Thought I'd put it in the Suggestion Box to make it official..

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4123p1/Unranked_Games

I feel strongly (but can offer little in the way of empirical evidence) that there are many potential Premium Members who have not paid for membership because of the all but 'forced' ranking system.  I suspect these people are by nature not the type that would venture into the forums to express their point of view because the active point-conscious majority might see it adversely affecting their scoring potential, which by the way I think it would - scores would likely fall - but I would argue they would fall evenly for all rendering the argument a fallacy.

That said, there are additional arguments that would benefit all.

In that every format except private games affects scores and ranks, there is no 'safe' place to learn a map.

In that every format except private games affects scores and ranks, there is no 'safe' place to just kick back and play a map without being 'judged.' I liken it to Planet Fitness, which gains the buisiness of a huge amount of fitness conscious customers who don't want others judging their abilities or progress, etc.

The Private Game format is limited in its ability to offer an alternative for the above needs.  In fact, it's a downright poor format for journeyman Risk Players who visit this site but do not wish to take the time to forge relationships, participate in discussions, etc.  It is simply not a viable alternative for most. At best it would be wishful thinking to speculate that it is.

This has become a significant issue with some of the dueling maps, especially those where a modicum of skill and board knowledge trumps dice.  It's just too easy for the cognoscenti to rack up the points, and too intimidating and/or costly for the novice to pay the 'rankings' cost to learn the board in the face of eminent defeat.  As a result, there are a number of dueling maps on this site that are probably not seeing the amount of play they should (and would likely) see if there were unranked games.  Really, it extends beyond dueling maps as well.  I for one will not be playing Invention until I have the opportunity to play it unranked. It's not a threat - it's simply the way I've acted regarding that board since I first tried it a year or so ago.  I saw it's complexity - saw the players that dominated - and decided I did not want to pay the "rank" cost of learning it.  I just wanted to play it. I don't want to be 'invited' and I don't want to 'invite.' Most of the players on this site are simply not visible enough to be in that category anyway - so in this sense, I offer myself as a small, but somewhat significant piece of empirical evidence.

Thanks for posting this M57.  I completely agree that unranked games hinder uptake of new maps on this site.  It's a shame too, because the new and different maps are IMO what set WarGear apart from other sites.

I personally would rather see unranked games than any other feature at this time.  I say this both as a mapmaker (to encourage others to play my maps), and as a player (because I want the freedom to try out new maps without risk of losing my precious internet points).

Thanks O, I picked on your map for a reason - It's a fantastic map - and clearly an important addition to the site.  Heck, I'll bet it's more popular (gets more plays) than all of mine combined.

M57 wrote:

Thought I'd put it in the Suggestion Box to make it official..

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4123p1/Unranked_Games

I feel strongly (but can offer little in the way of empirical evidence) that there are many potential Premium Members who have not paid for membership because of the all but 'forced' ranking system.  I suspect these people are by nature not the type that would venture into the forums to express their point of view because the active point-conscious majority might see it adversely affecting their scoring potential, which by the way I think it would - scores would likely fall - but I would argue they would fall evenly for all rendering the argument a fallacy.

That said, there are additional arguments that would benefit all.

In that every format except private games affects scores and ranks, there is no 'safe' place to learn a map.

In that every format except private games affects scores and ranks, there is no 'safe' place to just kick back and play a map without being 'judged.' I liken it to Planet Fitness, which gains the buisiness of a huge amount of fitness conscious customers who don't want others judging their abilities or progress, etc.

The Private Game format is limited in its ability to offer an alternative for the above needs.  In fact, it's a downright poor format for journeyman Risk Players who visit this site but do not wish to take the time to forge relationships, participate in discussions, etc.  It is simply not a viable alternative for most. At best it would be wishful thinking to speculate that it is.

This has become a significant issue with some of the dueling maps, especially those where a modicum of skill and board knowledge trumps dice.  It's just too easy for the cognoscenti to rack up the points, and too intimidating and/or costly for the novice to pay the 'rankings' cost to learn the board in the face of eminent defeat.  As a result, there are a number of dueling maps on this site that are probably not seeing the amount of play they should (and would likely) see if there were unranked games.  Really, it extends beyond dueling maps as well.  I for one will not be playing Invention until I have the opportunity to play it unranked. It's not a threat - it's simply the way I've acted regarding that board since I first tried it a year or so ago.  I saw it's complexity - saw the players that dominated - and decided I did not want to pay the "rank" cost of learning it.  I just wanted to play it. I don't want to be 'invited' and I don't want to 'invite.' Most of the players on this site are simply not visible enough to be in that category anyway - so in this sense, I offer myself as a small, but somewhat significant piece of empirical evidence.

+1

Looks like there are two threads on this topic. I will add my comments here as well since your comments address one of the issues I brought up.

I was a paying member on another site. That site fell off in support and just became unplayable. I joined here years ago but found games could take a while to fill so I left. I recently came back here because of the better interface and lack of any care or development on the other site.

Having only ranked games I am more selective about what I am joining for various reasons. (no knowledge of the board, opponents already highly ranked, etc) Unranked games I would jump on all the time. Since I don't join that many games here paying for membership is not a priority. I don't care about rankings I just want to play a game and have some fun. I don't want to feel like I am just being put in my place by skilled players taking advantage of new players.

The Invention board is a great example for needing unranked games. I really like the board and I joined a tournament to get a bunch of consecutive games under my belt to get a better feel for the board. But of course I had never played, had a teammate that had never played and I was in a tournament against skilled players. It was a bad combination that led to many losses and confusion as to what every little bit of the game meant in the long run. Which tech do I try to take first? How does that decision affect me in a couple of turns? Oh no I am playing a different country this game is the strategy the same? A few consequence free unranked games that would fill faster would have helped a lot in learning the basics of that board.

As far as invites, I personally hate them. If I don't know who you are personally I just ignore them. If I want to join a game I will join a game. If a friend wants me to play a specific game I will follow the invite. Since I hate them I will not pester people with invites to private games.

I think having unranked games would attract more casual players and more players like me that want to play a lot without all of the rank obsession. How much does ranking actually mean if you accumulated your score beating up on unsuspecting players.

This is not directed directly at you koosh, you're just the last to post, but, others have posted the same argument. 

Anyway, I find it a bit strange that people say that they don't care about rank, then in the same breath say that that is why they want unranked public games for learning the board.  This is a contradiction.  Obviously if you want to learn the board and don't want to 'risk' points it is precisely because you DO care about rank!  If someone truly did not care about rank or points then they'd join ranked (or unranked) games without care, and many players do just that!  Advocating for unranked games is precisely because of a 'care' for rank because this is an avenue to allow such players opt to not want to risk their points or their rank... because it means that much to them.

Unranked games would also not hurt, and would in fact help, the best players of the game as well.  A top ranked player is most vulnerable when he/she is learning a board and can lose a LOT more points from a mistake then a rookie does later on losing a game after the pro has 'figured it out'.  Losing to most players costs top ranked players more then 60 points.  Beating the same player nets top ranked players less then 6!  In this line of thinking unranked games take away the opportunity for lower ranked players to take points away from top ranked players when they are most vulnerable and gives top ranked players a new avenue to casually master games before putting their points on the line.  Since points are the crux of the issue here (whether to risk them or not to risk them), my gut tells me that the proposal for unranked games helps top ranked players to not risk at all, more so then it helps lower rank players to mitigate their point risks over the fear of losing so few points!

I also think it is a misnomer that high ranked players are 'predators' seeking to take all their points from the unsuspecting WarGear minnows.  I rarely even look at the join-games list and 'jump in' on unsuspecting players on boards I'm great at.  If you make a game on such a board, 99% chance I don't even enter it even if I see it.  Last time I entered such a game it was on BoB against Vyro as I already had respect for his game play and figured he could handle it.  He won.  I create my own games on those same boards and let players decide if they're ready to jump in on my games, or not.  From what I have seen, Cona Chris and Mad Bomber seem to do the same for the most.  They make their games and let people join or not and don't run around jumping into games to try and take points from people they think they can beat easily. Furthermore, I have a winning record against nearly every high ranked player and the top of my opponents list (players I have played the most) is full of many great players and those who are not, it wasn't like I jumped into their games to beat on them, most of the time they were jumping into mine because those two players truly do not care about rank and seem to jump in on their favourite boards regardless of points being a factor!

Nothing against unranked games, though for learning I already use private games for the same and to greater effect because if it's to learn it's best to invite the best to learn against.  I'm a bit opposed to the the philosophy of unranked games being a good learning platform just as I'm opposed to Tournament games being seen for the same.  For learning it's the board-explorer, watching histories of the best players and then trying a couple private games against high ranked players.  And, so long as you have not made my, or my wife's enemy list, I'm more then willing to accept private games if anyone wants to learn against me without risking their points. I will not, however, enter 1v1 unranked games on boards that I have already mastered, unless requested and therefore no different then an invite to a private game.  I think most high ranked players are of this same philosophy and are willing to enter private games and give players pointers, or, to even give pointers on ranked games you have had with them if requested.  I frequently hand out unsolicited advice if I see egregious plays taking place.  I have only met one high ranked player who stated himself to be of an alternative perspective to this point, which surprised me, but, it is what it is, I guess.

Unranked games, however, would allow me to play many more large player games not for learning, but just for fun without risking my points, so, I wholeheartedly welcome them because sometimes I don't want to risk 60-80 points and stress myself to always make the perfect move or be in a futile game simply because one's rank has attracted you so much attention and it has become pick-on-the-most-threatening-guy by rank kind of game.  I think this reinforces what I was saying above though, in that this does more for high ranked players then low ranked ones.  It opens up more avenues for them to play risk free because they are the ones that are truly risking with every game.  In a situation where the high ranked player risks many points the players who might think they are helped by unranked games are sacrificing opportunities to get 60+ points from some players to protect them self from potentially losing less then 6 points!  That seems like a mismanagement of risk/reward more then anything.

No problem with unranked games, but, some of the arguments for them should perhaps be reconsidered because you might not get what you are looking for or you might lose more then you gain!

I used the point of unranked games for learning the board because I am not saying get rid of ranked games. I thought that was just an example that even high level players would like. Most things have a pro an amateur level and you have the option, if you wish, to proceed at the pro level.

Maybe my views and play style in things are a little weird. To me the end goal is not winning, it is learning and having fun. So I will lose a lot of games exploring choices. Once I find a strategy that works I don't stick to it. That would be boring. I want to try something else. Not criticizing anyone else's reasons for playing. These are just my personal reasons and realize that most people find it weird that "I like losing." I learned something when I lost.

So for that point I do not care about ranking. If everything is forced to be counted towards a rank my ranking score will never represent my level of play and I personally don't care what my score says. To me it is currently a meaningless number. I would like the option to test my skills against others when I know the end goal of all that are playing is winning and they have committed to playing a "pro" level game. I think that is a better representation of a players ranking. That is when I would care about ranking.

I do agree with your last point. I also would really like to see large player games fill up faster. If I am joining a game it is because I have the time and I am ready to play. I don't want to wait a month for 10 players to eventually join a game. I want high level players to join those games without feeling they are risking their ranking by being seen as the default target for everyone else to gang up against. I prefer large player games that can rely more to strategy rather than initial board placement and who goes first.

berickf wrote:

Unranked games, however, would allow me to play many more large player games not for learning, but just for fun without risking my points, 

Playing devil's advocate here - and I'm surprised you haven't come up with this one b, because I think it is perhaps the only argument against unranked public games that holds any kind of water in my opinion..

Having another 'class' of games means less games in each class, which means it will be harder to fill games.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Unranked games, however, would allow me to play many more large player games not for learning, but just for fun without risking my points, 

Playing devil's advocate here - and I'm surprised you haven't come up with this one b, because I think it is perhaps the only argument against unranked public games that holds any kind of water in my opinion..

Having another 'class' of games means less games in each class, which means it will be harder to fill games.

Yes, I would say there would be a shift to a lot more unranked games than ranked games. However, I think total number of public games would increase.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Unranked games, however, would allow me to play many more large player games not for learning, but just for fun without risking my points, 

Playing devil's advocate here - and I'm surprised you haven't come up with this one b, because I think it is perhaps the only argument against unranked public games that holds any kind of water in my opinion..

Having another 'class' of games means less games in each class, which means it will be harder to fill games.

If I added some unranked games I'd not play less ranked games and I don't have the same faith that you seem to have that so many people discriminate against ranked games and would flock to unranked games.  I think most people would just continue to join either type indiscriminately and those who were to discriminate would just use unranked public games for niche play, as I described for myself in that quote or in other ways, but would still continue to mostly play ranked games.  I think games would pretty much just fill the same way they fill now... A bit slow, but they get there.  Anyways, I'm not trying to make an argument against unranked games.  Like I said in the other thread, I welcome all tools put at my disposal, I just disagree with you on how they will be used and who'll benefit from them most.

Does anyone know if Dev games visible to players by default?

i thought not. 

I remember having to turn it on -but that was many moons ago -

you need to turn it on !

So much for my attempt to make my boards available for unranked Dev play - the people I really want to see those games can't.

I don't remember ever turning anything on, but I can see them.  How does one turn them on/off if they are usually off?

Its on the settings page

ratsy wrote:

Its on the settings page

Seen it!  Mine was set to enabled.  I have never touched it before so the default is enabled?

So the frustration is mounting for me. I suspect that the perception is that Beta games are Beta games, not opportunities to play Unranked games, so even if they are visible by default, there are probably a lot of players who turn Beta games off in settings. I have been avoiding ranked play - except in Tournaments, and I'm finding that unless I invite players to play an unranked version of a Beta Board, they can be tough to fill. I suspect this in part because I've noticed that even with an Unranked version of WGWF (of my own design), the same players (usually those who are more active in the forums) are the ones who join.  Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing what percentage of players can even see that the game has been created.

I simply want to see my boards made available for unranked public play, and it's frustrating to see that it's just not feasible.  Bottom line: Members can't easily learn and/or play them in a less competitive environment.  I'm not exactly sure, but with the exception of one member, I believe all those who participate in these forums are in favor of the site supporting Unranked play.

So I was thinking one way of bringing in unranked games, would be to make them filterable, which got me to looking at the layout of the Games page vs. the Boards page.  I'm wondering if for consistency's sake the Games page should have buttons across the top in sections - Just like the Boards page.  This would enable members to easily filter the types of games they wish to play

Button Categories:

Ranked:Unranked:Beta (all buttons are pushed in by default - no need to go to Settings)

Live:Not Eliminated:Finished:Terminated:IWon: (all in by default)

2-Player:2+Players:Team (all in)

Light:Med:Heavy:Total.. (all in - all out leaves only games with no fog)

Flagged:ActiveMessage (all out by default - these would automatically filter out all the above.)