There are a lot of overlapping issues to tackle here, and as always the myriad ways in which players value different aspects makes any clean, perfect solution impossible.
vDip *seems* less bustling than in previous years, a trend that I have observed over considerable time now. Maybe it’s my faulty perception, though several others have noted it as well. Ambassador, your active player figures are encouraging – does the same trend hold across active games, games per player, etc.? I have seen numerous new players come in, use the forum, start some games, often abandon them and disappear. Some have stuck around and shown themselves to be quality additions. Occasionally a Ghost of vDip Past graces us with a return to action. Given the dormancy of many high-caliber players and the revolving door of at least some of the new members, do you think there is really a net increase or decrease in total activity for the site? I look forward to what Amby and kaner produce – I was happy to contribute to brainstorming and will always support efforts to grow the site and the hobby.
I believe ELO ranking has had a detrimental effect on vDip. Sure it’s nice to have a measure of play, but I think we must at least discuss some of the problems and potential solutions, now that it has been in use for a while:
• From ELO system inception, it seemed as though some players would target and even gang up on high-ranking players, a clear problem that only serves to exacerbate reluctance of top players to join more games.
• I get the strong impression that some of the top players cease playing once they attain a high ranking, so as to avoid risking it and falling back to the crowd. This serves to greatly reduce the availability of top-quality games for all.
• It also robs new players of opportunities to learn from the best. Here’s an example: When I joined, I tried to find games that included the best players on the site. I was hungry to learn and improve my game quickly. RUFFHAUS was among several players who were willing to play with me and who took considerable time to discuss strategy, etc. I improved rapidly, and in return I was sooner able to contribute quality back to the site. I’ve always tried to look out for new players in the same way. If we had the ELO system when I started, would RUFF have been as willing to join games with me? I think the system creates levels of isolation that hurts the site. School of War-type games are great, but nothing beats playing against the best over and over.
Some potential tweaks:
• RUFF is right, the penalty for a top player losing to a new player is substantial, with the reward for winning insignificant in comparison. I get it, on some level this is as it should be. After all, if I’m playing someone with a ranking of 750, then I should beat them. However, this is not chess. Games involve numerous players and run over the course of several months. I would be in favor of smoothing out the degree of penalty/reward so that a 1100 player beating a 2200 player results in strong reward but not as significant a penalty.
• I would also be in favor of rankings moving less as the total number of games played increases. A player with 200 games played should probably not see their ranking move the same as one who’s played 5. Maybe the system already factors that in, I don’t know.
• Most of all, I would really like to see a “use-it-or-lose-it” component to the rankings. Players should be encouraged to play. Can we install a program that would determine whether a player is active or inactive (has been active in a game within previous 3 months, or 6 – just throwing numbers out there)? If a player becomes inactive, they lose ELO points over time. 5 per week? We could also split out a separate HoF page with players ranked by their all-time highest rating, and/or an active players ranking page, etc. Just looking for simple ways to give different people what they want. Ultimately though, it comes down to removing the disincentive for top players to join games with newer/lesser-ranked players.
I’ll play with anyone, as I’ve said and done throughout. I feel I owe it to the community. When at first I cared more about points and rankings, I found myself enjoying the games less. That’s just me, and it’s not a statement in judgement of anyone else and how they value their ranking. I don’t know how much higher I’d be if I was more selective in choosing games and opponents. To the extent that I care about that, I just figure I should remain willing to put my position on the line and that it will all balance out over time. Really I’m just here for some fun games and interesting discussions with a broad mix of people. And to occasionally bury the forum under massive blocks of text.