Good afternoon. I too have only ever played the game for money until I started to play online. I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing online for money and I think it would prevent many players from taking part - particularly young people.
Best. Iceman
2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Hi
Maybe you are right iceman, but i only wrote was thinking, and have been thinking about this before Roady heart was writing. Sometimes i am a very thinking person and like to discus it with others. But not a big deal if u can play for money or not.
Hmmm I am young, but i also know what i am doing. can't see anything wrong to be young and play for money if u have theme and choose what u will do with theme.
Just my thoughts!
Cph
Maybe you are right iceman, but i only wrote was thinking, and have been thinking about this before Roady heart was writing. Sometimes i am a very thinking person and like to discus it with others. But not a big deal if u can play for money or not.
Hmmm I am young, but i also know what i am doing. can't see anything wrong to be young and play for money if u have theme and choose what u will do with theme.
Just my thoughts!
Cph
Last edited by cphgirl25 on Mar 24, 2014, edited 1 time in total.
-
Roady Harte
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Jan 11, 2014
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
On reflection, I want to chip in once more. Studiodcom made a great point. In the game of cutthroat with which I am familiar, the play lasts for hours - sometimes all night - like poker. Players do not quit after a thumping, nor after winning big. So my question: Could GrassGames consider a point system that encourages prolonged play among participants by recognizing those who game multiple times at one sitting with an upgraded ranking?
Roady Harte
Roady Harte
Last edited by Roady Harte on Mar 24, 2014, edited 1 time in total.
-
Roady Harte
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Jan 11, 2014
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
I am not suggesting that GrassGames create a play-for-money system, only the establishment of a ranking model that considers honest play by using the money game as a basis for creating structure.
Roady Harte
Roady Harte
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
I am sure everything will be fine 
Cph
Cph
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
I don't really mind whether there is a ranking system or not. The ranking system certainly adds a lot more competition but at the expense of social interaction and general friendliness amongst players.
I notice some people complaining about how people are playing the game differently, not aiming for the lowest scored player etc. The idea of a linear based points system that awards 4 points for first place, 3 points for second, 2 for third and 1 for fourth, only exacerbates this problem, as it encourages people to settle for second place. Hearts has always been a "winner takes all" game so if points were to be allocated, second place should be awarded significantly less points than first place, if any.
I will be interested to see how you eliminate the problem of quitting. As it stands, players appear to be penalized for formally quitting. However the bulk of players who quit do not take the time to formally quit by pressing the quit button. They just close down Hearts or their computer. This should lead to a deduction in points. Alternatively, you can have a percent of games finished statistic for each player that warns other players of those who are likely to deliberately quit or lose connection due to poor internet access.
I notice some people complaining about how people are playing the game differently, not aiming for the lowest scored player etc. The idea of a linear based points system that awards 4 points for first place, 3 points for second, 2 for third and 1 for fourth, only exacerbates this problem, as it encourages people to settle for second place. Hearts has always been a "winner takes all" game so if points were to be allocated, second place should be awarded significantly less points than first place, if any.
I will be interested to see how you eliminate the problem of quitting. As it stands, players appear to be penalized for formally quitting. However the bulk of players who quit do not take the time to formally quit by pressing the quit button. They just close down Hearts or their computer. This should lead to a deduction in points. Alternatively, you can have a percent of games finished statistic for each player that warns other players of those who are likely to deliberately quit or lose connection due to poor internet access.
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Quitting by shutting down / disconnecting / manually quitting will all be treated in the same way.
Showing a quit percentage is a good idea and I'll look into it.
"A linear based points system that awards 4 points for first place, 3 points for second, 2 for third and 1 for fourth" - this is not the way things are at the moment, but the system uses an ELO ratings system where each player's ranking goes up or down in relation to how they fared against all of the other players in the game (and depends also upon the rankings of the other players). However there needs to be some adjustments made as you pointed out to give more value to winning, and I'll implement this for the next version also.
No plans at all to incorporate real money into the game so don't worry about that for now.
"Could GrassGames consider a point system that encourages prolonged play..." - not at this time, also I think most users of the game would not be interested in this, correct me if I'm wrong.
"In cutthroat it is winner take all." - again, I will update the rankings so that more importance is giving to winning.
Showing a quit percentage is a good idea and I'll look into it.
"A linear based points system that awards 4 points for first place, 3 points for second, 2 for third and 1 for fourth" - this is not the way things are at the moment, but the system uses an ELO ratings system where each player's ranking goes up or down in relation to how they fared against all of the other players in the game (and depends also upon the rankings of the other players). However there needs to be some adjustments made as you pointed out to give more value to winning, and I'll implement this for the next version also.
No plans at all to incorporate real money into the game so don't worry about that for now.
"Could GrassGames consider a point system that encourages prolonged play..." - not at this time, also I think most users of the game would not be interested in this, correct me if I'm wrong.
"In cutthroat it is winner take all." - again, I will update the rankings so that more importance is giving to winning.
Aidan
GrassGames.com
GrassGames.com
-
SunnyCorner
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Nov 17, 2013
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
I've noticed now that some players are quitting by simply not playing a card - they just sit there silently until one of the others end it. Might need to have some kind of timing out linked to whose turn it is to play? Or the % of games finished might work over time as someone suggested earlier?
It would also be helpful if the end sequence played out after the last card has been played. Twice recently a player has ended so quickly I didn't know who had won!
And finally.... come on Aidan when will we have 2.6? Will we all be back to zero or last recorded position carries on?
Best. Iceman
It would also be helpful if the end sequence played out after the last card has been played. Twice recently a player has ended so quickly I didn't know who had won!
And finally.... come on Aidan when will we have 2.6? Will we all be back to zero or last recorded position carries on?
Best. Iceman
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Some interesting thoughts in the previous posts. Here are some of mine:
1. I like rankings, as it adds to the competitive aspect of playing.
2. I think rather than using some complex system for determining rankings, you should use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid (no offence meant
). Just give points for winning, not finishing 2nd or 3rd, and certainly not 4th. For the actual Rankings, something would have to be used to take into account the number of games played.
3. In home games, I've never felt satisfied with finishing second. Playing for second so as to improve ones rankings leads to the wrong kind of play. Perhaps a negative number for finishing 4th, or for breaking 100 would be appropriate too, but not necessary.
3. Make the Moon Scoring default "Ask", which encourages those with high scores not to give up. I hate when I have a hand that I can conceivably Shoot the Moon with (especially one where it's unlikely that you'll get less than 20), but can't because it would mean that someone else would win, due to Old Moon scoring.
4. Quitters should be heavily penalized, at least as much negatively as Winners are rewarded positively. My suggestion would be 10 points for Winning, and -10 points for Quitting.
1. I like rankings, as it adds to the competitive aspect of playing.
2. I think rather than using some complex system for determining rankings, you should use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid (no offence meant
). Just give points for winning, not finishing 2nd or 3rd, and certainly not 4th. For the actual Rankings, something would have to be used to take into account the number of games played.3. In home games, I've never felt satisfied with finishing second. Playing for second so as to improve ones rankings leads to the wrong kind of play. Perhaps a negative number for finishing 4th, or for breaking 100 would be appropriate too, but not necessary.
3. Make the Moon Scoring default "Ask", which encourages those with high scores not to give up. I hate when I have a hand that I can conceivably Shoot the Moon with (especially one where it's unlikely that you'll get less than 20), but can't because it would mean that someone else would win, due to Old Moon scoring.
4. Quitters should be heavily penalized, at least as much negatively as Winners are rewarded positively. My suggestion would be 10 points for Winning, and -10 points for Quitting.
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Winner take all should encourage everyone to always, if possible, try to get the low score. After all, if you want to win, low needs to be stopped. I don't agree with negative for last. This may be fine with most, I personally don't care for it. Too many varibles to be punished for. If I'm high, say 90 but still trying to get low, fail and go out as a consequence, I shouldn't penalized as a result.
I'm making the assumption that you Aidan are still looking at a percentage based rankings system. Perhaps winner, number of games and other criteria under the awards tab. Everyone, please feel free to correct me or add to this thread so this can be nailed down.
gla
walt
I'm making the assumption that you Aidan are still looking at a percentage based rankings system. Perhaps winner, number of games and other criteria under the awards tab. Everyone, please feel free to correct me or add to this thread so this can be nailed down.
gla
walt
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
I see Walt's point about getting penalized for finishing 4th, and therefore agree that it should be "winner take all", with only the winner being rewarded, and getting points for finishing 2nd should be eliminated (so as to discourage playing for second, rather than keep trying to win).
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Amen Iceman. You nailed it. I played today, and couldn't believe how players I have played with in the pass were so cut throat. Not only messes up the game, but takes the strategy and fun out.
-
Roady Harte
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Jan 11, 2014
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Please consider the following idea for a points system.
Assume, at the end of a game, four players have the following scores:
player no. 4 loses at 100 points,
player no. 3 accumulates 75 points,
player no. 2 accumulates 50 points, and
the winner accumulates 25 points.
Each of the three losers pay the winner according to his or her score, as follows:
player no. 4 accumulates 100 points, minus the winner's 25 points, gives up 75 points to the winner,
player no. 3 accumulates 75 points, minus the winner's 25 points, gives up 50 points to the winner,
player no. 2 accumulates 50 points, minus the winner's 25 points, gives up 25 points to the winner.
Winner accumulates 150 points.
In this way, each player, by the size of his or her loss, controls the ultimate scoring of each game and
identifies the overall points for the winner; while each loser adds no points to his or her own scoring.
An effective ranking system could could be created by dividing the total accumulated "winner" points by
the number of games played by each winner. A secondary system could track the total points of all players
divided by games played. In this way players would know the strengths of everyone as they tried to match
up to those most closely near their own skills.
In bicycle racing, there is a one tiered system of ranking. All of the points scored by every rider in every race
are divided by competitions entered. Theoretically, a simple system of ranking Grass Games would do just that.
Roady Harte
Assume, at the end of a game, four players have the following scores:
player no. 4 loses at 100 points,
player no. 3 accumulates 75 points,
player no. 2 accumulates 50 points, and
the winner accumulates 25 points.
Each of the three losers pay the winner according to his or her score, as follows:
player no. 4 accumulates 100 points, minus the winner's 25 points, gives up 75 points to the winner,
player no. 3 accumulates 75 points, minus the winner's 25 points, gives up 50 points to the winner,
player no. 2 accumulates 50 points, minus the winner's 25 points, gives up 25 points to the winner.
Winner accumulates 150 points.
In this way, each player, by the size of his or her loss, controls the ultimate scoring of each game and
identifies the overall points for the winner; while each loser adds no points to his or her own scoring.
An effective ranking system could could be created by dividing the total accumulated "winner" points by
the number of games played by each winner. A secondary system could track the total points of all players
divided by games played. In this way players would know the strengths of everyone as they tried to match
up to those most closely near their own skills.
In bicycle racing, there is a one tiered system of ranking. All of the points scored by every rider in every race
are divided by competitions entered. Theoretically, a simple system of ranking Grass Games would do just that.
Roady Harte
Last edited by Roady Harte on Apr 03, 2014, edited 3 times in total.
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
I like Roady's suggestions, but with one possible addition: the Winner of the match gets 25 points from each player, plus the difference in points (per Roady's suggestion). It seems to me that if you lose and finish second by 1 point, you should lose more than just the one point.
-
Roady Harte
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Jan 11, 2014
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Glen,
You are a true hearts player.
Roady
You are a true hearts player.
Roady
Re: 2.6 - Rankings or No Rankings?
Thanks for the suggestions all.
2.6 has been released today.
Current rankings implementation is winner gets all, quitters punished, rankings increase/decrease depends on winning or losing and of the level of the players that you have beaten or got beaten by.
Quitters also get ratings reductions unless they leave the game from agreement (click the "Restart/End Game" button to do so).
2.6 has been released today.
Current rankings implementation is winner gets all, quitters punished, rankings increase/decrease depends on winning or losing and of the level of the players that you have beaten or got beaten by.
Quitters also get ratings reductions unless they leave the game from agreement (click the "Restart/End Game" button to do so).
Aidan
GrassGames.com
GrassGames.com