I don't think retiring boards would necessarily be considered as unfair in an Option I system, where CPs would be quite a bit more diluted.  Regardless, I think I like the idea of a tiered system, where newer boards and boards that get a lot of play are more 'visible.'  ..which brings me to an idea.  Let's call it "System I."

As a board is played less it falls to a lower tier.  As a board falls to a lower tier, its Option I (GR) board points remain intact, but its CPs become devalued to a fraction of whatever the standard Option I (GR) points are. (For those who are unfamiliar, Option I is a proposed system where CPs are the sum of all board points over 1000 calculated on a per board basis)

So for instance, in a system with 4 tiers.. Tier 1 100%, Tier 2  75%, Tier 3 50%, Tier 4 25%. In a 5 tier system a bottom tier board would retain 20% of its CP value.

The bottom tier could be seen as sort of a graveyard. I.e, you have to go to the 'graveyard' to find it.  But boards can always be resurrected. As a board is re-discovered and starts to become popular, it's CPs are revalued as it rises in the rankings. 

One nice feature of this system is that because new boards start with full value CPs, there will be an incentive for players to give them a try.

Hey, you asked for an idea, A37.

Options:

(boards in the graveyard would fall to 0% CPs, and the other tiers would be adjusted accordingly.) I think I like this better.

(new boards could start in the 2nd tier)  I don't like this as much.

I like the ideas to promote more and better ratings, but I don't see any reason to actually cull boards from the site.   How is putting boards in tiers, any better than just a continuous ranking by board ratings?  Just split them into pages, and there are your tiers (i.e. page 1 boards are the top tier, etc.). 

Personally, I'd be kind of upset if one of my boards was culled, just because it wasn't played much.  For example, Finite State Machine is a very complicated and unpopular board.  But I'm still proud of it.  The mechanisms it uses are original, the graphics are sharp, I spent a ton of time getting it right, and I think it's a good board even if no one plays it.

I still think improving the ratings and making unranked games possible are all we need to get more participation across boards.  IIRC, ToS had as many or more boards and it seemed to me they got played more, and IMO it's almost entirely because players could play unranked games.

Ozyman wrote:

I still think improving the ratings and making unranked games possible are all we need to get more participation across boards.

+1. Also has the advantage of being (I assume?) fairly easy to implement.

Ozyman wrote:

 but I don't see any reason to actually cull boards from the site.   How is putting boards in tiers, any better than just a continuous ranking by board ratings?  Just split them into pages, and there are your tiers (i.e. page 1 boards are the top tier, etc.). 

Well, having a graveyard is not exactly culling.  It simply makes it such that a potential player would need to search in the graveyard for the board, I have no problem with that. Like you, I have a number of boards that in their time were popular and though their mechanisms are outdated, I'm still proud of them too, but I would have no problem if they were kept in the 'graveyard,' which, if it makes you feel any better, could also be called a 'hall of fame.'

In hindsight my thought about tiers was kind of an artifact of the fractional point idea, which I like - and while I'm inclined to agree with you that tiers may not be the way to go, I would like to see a system that lets players easily filter out the duds (whatever that means).  One idea, a "Active Boards" button could be added to the filter on the Boards page. This would hide any boards that haven't had any activity in say a year.

Kjeld wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I still think improving the ratings and making unranked games possible are all we need to get more participation across boards.

+1. Also has the advantage of being (I assume?) fairly easy to implement.

Big +1 here.

Ozyman wrote:

I like the ideas to promote more and better ratings, but I don't see any reason to actually cull boards from the site.   How is putting boards in tiers, any better than just a continuous ranking by board ratings?  Just split them into pages, and there are your tiers (i.e. page 1 boards are the top tier, etc.). 

Agreed.

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

 but I don't see any reason to actually cull boards from the site.   How is putting boards in tiers, any better than just a continuous ranking by board ratings?  Just split them into pages, and there are your tiers (i.e. page 1 boards are the top tier, etc.). 

Well, having a graveyard is not exactly culling.  It simply makes it such that a potential player would need to search in the graveyard for the board, I have no problem with that. Like you, I have a number of boards that in their time were popular and though their mechanisms are outdated, I'm still proud of them too, but I would have no problem if they were kept in the 'graveyard,' which, if it makes you feel any better, could also be called a 'hall of fame.'

In hindsight my thought about tiers was kind of an artifact of the fractional point idea, which I like - and while I'm inclined to agree with you that tiers may not be the way to go, I would like to see a system that lets players easily filter out the duds (whatever that means).  One idea, a "Active Boards" button could be added to the filter on the Boards page. This would hide any boards that haven't had any activity in say a year.

 

I don't like the idea of more buttons being added to the boards page. I would prefer it to be overhauled to make board discovery easier. Someone mentioned using ideas from amazon and netflix. If I want to find a specific type of board to play, my only hope is to go through every single board one by one and click onto the board page and read the description and rules. What about if I want a map that is basically like risk without any of the weird stuff? Or basic risk with 1 or 2 dice mods? What about if I want a board with capitals? Return to attack? A really complicated tactical one?

All I get from the board page is the name and picture. Even the filters on the top are hard to understand. There is the weird tag system, but how many people even notice it? And who decides what the tags are and what boards they go to? Like why are Anarchy and Axis V Allies 'abstract'?

Maybe there could be a user generated tag cloud type thing? Maybe there could be a 'other players also played x' and 'other players favorited x'. The board rating system should give recommendations based on what boards other players liked that also liked the ones you did (and maybe disliked the ones you disliked).

As a start I think the green titles on the main board page should link to the full board list sorted by that criteria.

>There is the weird tag system, but how many people even notice it? And who decides what the tags are and what boards they go to? Like why are Anarchy and Axis V Allies 'abstract'?

I think Yertle sets the tags, but you can ask him to change them for your own boards. 

I agree that the board search could use some work.

>As a start I think the green titles on the main board page should link to the full board list sorted by that criteria.

That makes sense to me.   A long time ago I suggested that that main board page should have big arrows on the right side >>, and when you click them it loads in the next top N maps in that category.  Similar idea of trying to simplify the interface for finding boards.

Amidon37 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

I like the ideas to promote more and better ratings, but I don't see any reason to actually cull boards from the site.   How is putting boards in tiers, any better than just a continuous ranking by board ratings?  Just split them into pages, and there are your tiers (i.e. page 1 boards are the top tier, etc.). 

Agreed.

i saw 'tiers' as different pages.