GrassGames

Aidan anything that stops the quitters is to be welcomed but can you give us some idea when 2.6 will be available please?

I've also seen the thread about general "grumpiness". There's no doubt the team element of the game to get the lowest player appears to have gone and the play has become very selfish. The tactic for many is to dump any/3 clubs at the pass, forget about passing a heart, don't take a trick (any trick) and dump the Q at the first opportunity regardless of any points the recipient already has.

The players that have adapted are doing OK but those that are playing as they always did are way down the rankings and very frustrated because they can't enjoy it anymore.

I do remember many people asking for rankings and the ability to pick players with similar experience but we appear to have lost some of the very best elements of the game with the introduction of individual competition.

Its great to win but in my opinion not at any cost and we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Best - Iceman

Absolutely agree. And pretty much what i mentioned .

I guess bottom line is what do you/ we want out of the game.
Fun and enjoyment back is my #1 priority.

Competition is my #2.

Also other improvement has been mentioned in earlier posts.

I'm doing a poll in the the chat at the moment. Currently it seems that most players that have responded like the rankings system (about 80%).

Another idea is to create two lobbies - "competitive" and "casual" or maybe some better names. However this will cause its own problems I'm sure, lack of people the main one at the moment, though this prob. won't be a problem when the other platforms get released (iPhone/iPad/Android).

So I'm not sure really what to do to be honest.

I might leave them in for 2.6 (a few weeks), with the all important quitters fix implemented and see how things go, they can always be removed or split later in 2.7 if it is deemed needed.

All thoughts welcome on the matter.

Personally I don't care for the current rankings %'s. It should be more subtle.

Maybe all categories should have positive values, for example;
Number of games played could be worth more. Those that seldom play but have won are ranked too high. This would encourage people to play more if they want to maintain their standings.
1st place - 4 points
2nd place - 3 points
3rd place - 2 points
4th place - 1 point

This way your not penalized for 3rd and especially 4th when playing against cut-throats, and winning isn't given as much emphasis.
Just some random thoughts floating in that empty space between my ears.
Otherwise, the site works great and you're hard work is appreciated.

Regards,
Walt

P.S. GOPHERLO

1st Thank You for asking for our input.

2. I agree totally with walt above. A person that only played 2-5 games should not be in the
top 20. Which is how it is now. Walt's input may help that.

3. I had one of the most enjoyable 5 games this morning with great players.
CP, Iceman ( sunny ) ? , and myself.
The big thing was we chatted/ teased/ laughed/ and ... I lost 4 out of 5 games.
And I did not care because there were no rankings to look at.

4. What do you think of a partners lobby were 2 play against 2 ? Last week I did that with
ice a week ago and it was different/ enjoyable/ and challenging.

Thanks,
Scott

Good morning all.

Thanks for asking the players Aidan. There are some really good points being made by trusted friends. I do agree strongly with Walt's point about it needing to be more subtle. I do like an element of competition and the 1- 4 idea might work. There's no way you should be at the top having played very few games.

I'm not sure if this is clouding the quitters issue? I'm keen to see how you're going to tackle that and if you can prevent or control it we might get a better sense of what would work well for scores/awards. There is also the abuse issue?

I think I'd rather be a "respected" player than "first" but maybe that has to come from an end of game voting/tick box system which will be quite accurate over a period of time? It would be tedious with more than 2 or 3 tick boxes but worth a thought?

Best Iceman

Interesting input, thanks. At the moment it looks like an overwhelming majority want the rankings kept.

Two things in the next version will remove players who have not played many games from the top: 1) Ratings will go down with time if players are inactive and 2) Quitters will be penalized. I'm sure some of those players that were at the top have quit games to preserve their rankings.

We all are holding our breathe waiting for the new version. And clue when you plan to release it so
we all can get back to playing ?

Thanks.

In response to PS GOPHERLO: I've played Hearts for money for years and cutthroat has never been a derogatory term. It has always been the description of a game where people play without partners...a good game...just like the GrassGames...which I enjoy immensely. I might also point out that no one quits when playing for money. Perhaps you could write software that has a built-in system of rewards which is similar. In cutthroat it is winner take all. That way everyone - especially in a close game - stays until the last card has been played. I know you may have already considered this, but I would like to add my two cents to this discussion.

Thanks for the opportunity to play online. I've been looking for you for a long time.

Roady Harte

Hi
I agree with Roady heart, i also have been playing for money before, not so much but no one quit the game.
I think its important that players can choose if they want to play for money or if they want to play as it is now, not all will or maybe can play for money and than they can choose to play without paying anything.
Looking forward to the next version, i am sure it will be good.
A spec. that QUITTERS will be PENALIZED, i am so tired off quitters, i made a quitter list and right now there is 75 quitter names on it and thats a shame cause i like GrassGames and the opportunity to play online to.

Kind regards
CPH

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

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

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

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

I am sure everything will be fine
Cph

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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).

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.

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

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.

Glen,

You are a true hearts player.

Roady