+1

M57 wrote:

+1

Not that I have anything against them, and, in fact, they'd help me learn boards as I already try to utilize private games for.  But, maybe some elaboration for anyone who has not put much thought into it on why they might want them?

In a related request, I'd like to be able to invite people to unranked and ranked public games.  I still have no idea why that is not possible to do.

Primary reason I want them, is as stated in the other thread:

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. ;)

>I'd like to be able to invite people to unranked and ranked public games.  I still have no idea why that is not possible to do.

I think for ranked games, you want to have as random a selection of players as possible.  I guess the idea is that you could game the system, by inviting lots of weak players to your game?  No reason not to allow them for unranked games I think.  They would kind of exist somewhere between public and private games.

Ozyman wrote:

Primary reason I want them, is as stated in the other thread:

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. ;)

>I'd like to be able to invite people to unranked and ranked public games.  I still have no idea why that is not possible to do.

I think for ranked games, you want to have as random a selection of players as possible.  I guess the idea is that you could game the system, by inviting lots of weak players to your game?  No reason not to allow them for unranked games I think.  They would kind of exist somewhere between public and private games.

Just because you invite a player, weak or strong, doesn't mean they'll join.  Still their prerogative.  I think they'd be most useful for lightening games.  Just to get them going more quickly when you only have a couple of hours and you want to get it going as quickly as possible.  So many times I launch a lightening game and then have to cancel it two hours later because no one came and there is no way to alert players that you're ready to play as soon as they come online by shooting off a quick invite that sends a link to the game in their email inbox.  That would at least draw their direct attention and make them think once or twice if it's something they want to do.  In fact, even if it was just for lightening games, that'd be a step in the right direction at least.

Why do you need unranked public games to accomplish learning a board without it effecting your rank? Private games seem like they can accomplish both of these. If I invited berickf to a private game of Iwo Jim I bet he would be up for it and in doing so show me the ropes with no impact.

main reason is to get others to join in, rather than inviting friends all the time...

Yeah - I mean I've been on wargear for years, so I have a reasonable group of friends that I would feel comfortable inviting to a public game.  I'm more concerned for the majority of people who may not have enough friends that are willing to try out new maps.  Also, as weathertop says, it's a good way to expand your circle of friends, and get some games against a broader set of players.

Abishai wrote:

Why do you need unranked public games to accomplish learning a board without it effecting your rank? Private games seem like they can accomplish both of these. If I invited berickf to a private game of Iwo Jim I bet he would be up for it and in doing so show me the ropes with no impact.

Bring it!

Though, I wish your statement were completely true.  I've been trying to use privates to learn Waterloo, though that was interrupted by some illness mid last month.  Anyway, while they're not supposed to effect anything, Tom still has not fixed them such that that is truly the case.  currently private matches effect monthly rank, and break win streaks, though not elimination streaks...  So, when my win streak gets so long, and of course I'm particularly focused on my monthly rank these days... I always hum and haw if I really want to risk my streak or monthly points... Vanity kills the potential for fun and learning!

I'd still accept and teach you a few pointers if you sent the invitation though.  I would only not accept against players who are in my or my wife's enemy lists.  Small lists, so, I'm sure they earned the distinction.

Ozyman wrote:

Yeah - I mean I've been on wargear for years, so I have a reasonable group of friends that I would feel comfortable inviting to a public game.  I'm more concerned for the majority of people who may not have enough friends that are willing to try out new maps.  Also, as weathertop says, it's a good way to expand your circle of friends, and get some games against a broader set of players.

I find WarGear is generally a community of pretty decent folk and I don't really fear inviting anyone to anything regardless of if I have spoken to them previously and consider them a friend or if I don't know them at all.  So, given the community, I don't really feel concerned for people not having "friends" per say as the best way to make friends on here is just to invite... anyone really, and to be conversant.  In fact, I'd say that since I generally spam invites for all my tournaments that acceptees to my tournaments seem to feel more free to ask me questions about the tournament if a game gets jammed, or on board strategy, or just to chat in general when we are playing each other.  So, invites are a good way to stimulation conversation and friendship, yes?

weathertop wrote:

main reason is to get others to join in, rather than inviting friends all the time...

Do you really think people would just "invite friends all the time"?  I'm sure you've received invites from me in the past for various tournaments, for instance.  I just spam invites till the tournament launches.  Sometimes I do it by whoever logs on, and sometimes I do it by the board rank list and invite top down because I figure they're more likely to join a tournament on a board they're comfortable with.  So, based on my experience I would say invites are more frequently used for garnering visibility and interest then as a mechanism to funnel friends into a game.  So, to me, invites are to "get others to join in"!  Just actively instead of passively.

To get this back on the OP's +1... You know, the more I think about it.  For learning a board, private matches are the way to go.  Unranked public matches, with anyone coming in, might give someone a false sense of accomplishment when really they have learned nothing much at all.  The best way to learn is to invite the cream of the crop to teach them the ropes at the highest level.  If you can beat the top players, then you're ready to go for public ranked games.  So, I'm not sold on Ozy's reason for public unranked as a way of potentially avoiding the top players, or, making it inconsequential if a top player does jump in anyways...  I'm not even exactly sure what he's aiming for there.  Anyway, a game is a pretty poor learning mechanism if public unranked is to allow them to play against any Tom-Dick-or-Harry without consequence.  If they want to be able to confidently face off against the best players then better to invite those same players to private matches and pick their brains!

That's not to say that I do not see merit in unranked public games though.  For instance, personally I have been playing a lot of 1v1's lately because I've been on the hunt for monthly points.  Fine.  But, I'd like to play some 8-10-12 player games... just for fun and without consequence.  When someone launches a DEV and posts it in the forums, I jump in for just that reason.  If public unranked games were there, however, then I could play such games more routinely and on a greater diversity of boards and without consequence if I were to lose... And of course no gain if I won either.  But, in the search for stability in the growth of my score, I have elected to avoid high risk/reward games for the time being, but, I still long for them and would play a few more if they were without consequence and I could do so just for fun.  So, that is what I would use them for in the here and now.  Is that a +1 ;-)

berickf wrote:

Abishai wrote:

Why do you need unranked public games to accomplish learning a board without it effecting your rank? Private games seem like they can accomplish both of these. If I invited berickf to a private game of Iwo Jim I bet he would be up for it and in doing so show me the ropes with no impact.

Bring it!

Though, I wish your statement were completely true.  I've been trying to use privates to learn Waterloo, though that was interrupted by some illness mid last month.  Anyway, while they're not supposed to effect anything, Tom still has not fixed them such that that is truly the case.  currently private matches effect monthly rank, and break win streaks, though not elimination streaks...  So, when my win streak gets so long, and of course I'm particularly focused on my monthly rank these days... I always hum and haw if I really want to risk my streak or monthly points... Vanity kills the potential for fun and learning!

I'd still accept and teach you a few pointers if you sent the invitation though.  I would only not accept against players who are in my or my wife's enemy lists.  Small lists, so, I'm sure they earned the distinction.

Invitation sent! ✊ 

I'm glad you have incentive to not hold back (I'm going to so get crushed)

berickf wrote:

I would only not accept against players who are in my or my wife's enemy lists.  Small lists, so, I'm sure they earned the distinction.

This made me wonder how one earns the distinction.  Verbal abuse, or being too dang good at beating you?

If it's the latter, I have a new ambition...

BTdubs wrote:

berickf wrote:

I would only not accept against players who are in my or my wife's enemy lists.  Small lists, so, I'm sure they earned the distinction.

This made me wonder how one earns the distinction.  Verbal abuse, or being too dang good at beating you?

 

If it's the latter, I have a new ambition...

To get on my enemy list, so I'll be on the watch in future games, you would have to 1) not hold up to the word of a treaty, and, I'm quite lenient so it'd have to be pretty blatant and result in both of us losing.  I'll forgive a lot of grey areas if it results in their victory, however, because victory is the goal of the game and the treaty. If you were to sort of break a treaty as a direct route to victory... well played.  Keep in mind, I only make fluid treaties and not concrete ones, so, that's the fun of the game!  I don't think I have even enemied anyone for this yet, but, if someone broke a treaty in a boneheaded way that resulted in both of us losing... Yeah... Watch out for them in the future 2)  To be excessively rude to me or to any other player in the game chat.  I don't think that there is ever an excuse for immature name calling and such bs.  I have not yet enemied someone for this reason because most people around here haven't crossed the line in any of my games, but, it is a grounds I would consider.  There is a player who is on my wife's enemy list who swore at me recently in a game chat, and, I still did not mark him as an enemy, so, I guess I'm pretty lenient on this one too 3) Uhmmm... Obvious cheating.  That'll do it.  I know there are 2 players I have enemied for this. 4) There is one player who whenever I beat him he makes a conspiracy theory about it and starts trolling the forums to try and dirt me.  I got sick of that and asked him to never join another of my games/tournaments and that I would extend him the same courtesy.  He also was put on my enemy list so I could quickly identify for such circumstances and to stay away from him.  5) Playing completely irrationally all the time.  Just so I know to get them away from me or eliminated quickly in large player games, for being such a lose canon. Yeah, those pretty much cover the grounds I would consider.

I only have 5 players marked as enemy though.

None of the players who I have marked as enemy even have winning records against me, so, "too dang good at beating" me, does not seem to be a factor.

I know I have invited that bearded avatar to several tournaments though, so, if you feel like you want to be the first to try and get me to enemy someone by being too dang good at beating me... Then step up to the plate my friend!

My reasons.

Yes, I want to learn boards without having to worry about them "counting".  Yes, I want to teach boards without people having to ask me if they want to learn them. And YES, I don't like to bother people with invitations.  And I'm extroverted.  Imagine the mindset of an introvert in this regard.

With the previous statement in mind, I'm guessing there are a number of people who do not really like it that that ANY of their games count, or maybe they like some of them to count but are looking to play some games (under the influence of recreational drugs) that don't count.  Who am I to judge?  You may have to invite 50 players to fill an unranked ten player game under the current scheme (I'm not sure, but currently you can't invite more than 16 at a time, and you have to wait until some join or decline to invite more).  Why not just be able to create an Unranked game??

 It is a PITA to have to invite people to private games.  How do I know who the people are who want to play unranked games?  Well, chances are - they are decidedly NOT the people who post here, i.e. the point chasers.

Speaking for myself there are a number of boards on this site that I would like to play or learn to play, AND have no intention of EVER playing them in a rated game.  I don't want to necessarily play them against the better players.  It may be true that the 'best' way to learn is from the the best players, it's a fallacy to assume that this is the way that people want to learn. It's not necessarily the most entertaining way.Sometimes I want to compete, and sometimes I want to have fun.

What's the big deal?  An unranked game is nothing more than a DEV game that can be started by someone other than the board designer.

My style of play doesn't put me at risk of the other reasons, so dishing out some thumpings is my only hope. 

I play very few games, so it'll have to be spectacular...

Invite me anytime -- private or otherwise. 

BTdubs wrote:

I play very few games,

The tournaments I have invited you to into the past.  Are you put off because it's a greater number of games to commit to, or, because you don't like 1v1 dueling boards, or because of the one day timers?

M57 wrote:

My reasons.

Yes, I want to learn boards without having to worry about them "counting".  Yes, I want to teach boards without people having to ask me if they want to learn them. And YES, I don't like to bother people with invitations.  And I'm extroverted.  Imagine the mindset of an introvert in this regard.

With the previous statement in mind, I'm guessing there are a number of people who do not really like it that that ANY of their games count, or maybe they like some of them to count but are looking to play some games (under the influence of recreational drugs) that don't count.  Who am I to judge?  You may have to invite 50 players to fill an unranked ten player game under the current scheme (I'm not sure, but currently you can't invite more than 16 at a time, and you have to wait until some join or decline to invite more).  Why not just be able to create an Unranked game??

 It is a PITA to have to invite people to private games.  How do I know who the people are who want to play unranked games?  Well, chances are - they are decidedly NOT the people who post here, i.e. the point chasers.

Speaking for myself there are a number of boards on this site that I would like to play or learn to play, AND have no intention of EVER playing them in a rated game.  I don't want to necessarily play them against the better players.  It may be true that the 'best' way to learn is from the the best players, it's a fallacy to assume that this is the way that people want to learn. It's not necessarily the most entertaining way.Sometimes I want to compete, and sometimes I want to have fun.

What's the big deal?  An unranked game is nothing more than a DEV game that can be started by someone other than the board designer.

These are good points. I don't know if I would join one though. Most of the games I play I create because I'm picky like that. I see that although private games (to learn from the best when necessary) are good enough for me, that other players might meander more easily into an unranked public game.

Restating my penultimate point, there are many boards on this site that I do not play because Unranked games are not available.

push :-P