For your rankings, scenarios you report played are counted
one time no matter how often you play the scenario. How would you like to see them counted?
- One time per person (like now)? - Max 1 time
- One time for each side you play. Once for Red. Once for Blue? - Max 2 times
- One time per side AND once per solitaire? - Max 3 times
A lot of these scenarios can teach you about different things when you take different sides. Let the PG-HQ know how you'd like it done.
I picked option 3. I don't really expect that a given scenario will often be played from each side and solo by a given player. Credit for playing each side is important for challenge games. Solo play is simply different from shared play, you learn different lessons, though sometimes the wrong ones. (Wrong conclusions are usually corrected in shared play.)
That sounds fair as I concur that there is benefit to playing both sides; however, I'm not tech-savvy enough to evaluate how much more work it would be for the site moderator. If there's more than a couple of clicks for him, I'd hesitate on that because there is probably enough work in maintaining the site as is. The other issue is that it would be changing the ranking system midstream, which might be a concern to some folks.
Shared Red, Shared Blue, Solitaire for a max of 3 seems fine by me for rank.
I don't know how practical it would be to implement it though.
I do have concerns that allowing multiple plays would distort scenario ratings though. Presumably scenarios that you like and rate highly would be more likely to be played multiple times versus those you don't causing score inflation. Right now if 2 players play one scenario independently and one rates a 4 and the other a 2, it sits at a 3. But if the player that rated it a 4 now plays it 2 more times and plugs in 2 more 4's we still only have 2 players' opinions on the scenario's score but it now sits at 3.5.
I do think we should definitely be stuck with 1 play for bounty score though as the same player playing the same scenario multiple times isnt exactly increasing play coverage.
Typo in second option. Can't edit that I think. Sorry
(03-15-2022, 06:56 AM)Schoenwulf Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds fair as I concur that there is benefit to playing both sides; however, I'm not tech-savvy enough to evaluate how much more work it would be for the site moderator. If there's more than a couple of clicks for him, I'd hesitate on that because there is probably enough work in maintaining the site as is. The other issue is that it would be changing the ranking system midstream, which might be a concern to some folks.
Neither can I. I think that if it can be done for one, it could be done for three, but there are then questions about how that could get one person a big windfall. I think we could figure it all out, but it is not just pressing a button. it is good to ask the users though and to know what they think.
(03-15-2022, 06:56 AM)Schoenwulf Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds fair as I concur that there is benefit to playing both sides; however, I'm not tech-savvy enough to evaluate how much more work it would be for the site moderator. If there's more than a couple of clicks for him, I'd hesitate on that because there is probably enough work in maintaining the site as is. The other issue is that it would be changing the ranking system midstream, which might be a concern to some folks.
The first scheme would be to figure out how the points would work. My rather complicated idea would be to have the first play of a scenario count at 1 point (solo or shared). After that each play is worth ½ point. One shared play after the first play may gain another half point, if the opposing player also logs the play.
For example, Felipe and I play Bogdanovo with me as the Germans. I would get one point for the play. We switch sides and play again. I get ½ point. It will go to a full point when Felipe records that play. If I want to play solo, it will only be ½ point regardless.
It might be easier for coding to double all the point values. If so, Drew would simply double all our play scores and the rank thresholds when the scheme is implemented.
(03-15-2022, 07:49 AM)goosebrown Wrote: [ -> ]Typo in second option. Can't edit that I think. Sorry
I think we got the idea. I think it can be edited out, but I think it also kills the poll data. Not worth the trouble or the risk.
As a childish musing. I wolder how many players looked at the poll and wondered if they could triple their points.
(03-15-2022, 12:21 PM)plloyd1010 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2022, 06:56 AM)Schoenwulf Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds fair as I concur that there is benefit to playing both sides; however, I'm not tech-savvy enough to evaluate how much more work it would be for the site moderator. If there's more than a couple of clicks for him, I'd hesitate on that because there is probably enough work in maintaining the site as is. The other issue is that it would be changing the ranking system midstream, which might be a concern to some folks.
The first scheme would be to figure out how the points would work. My rather complicated idea would be to have the first play of a scenario count at 1 point (solo or shared). After that each play is worth ½ point. One shared play after the first play may gain another half point, if the opposing player also logs the play.
For example, Felipe and I play Bogdanovo with me as the Germans. I would get one point for the play. We switch sides and play again. I get ½ point. It will go to a full point when Felipe records that play. If I want to play solo, it will only be ½ point regardless.
It might be easier for coding to double all the point values. If so, Drew would simply double all our play scores and the rank thresholds when the scheme is implemented.
(03-15-2022, 07:49 AM)goosebrown Wrote: [ -> ]Typo in second option. Can't edit that I think. Sorry
I think we got the idea. I think it can be edited out, but I think it also kills the poll data. Not worth the trouble or the risk.
As a childish musing. I wolder how many players looked at the poll and wondered if they could triple their points.
I feel like you are getting more complicated than we need, and removing a clear metric such as plays and instead implementing a points system for those plays is counter intuitive for not much benefit versus just recording the extra plays as whole plays. If we did go down the abstract point values for ranks path, why not just fully decouple plays from ranks entirely so we can still have that simple plays stat on our page?
But as to your last point, yes the intention does seem to be to double or triple people's rank plays on record via shared plays. And in fairness, if they are actually playing twice, once on each side, its hard to say its not deserved.
I have voted for option three, but only if it's done in retrospect, so all my plays are counted. Can't have these young whippersnappers getting ahead of us veterans.
All plays should count, regardless of side or times played. Why wasn't this option included?
