of players never post on the forums, probably don't know we have a wiki, don't join tournaments, etc.  Unranked games are really for them.  

And even though I know I can join a tournament, put together a private game, etc.  I rarely do.  Why?  Because it's work.  There is a concept in UI/UX of "friction", which is a measure of how much of a pain in the ass it is to do something.  In general companies strive for a 'frictionless' experience for their users.  They want plug-and-play, easy sharing, etc.  This is the sort of thing that unranked games represent.  It's something that would benefit the majority of users.  As much as I want token territories, or real time factories, or movement costs, etc. unranked games would affect my wargear experience a lot more than any of those.

You are really making a strong argument for invitations here!  Tourneys have invites and require a player to have an avatar...  I invite EVERYONE that comes on line and it makes me so happy when I see a new player add an avatar to try something new like a tournament!!!  So, sometimes it is about reducing friction (doing away with the need for an avatar, for instance), and sometimes overcoming friction just requires a little push from a fellow gamer... Invitations!!!!  Bring invitations for all games please!

I'd much rather have all those other suggestions you put before unranked public games.  Mostly because I pursue rank, I suppose, but, for learning boards I much prefer the closed invitation system of private games and, to a degree, unranked public games might actually detract a bit from the competitiveness of the battlefield.  It could become hard for someone like Mad Bomber or Cona Chris to keep on collecting their CP if a chunk of players, given an alternative, becomes afraid of playing competitive matches.  Also, some boards can take way too long to fill as ranked public games... Do we really want to add a further hurdle to them filling by detouring so many players away from joining ranked games against great players?  Maybe unranked games should only be offered on boards that have had 'x' number of games played on them such that boards will garner a base ranking before players might choose to play them in an unranked fashion?  I'm not really 'against' them, per say, and would even make use of them to play some relaxed non-competitive matches here and there, but, I do see some detractions that make me think that they might deserve pause and thought before adding.  Also, I would not make use of them enough to make them a priority and I don't think most players would.  This is because either a player cares about their rank and actually wants to play ranked games, like myself, and would play unranked games sparingly just for relaxed fun or for practice, or, a player doesn't care about their rank and would join games indiscriminately, ranked or unranked.

Most of us posting here probably fit into the first group, most of the people who don't know or care to know about the forums, the wiki, or how their rank is calculated... The second group.  So, why push a mandate for a silent majority that, in actuality, does not seem to be important to them?  Ohhhh... Maybe the site needs a polling system to find out ;-)

We are not making an argument for invitations.  Invitations take a LOT of time - It can take hundreds to fill even a small tournament on a less than popular board.  I've pretty much given up on that. It's a PITA. The people who we would like to invite are the 99.9% who don't post here. Sending invitations for a single game is a similar shot in the dark.

The argument that the point collectors would be choked out of easy wins actually supports the idea of having unranked games. It's not the perfect analogy, but chess grand-masters don't and shouldn't play rank beginners to raise their points. If there were unranked games, and it turned out that most people didn't want to play ranked games, I would be fine with that.  My guess is the site would see more activity with the addition of that choice.  Let the top players duke it out against each other for points.  If I'm crappy at a board, or just don't want to play all that seriously, I certainly don't want to be giving points away to the point chasers.  In this sense, having unranked games will make the system even more difficult to 'game.'

I am with M57 on this -- I would play more boards, if unranked.  I would join more ranked games if I could practice. I avoid signing up for tourneys on unknown boards because I am not always sure I can commit to many games over months and don't yet know if I even like the board.

The players I would invite are often the players I am trying to avoid while I try a half-baked idea.

M57 wrote:

Invitations take a LOT of time - It can take hundreds to fill even a small tournament on a less than popular board.  I've pretty much given up on that. It's a PITA... Sending invitations for a single game is a similar shot in the dark.

I think that you could probably agree that based on the number of tournaments I launch and the thousands of invitations I have sent to fill those tournaments quickly that it is not a pain in the ass for everyone and wouldn't be for those same people for individual games as well?  In fact, for a 1v1 lightening game, if invitations were available, I'm sure I'd find ONE player to join within 20-30 minutes instead of having to delete the game after two hours with no one joining. So, in that regard, it would be time well spent to get a player quickly and then play the game rather then to have to keep tabs on if someone might happen to jump in, and, if you miss them coming along, potentially miss a turn or get booted.  Then after baby sitting the computer for two hours on the chance that someone might come along, ultimately, the typical result is pressing the 'delete game' button...

M57 wrote:

The argument that the point collectors would be choked out of easy wins...

That's not what I said.  I said that the board should perhaps only be allowed unranked games after x number of board plays to create a baseline rank while experience between players is most even.  Realize that in the early games the best players have not yet developed their strategies to the fullest, nor become completely comfortable on the board them self.  If they're going to get beat, this would be the best time to do it and the playing field is the most even because of this.  So, I was saying the EXACT opposite.  That games should retain rank while their are NO easy wins for lack of experience, then, when experience has grown and strategies have developed such that some players might now feel like pawns playing against the highest ranked players on that board, then unranked games could perhaps be made available after x number of board plays.  But, by this point the board at least has a baseline rank and you know which players to "look out for", and who's histories to watch if you want to figure out how to play the board better yourself by example.  Does that make more sense now?

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

Invitations take a LOT of time - It can take hundreds to fill even a small tournament on a less than popular board.  I've pretty much given up on that. It's a PITA... Sending invitations for a single game is a similar shot in the dark.

I think that you could probably agree that based on the number of tournaments I launch and the thousands of invitations I have sent to fill those tournaments quickly that it is not a pain in the ass for everyone and wouldn't be for those same people for individual games as well?  In fact, for a 1v1 lightening game, if invitations were available, I'm sure I'd find ONE player to join within 20-30 minutes instead of having to delete the game after two hours with no one joining. So, in that regard, it would be time well spent to get a player quickly and then play the game rather then to have to keep tabs on if someone might happen to jump in, and, if you miss them coming along, potentially miss a turn or get booted.  Then after baby sitting the computer for two hours on the chance that someone might come along, ultimately, the typical result is pressing the 'delete game' button...

I can't speak for you, but for the number of tournaments that I have personally launched and the THOUSANDS of invitations I have sent - It was  PITA and I'm not going to do it again.  I suppose we could wait for more berickf's to do all that work and hope that the boards they choose are the ones we want to play, but..

Besides.. Unranked Tournaments is not what we're debating here.  Unranked Games is what I'm interested in.