SpielByWeb

[efreeman]

[ElDavid]

I'll put my own two cents in....

I am amongst those who are in favor of some sort of rankings.
Obviously, the win percentage and number of games played don't say much.....I've played tens of E&T games on BGG with the same group of friends, won about what one would statistically expect, tried an open game, got clubbered like I played for the first time....obviously, I either regularly play with a group of average players, or I stumbled into an expert game.
A better ranking scheme gives me information about the game I am joining, or some control over the oens I create. Do I want to play a game where I have a good change of winning, because I want to pad my ego? Do I want to play with those better than myself because I want to learn and get better? Or do I jut not care, and simply ignore the ratings?
Will players start leaving the games if they are doing poorly? Take 100 points off for each abandoned game, track the number of abandoned games, give other players the option of not playing with people who have abandoned games....
Does it segregate the users? Maybe....but I find the concern hilarious. I just counted, and at this moment, 3 of 96 open games are NOT passworded. With 97% of the games unavailable to me, just how much more segregated can you get???

To counter the "poor BSW expert" argument....suppose a gamer likes Amun-Ra, for example....wants to buy it, maybe check it out here before he does....joins two games, each of them with 3 or 4 die-hard experts....doesn't even know what hit him before he is stuck on 8 points while everyone else has 40. Most likely decides it's a stupid game and stays away from it...

[eratos]

The point about the new player aiming to buy the game is a valid one, and is a side to the story I hadn't considered.

However, the point about 97% of the games being unavailable to you is not.

Yes there are a lot of passworded games waiting to start - but some of those games have been waiting to start for a very very long time. The fact of the matter is the unpassworded games fill up very quickly, and as such you hardly see them on the open games list before they start.

Does anyone here play Go? Look at the KGS (Kiseido Go Server) for some example of what I mean. Everyone wants to play games with people of a higher rank them them so they can learn. Also, because of the way new people are treated with uncertain ranks, many people won't even entertain the thought of playing that person, as they could be under/over rated.

The only way on KGS to get a solid ranking and start gettign some games is to first play against some go robots - but you'd better find one that roughly matches your strength first!

All in all, it's a bit of a nightmare, and I would much much prefer a kind of tournament system (maybe a monthly league, maybe a single elimintation one-off thing, I don't know) to be available where, if entered, you get paired randomly and the better players naturally rise to the top without worrying about some arbitrary 'ranking' system that will most likely get it wrong.

[ElDavid]

True about the open games filling up quickly.....just out of curiosity....any way we could find out the actual % of all games on SBW that are passworded?

[Llama]

Count me strongly in the "No" camp. In my experience in life, any time something is done for a gain (rank, trophy, money) the fun rapidly goes out of the experience -- for me. I don't presume to speak for everyone; lots of people thrive on such competition. I just don't want to be a part of it.

Please, if ratings like this are implemented, have an option to not be rated. I will not continue to play open games at this site unless there is a way to play unrated games. No big loss to you, you're thinking? Probably. It will be a big loss to me, however.
_________________
--
Regards,


joe
Joe Casadonte
jcasadonte@northbound-train.com

[milksheikh]

[Legalu]

Perhaps a full-blown ranking system is an overkill, but It would be nice to have some credit given for players that finish second or third in a 5-player game, for instance. Hopefully this would encourage all players to maximize his/her points until the end of each game, even though they no longer have the chance of winning.
Leo

[mdfreeman7]

[Legalu]

[stargate]

some thoughts -- before you form an opinion about a ratings system
(my opinion is NO to a ratings system)


in the last 13 months SBW has grown by over 500 %
game 4000 was started in March 2006 -- game 24000 on April 16, 2007

I know that the new games have helped with this growth
but -- would a ratings system have helped or hindered this growth

70 users have completed 190 games
182 users have completed 100 games
378 users have completed 50 games

the site is family friendly -- many husbands and wives play on the site
and a growing amount of teenage offspring of veteran players have
also been playing on SBW

read or re-read the post made in this thread by RyanMC on Feb. 28, 2006

this thread has had over 2050 views but only 61 votes in the poll

the food fights in the forum have been few
for the most part the food fights in the forum have civil

the rankings list is a great source of data without the
negative side effects of a ratings system

the only adjustment I would like to see made to the rankings list is----
a new sort line of ---
percent of games won ( ## minimum )
the ## could be 25, 30 , 40 or whatever ---
and this is only requested to reflect the number of users who
have completed over 50 games

one last comment
Darius: you started this thread over a year ago ---
you are now a veteran and a pleasure to play with

[Alashar]

A thought I had was to incorporate some sort of simplified point system, based on where you finished in a game. In a 5-player game, the winner would receive 5 points, second place 4 points, and so on down. In a 3-player game, the winner would only receive 3 points, second place 2 points, and last place 1 point. The point totals would be divided by the number of games played. This rewards players more for winning games with larger groups, but also gives credit for those in trailing positions. The reward is very small in a 2-player game, but that's probably a lot more fair than it is now because after all you only have 1 opponent.

Of course it does nothing for ranking players against stronger or weaker opponents, but then again, it's probably a lot less complicated and easier to set up and maintain than that kind of system.

The present system could be maintained and this would be just an alternate way to view the stats or ignore them as a player chose. I think it might encourage people to stay in games and try harder for a better position as they'd be getting some credit for it instead of all or nothing as it is currently.

[JimF]

[HappyProle]

I've been leaning toward implementing an ELO-based rating system whereby each user is ranked according to how closely his/her avatar resembles Jeff Lynne, Roy Wood or any other member of Electric Light Orchestra. Points would also be awarded for game names inspired by ELO songs.

[cterrell]

I'm all over that! I'll be making an "Evil Woman" Tikal game shortly!

[stargate]