This is way late, but I had a thought about the pricing setup as well. I haven't been around much lately because I've had a lot of trouble getting online for the past 9 months or so, so I haven't been able to play a lot. If this were the new site, it would have made an inpact on whether I would pay or not. Would it be possible to set up some sort of limited access program? One direction on this would be to have a limited number of open long turn games, say 3, and a ban on short games. This might encourage more people who can ony get online for 2-3 minutes a day or two. The other option would be a ban on long turn games and max number of games per week. This could be helpful for those who can only get online every couple of weeks but can sit down for an hour or so an play. This is all somewhat based on how much the site would be. If it were $10-$20 a year, it's not that big of a deal, but if it were $50-$60 a year and the discount would bring it down to $10-$15 a year, it would have made the difference of seeing me this past fall on the new site, if it had been up.

Thanks for your input Squd. It is appreciated, especially from a long time player.

First, I believe the minimum number of games played can indeed be eliminated. It is a holdover from earlier mechanics that weighed in favor of percentages and ratings rather than point accumulation. A minimum number of games enables valid comparisons (e.g., common sense suggests that 2/3 win-loss ratio should not rank higher than a 65/100 ratio). Without the requirement of a minimum number of games to be ranked, it stands to reason that a player having played one game and gained 20 points for it (an 11-player game with previously undefeated opponents) should be allowed to compete in the rankings along side someone who played twenty games yet only accumulated 1 point. In this case, the former ranks higher. Recall that points are based upon both the size of the game and the skill of the opponents (in that game size). Also note that while AvgScore is based upon opponents beaten regardless of your placement in a game, you must place first to receive the Victory Points. AvgScore is used as a tie breaker statistic, following Victory Points, Win%, Wins.

Regarding the twenty game limit. In order to be inclusive in rankings, I do not want to set the Current Games threshold such that it puts less active players at a severe disadvantage. Setting the number too high favors those who play a lot of games as those who play very few, even with perfect winning records, could not accumulate the number of points needed to outrank the most active weak players. Given the basis of the main point of your second post, you can see how it would be discouraging when paying to play but effectively being unable to attain a rank that grants the opportunity for prizes simply due to lower levels of game time. Thus I set the number at 20 in order to be inclusive while giving each game played a 5% weight. Note that unlike GC, my site does not rely on a single all encompassing ranking but rather independent rankings based upon game size ( for non-tournament games). This gives all but the least active subscribers the opportunity to be included in prize competitions and allows people to play whatever game sizes they enjoy the most without feeling pressure to play specific game sizes in order to improve their chances of qualifying for prize competitions. High Current Games thresholds are exclusive and would result in the same small group of paying subscribers benefiting on a regular basis. I don't believe that is as much fun or incentive for people to enjoy the site. However, I'm not opposed to raising the value to some other reasonable level; reasonable being an arbitrary thing. 50 seems the highest reasonable number, which equates to roughly 1 game per week. Open for feedback.

I do appreciate your thoughts on streaking. I view streaks as a factor of skill (even though it is really the lunar cycle), therefore winning or losing games simply affects your accumulation of points. I don't think accounting for streaks is doable. What constitutes a streak is an arbitrary judgment; 5 games in a row, 10, 20?. If I only play five in a year and win all five is that a streak or is it a measure of my skill, five wins of five games. Either way the games result in point accumulation for winners and that would be true for everyone, regardless of their streaks or consistency.

I believe your second issue is with the point spread between the range of game sizes. I'm glad you brought that up as I was curious as to whether anyone had thoughts on it. The reason for the minimum points is that it seems unfair for a player to gain 0 points, for example, when defeating 10 players (11-player game), or even a single player for that matter, regardless of the fact that the opponent(s) had always come in last place (avgscore = 0.00). It should be worth something to defeat 10 players despite the low skill challenge that they present individually. My current mechanics make the point spread 1-20. Thus an 18 point difference between 2 and 11-player games when defeating perfect (1.00 avgscore) opponents. This issue boils down to the relative and absolute values placed upon game sizes. With or without the minimum points, an 11-player game is worth 10x a 2 player game. In absence of the current minimum points the spread is 9 points. So what numbers do we use? This is open for debate but note that any solution will be arbitrary. It is a matter of finding numbers that seem reasonable.

Regarding subtracting points from the game losers, I have a couple of thoughts. First, it addresses the spread simply by eliminating the minimum points. That doesn't jibe with what I state previously regarding the value of defeating multiple players regardless of skill level. Second, it adds a complication to the point system by having to factor in additional mechanics per player. The present system deals only with the victor. Third, by awarding the same point reduction to all losers, it diminishes the value of their placement in the game. I had considered awarding points to all players based upon their finishing position (opponents defeated), but the complete logical end of that is a situation wherein higher level players are targeted and playing for second crops back up. Two very negative things. Again, I believe your valid concerns can be addressed by altering the point spread.

Regarding subscription rates, I appreciate the differences between players' ability to get online or simply preference for amount of play time. The difficulty with catering to every possible scenario of how much, how often, and what game settings (turn length, game size, etc.) people play is that we end up approaching a pay as you go system. That is a method that inevitably discourages people from playing because they always have in their heads the cost per game. Also, I would have to charge a higher rate per game to those who play less due to overall costs of the site. Unless I had perfect information as to the true cost of running the site on a per game basis, I would have to err on the higher side to cover the loss of regular annual subscription fees. Additionally, typically, people prefer not to have a large number of options (in this case subscription levels) from which to choose (as this would require) as it becomes confusing. At the present I have three subscription levels and both monthly and yearly time periods. I believe my rates will be very reasonable and subscribers can simply play whatever game types they like as often or as little as they desire. Ultimately, it will be up to the individual consumer to decide if my monthly or yearly rates are worth paying with respect to their choice or access to play time. It is akin to paying for magazine subscriptions. You can pay $24 or less annually for the option to read every issue but you can't just pay for the articles that interest you. And if you want to buy one issue at a time it will cost you a much higher per magazine cost.

I don't post messages too often, but after reading the above posts it struck how much brain ache squd and especially peace must have on deliberating the finer points of the game.

So the only thing I've got to say is.....

...stuff the ratings and lets play!!

Go Peacemaker.........Go Peacemaker......

For me,

It's very encouraging to see how much thought, time and effort is being put forth by peacemaker to bring us this new gaming site. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I can't wait for the announcement to arrive that the site is up and running for some beta testing.

yeah i'm pretty excited myself. these 'broken' games sitting in my acct on gc are a daily reminder of how f**ked this site is. ^5 to peace. :D

btw, that means "high-five"...

i recently got in a HUGE argument over "honor" and "cheating" because i refused to forfeit a 2 min. game that got all glitched thanks to people forcing so fast.

I just laughed it off and thought to myself

Boy, this community absolutely sucks now, I can't wait to start over at a new site

UPDATE
CUSTOMER SERVICE IS JOB 1!

I have read in recent posts regarding bugs-o-plenty on GC, that some of you prefer using the Enter key to submit your game actions. Oddly enough that never occurred to me, probably because I always clicked the command buttons directly. But as there is a demand for it, so shall it be. I will see if this can be done with my designs.

It is early February and no, I'm sorry to report, it is not ready for prime time. Be assured that I'm working 'round the clock to bring this to you. Since IAB's December visit and preview, I have added approximately 50 more pages to the site, now totaling around 300, including a gift certificate/subscription mechanism, and a wealth of records book pages. There also some 2500 images involved as well, most of which I have created by myself.

While you wait, and I appreciate your patience, please enjoy the next series of four teasers which I will update each Friday night beginning next week. www.sgamers.net

Peace i got alittle question, is there any possibilty to get the name you know us by ..sicktrain in my case ?

i'm sure this has already been mentioned.. if i remember right he has reserved all the names of people in these forums... or did i dream that?

Nah, not a dream. You're correct Dwarf, but I don't think it's just the folks in the forums. I think he has some of the old timers who aren't here saved as well, in case they find their way home...

exellent :!:

so I can still be Bsmoke, eh? sweet...


maybe i'll want to go by my porn star name though, Rod "Money Shot" Masters :P

No no guys, you've got it all wrong.

Try the name of your first pet, followed by the name of the street you live on...