SpielByWeb Forum Index SpielByWeb
http://www.spielbyweb.com/
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   Find a UserFind a User   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 Your GamesYour Games   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

More meaningful "Games won" number
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpielByWeb Forum Index -> Comments and Feature Requests
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LVBrian



Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:43 pm    Post subject: More meaningful "Games won" number Reply with quote

VERY much enjoying the Amun-Re interface! Kudos Kudos Kudos.

Right now winning any game is worth a point in the "system"--matched up with a point for every game played for a ratio of wins to games played. Though a cool number to see, this means several things to anyone looking at the rankings of other players or their own performance:

1. Winning a three player game is just as good as winning a five player game
2. Taking 5th place is just as good as taking 2nd place.

I was just thinking that developing a system that gives partial points for places after 1st depending on how many places there are would solve both problems.

I don't really hold my rating to heart or anything but the current system gives 2nd place a helluva sting and may make players play for first place (and ONLY first place) more aggresively--possibly to the detriment of the gaming experience and possibly with the advent of kingmaking for those players not hurt by poor decisions that would normally create poor placement toward the end. Say, screwing someone out of highest $ in Amun-Re by turning in 3 point power cards for $ that they should have played for points...

Just a thought. Low priority at that. Correct me, anyone, if I am mistaken on how wins are tracked on spielbyweb.

edit: 'this perception of win tracking' instead of 'how wins are tracked' in last sentence was misleading.


Last edited by LVBrian on Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Golux13



Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kingmaking in games of this nature is just poor sportsmanship. I don't imagine most of us would go the "Well, I can't win, so I'll decide who will win" route, preferring instead to make the moves that maximize our scores -- because you never really know. The leader may make a drastic error and leave an opening, etc., etc.

Also, I personally am not concerned at all about my rating. If I win, great. If I lose, I try to figure out what I could have done differently, what mistakes I made, etc. I think the only value of ratings is to determine whether or not to play in a particular group -- though since there are usually so few open games, I generally jump in when I see one, regardless of how many wins the other players might have.

Maybe I missed your point, but I don't see any reason to complicate the W/L ratings... certainly not when there are so many more games to implement! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
40thann



Joined: 08 Dec 05
Posts: 16

Location: Tasmania,Australia

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm with you Golux. For me its all about what I could have done differently, what I've done well etc, etc. The win/losses aren't all that important to me either.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
LVBrian



Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey I am with you guys, that's why I said low priority. But as a numbers guy and a developer of sorts myself, it ain't a big big change and one that others besides us three might enjoy seeing the fruits of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jimzik



Joined: 18 Nov 05
Posts: 12

Location: Avon Lake, Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:51 pm    Post subject: read my thoughts Reply with quote

Brian, that's just what I was thinking is wrong here - too much emphasis on winning. They've done everything else here why not an adjustment to PLACING and not just winning? Someone who consistently comes in 2nd or 3rd would have a better rating than someone who either wins once in a while but comes in last the rest of the time. If I see I'm not going to win a game here I quite putting effort into it and concentrate on another game I could win.
You guys don't think Kingmaking happens? Are you serious? It's a way of life in the gaming community to screw someone you don't know in favor of someone you do. Now if 2nd, 3rd, etc mattered more than maybe they'd be worried about THEIR placement and not their buddies.
Ratings don't matter to you? Then let's do away with the whole thing and just play! I'm in favor of eliminating the ratings or adjusting them but it sucks the way it stands now.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
Golux13



Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209


PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't say kingmaking doesn't happen, I said it's poor sportsmanship. I also suggested I don't think it happens much here, but I may just have been lucky enough not to see it.

In my gaming group, coming in second is called being the "first loser." It's not that we're all hypercompetitive a-holes, that's just the way we play -- the point of the game is to win, and it makes no difference whether I took second, third or dead last. We have an annual gaming weekend, and people consider it a (minor) tragedy if they don't win any of the games they play.

I've been in second place and kicked myself for playing poorly; I've been in last place and been proud of the way I played, even while I was wishing my strategies (or whatever) had worked better. I've won games and been disappointed at how badly I played and grateful that I was lucky or that others played worse. If I see a guy who has played 100 games and taken second every time, I don't think he must be a better player than the guy who has won 10 and been last in 90; I wonder what both of them are doing wrong, what the second guy did that let him win those ten games, and how I can avoid their mistakes when I play.

In any event, it's no big deal to me. If Milksheikh wants to set up a point system and ratings, that's fine with me. But I think in the end it's a waste of time.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
LVBrian



Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54


PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:08 am    Post subject: Re: read my thoughts Reply with quote

Jimzik wrote:
I'm in favor of eliminating the ratings or adjusting them but it sucks the way it stands now.


You and I are in agreement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jimzik



Joined: 18 Nov 05
Posts: 12

Location: Avon Lake, Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my gaming group, coming in second is called being the "first loser." It's not that we're all hypercompetitive a-holes, that's just the way we play -- the point of the game is to win, and it makes no difference whether I took second, third or dead last. We have an annual gaming weekend, and people consider it a (minor) tragedy if they don't win any of the games they play.


-------------Win at all costs and nothing else matters? And you say you're all not hypercompetitive a-holes? Well, you just defined the definition of hypercompetitive a-holes. By your definition only the TEXAS LONGHORNS are winners and ALL the other teams are losers with the Bowl winners being "1st Losers". What kind of a F#@ked up group do you play with?
You people need some professional help, it's just a F@#king game unless you got big money on it.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
Golux13



Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209


PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chill out, man. We're not hypercompetitive, really. Just competitive. And we're not assholes, either. But if I come in second and my buddy comes in third, I didn't beat him; we both lost. I may have played better than he did, but I may not have. In either case, neither of us played well enough to win... this time. If someone is so far out in front that nobody else has a chance, we might call the game and declare him the winner; nobody "plays for second." (If we were really hypercompetitive assholes, we would duke it out to see how the rest of the players fared. But that would be pretty boring knowing none of them can possibly win.) The "first loser" thing is basically just trash talk, so I wouldn't read too much into it.

In my group, there is also no such thing as giving up because you have no chance to win. There is no kingmaking, because that's effectively the same thing, and it is bad sportsmanship. Note also that I didn't say "win at all costs"; that implies that we are willing to cheat. We play to win, but we play for fun.

We know it's just a game. We play a lot of games, and we have a great time. We often conduct a heavy-duty post mortem on a game, trying to figure out why one person won and what the others could have done differently. But there are few congratulations for the guy who came in second, unless it's to point out that he has improved his game, or is getting a grasp of the right strategies, etc.

You never did address my point that someone who always places second is not necessarily a better player than someone who wins 10% of the time and loses miserably the other 90% of the time. If you can't ever do better than 2nd place, how can you say you're a better player than someone who can put together a win once in a while?

(Re your football analogy: The NCAA is kind of a poor analogy, because of the whole BCS mess. But look at the NFL -- do you think the team that loses the Super Bowl cares about being the second-best team that season? Did the Astros get an "Aw, that's OK" parade after the White Sox won the World Series? I think not. It's "maybe next year," which is pretty analogous to how my gaming group approaches losses -- maybe next time.)
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
RyanMC
SBW Developer


Joined: 13 Sep 05
Posts: 344

Location: Draper, UT USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Groups that play for second promote king making. Nothing worse than a player giving the game to someone so they can get 3rd rather than 4th. Wins a win, loss is a loss. Its not mean spirited or anything else, its just a truth about games/sports/etc...
_________________
---------------
-=RyanMC=-
---------------
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website
LVBrian



Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54


PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RyanMC wrote:
Nothing worse than a player giving the game to someone so they can get 3rd rather than 4th.


If something propels a player from fourth to third in the last move than that isn't giving anyone a game. That is just playing to do your best. That is the move they are supposed to make, right? Unless they could have made it to second place had they made a different obvious move. I am really trying to understand this statement...

RyanMC wrote:
Wins a win, loss is a loss. Its not mean spirited or anything else, its just a truth about games/sports/etc...


I think you are talking largely about two player games here with this example and wins recorded for a two-player game don't need a second place. So for two player games I agree. Record wins only.

The idea of having points for second, etc is to make the whole idea of keeping track of performance (which the site already does) a little softer and use it to encourage people that first is decidedly best but first isn't everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LVBrian



Joined: 03 Nov 05
Posts: 54


PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golux13 wrote:
In my gaming group, coming in second is called being the "first loser."... the point of the game is to win, and it makes no difference whether I took second, third or dead last ... we have an annual gaming weekend, and people consider it a (minor) tragedy if they don't win any of the games they play.


Man... I'll have to take your word for it that your aren't hypercompetitive. This sounds like a group of football dad stereotypes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RyanMC
SBW Developer


Joined: 13 Sep 05
Posts: 344

Location: Draper, UT USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LVBrian wrote:
RyanMC wrote:
Nothing worse than a player giving the game to someone so they can get 3rd rather than 4th.


If something propels a player from fourth to third in the last move than that isn't giving anyone a game. That is just playing to do your best. That is the move they are supposed to make, right? Unless they could have made it to second place had they made a different obvious move. I am really trying to understand this statement...

RyanMC wrote:
Wins a win, loss is a loss. Its not mean spirited or anything else, its just a truth about games/sports/etc...


I think you are talking largely about two player games here with this example and wins recorded for a two-player game don't need a second place. So for two player games I agree. Record wins only.

The idea of having points for second, etc is to make the whole idea of keeping track of performance (which the site already does) a little softer and use it to encourage people that first is decidedly best but first isn't everything.


No I am actually talking about anything but a 2 player game. I also have statisitcal backing for what I am saying. I run an online settlers site. We used to give ladder points for second place. The king making issue was constantly being thrown around because of it. People were giving the game away early, to ensure a second place finish, when they knew a few more turns may cause them to take third. Adding a second place stat doesn't help the game. It makes it worse. Once we removed that incentive, and made everyone play to win or lose, not play for almost winning the competition was much more even, and fair.
_________________
---------------
-=RyanMC=-
---------------
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website
Golux13



Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209


PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This sounds like a group of football dad stereotypes.


Believe me, nothing could be further from the truth (though many of us do enjoy watching football, and some of the more competitive people I play with are in a very active fantasy football league).

Quote:
The idea of having points for second, etc is to make the whole idea of keeping track of performance (which the site already does) a little softer and use it to encourage people that first is decidedly best but first isn't everything.


Nobody has addressed my point that consistently placing second is not necessarily an indicator of superior skill over someone who places first some fraction mof the time and last the rest of the time. "Performance" in a game where one player wins and the rest do not win must be measured in terms of how many wins a player has; nothing else makes sense. I disagree that "first isn't everything" when you're talking about how to judge game performance. (If you're talking about game playing in general, I do agree with you -- having fun and enjoying the challenge should be the primary consideration.)

I probably would not have known that the site tracked W/L ratios if Milksheikh had not added them to the mouseover pop-up when you look at who's already joined a game. I rarely even look at the ratings list, because it's just not relevant to my gaming experience. The changes you're proposing seem to be geared toward making the ratings more important, which in my mind equates to more competitive. I come here to play games and try to win in each one individually, not to measure myself against the other players across all the games.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
kruhland



Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 7

Location: madison wi

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't believe in this world someone can say getting first is the only thing that matter for the obvious reason that the best player doesn't always get first. Haven't you ever played in a game where one or more people are new or have a different playing style from another group that helps and/or hurts one player over another. Can you really state that the "best player" will still win? If you get poor cards in Amun Re vs getting the perfect victory cards can you still win? If someone is trying a different strategy in this game and always bids -3 or +5 its probably the first one who notices this and can take advantage of it wins. Some games the first sacrifice in Amun Re is over 12, others its negative. One person can only influence one bid out of 5 and sometimes when its only 1/5 of the bid it doesn't matter what you do, if someone got a farming land in the first case, they're setup in a great possition, the person that got a draught land is not. I just have fun playing knowing every game is going to be different, and if someone isn't playing for the fun of it they're taking the fun out of the game and should go play on a console or PC by themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpielByWeb Forum Index -> Comments and Feature Requests All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group