So I have noticed when I play a player with a much lower rating than me I lose a lot of points if I lose and win barely any points if I win.  Is there any way to set games so that much lower ranked players cannot join?  Or is there somehow to see if this can be applied to games?  Thank you :)

This will explain how earning/losing points works: http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:help:rankings

As far as limiting who can join games, no there isn't a way to do that...except in private games (where you invite whoever you want and don't win or lose any points).

Don't lose to bad players. Problem solved.

warqueer wrote:

So I have noticed when I play a player with a much lower rating than me I lose a lot of points if I lose and win barely any points if I win.  Is there any way to set games so that much lower ranked players cannot join?  Or is there somehow to see if this can be applied to games?  Thank you :)

I'm with you - I completely think there should be an option to set restrictions on who can join your games.  This would also get me 80% to what I want out of unranked games, if I could at limit it to other newbs and non-dominate players when I learned a map, and on the other side, keep out newbs once I know what I'm doing. 

Even something limited/simple would help a lot in my opinion.  Something like:

If you've played <= 10 games on a map, and have won <= 1 games on a map you qualify as a 'newb'.

When you create a game you can set it to be open to anyone, to only allow newbs, or no-newbs allowed.  (of course you can't create a restricted game if you are in the restricted group).

Thanks to Afro and Ozy.  How do we go about setting up something like what Ozy suggested?  And why do Xray make rude comment?

warqueer wrote:

Thanks to Afro and Ozy.  How do we go about setting up something like what Ozy suggested?

You do it just by participating in this thread because it is in the suggestions box and tom surely reads posts in this folder. That said, I would oppose the idea, and especially if the site was to migrate to a trueskill type of ranking system.  Regardless, I would much rather learn a board with expert players - not newbs.  Having unranked public games is a much better solution.

 And why do Xray make rude comment?

I'm pretty sure XRJ,s comment isn't meant to be rude - it's more or less a humorous tautology.

M57 wrote:

warqueer wrote:

Thanks to Afro and Ozy.  How do we go about setting up something like what Ozy suggested?

You do it just by participating in this thread because it is in the suggestions box and tom surely reads posts in this folder. That said, I would oppose the idea, and especially if the site was to migrate to a trueskill type of ranking system.  Regardless, I would much rather learn a board with expert players - not newbs.  Having unranked public games is a much better solution.

 And why do Xray make rude comment?

I'm pretty sure XRJ,s comment isn't meant to be rude - it's more or less a humorous tautology.

And I got to learn a new word. Must figure out a way to incorporate "tautology" into conversation today.

I 've played chess on some online chess sites and you can create games and set a range for the ratings.  I think this could be programmed into games.  Say, Colossal Crusade  player range 1000-1400 for example.  Another suggestion; in some large team games I've noticed that the team that goes first seems to win often. Could the turn order go something like this? Team-1, Team-2, Team-3, Team-3, Team-2, Team-1, Team-1, Team 2, Team-3.  That might help equalize it a bit.  Like in a Fantasy Football Draft.  Just a thought.

Alexanderthegreat1 wrote:

Could the turn order go something like this? Team-1, Team-2, Team-3, Team-3, Team-2, Team-1, Team-1, Team 2, Team-3.  That might help equalize it a bit.  Like in a Fantasy Football Draft.  Just a thought.

Or setting up for Settlers of Catan 

Alexanderthegreat1 wrote:

 in some large team games I've noticed that the team that goes first seems to win often. Could the turn order go something like this? Team-1, Team-2, Team-3, Team-3, Team-2, Team-1, Team-1, Team 2, Team-3.  That might help equalize it a bit.  Like in a Fantasy Football Draft.  Just a thought.

This has been brought up many times.  Giving team 1 back to back turns is probably even a greater advantage (think eliminations) than their turn order would give them.

IMO - this can be fixed by the map maker.  They can set 1st round bonuses to help negate turn order advantages.  If you have a map that doesn't do this, and you think 1st position gets too much advantage, contact the map maker and ask them to set 1st round bonuses by hand.

Alexanderthegreat1 wrote:

I 've played chess on some online chess sites and you can create games and set a range for the ratings.  I think this could be programmed into games. 

Our community is not big enough to support splintering game eligibility by experience level. Yet!