Arena game format votes by gurus - If equality which format taken ?

[tarongot]

Their voice was heard, as it showed in all the negative votes. Doesn't mean that this has any effect on the Arena season though. There is no specification anywhere that a game needs to be popular to have an Arena season. All games on here have one, whether you think they are good games or not.

How you can said that voice was heard when what was done was against what was voted?
Is there said anywhere that game HAS TO HAVE Arena (Coop games doesn't have)?

But what do you expect the site to do about it? If all the formats of a game are bad, what can they do about that?

Isn't that obvious? Change game rules, so those have format that is not bad. I know you will say that poor BGA can't do that. Of course they can, they just doesn't want to. That is also part of my agenda, to change that, that is my voice.

[tbhp]

How you can said that voice was heard when what was done was against what was voted?

Like I said, they can't do anything more than just acknowledge the votes. The point of guru votes is to determine which format will be picked next season. It's not to determine whether there will be a season at all.

Is there said anywhere that game HAS TO HAVE Arena (Coop games doesn't have)?

I don't know if it's said anywhere, but it is obviously how the site works that every game that is functional to play and non-coop will have Arena.

If you don't think this is a good thing, you can propose your idea, but not many people will agree with it. There is no good reason why gurus voting against a game should make this game unavailable to play for all those who may want to play it. If you don't like any of a game's modes, you don't have to play it.

Isn't that obvious? Change game rules, so those have format that is not bad. I know you will say that poor BGA can't do that. Of course they can, they just doesn't want to. That is also part of my agenda, to change that, that is my voice.

The site developers are not creators of the games. They can't change the rules, they can only release versions of the game that actually exist.

Sure, they can technically do it, but that would be extremely unethical. You can't request a game to change anymore than you can request the Mona Lisa to change because you don't like it. You have to respect the work that the creator made.

[tarongot]

Like I said, they can't do anything more than just acknowledge the votes. The point of guru votes is to determine which format will be picked next season. It's not to determine whether there will be a season at all.

Point of guru can change. On all guru pages there is years old, but not deleted, info: "More functions will be added later!".

I don't know if it's said anywhere, but it is obviously how the site works that every game that is functional to play and non-coop will have Arena.

And why non-coop? You have exception already, so you can have another for games that aren't fit for arena.

The site developers are not creators of the games. They can't change the rules, they can only release versions of the game that actually exist.

Sure, they can technically do it, but that would be extremely unethical. You can't request a game to change anymore than you can request the Mona Lisa to change because you don't like it. You have to respect the work that the creator made.

I don't see anything unethical there. Site purpose is for players to play game, and site is giving tools to do it online. You don't agree?
If players would like to change rules, as option, and play game their way, what is unethical in giving them tools for that? You find fan-made expansion, house-rules unethical too? I for sure don't.

[Ceaseless]

Looking the history of the arena of a game, I have found my answer : In case of equality, the current format will be the next format !

More strange : The number of votes made (shown) is not taken in account to give the win to the new format in case of equality !!!

Why would it? I don't know why you think more votes should even be a good thing; it would be just as reasonable to choose the one with less votes since it's less controversial. They're tied. Having the current system be the winner seems as good a choice as any, it held up against its challengers. BGA seems to be favoring a bit of consistency in the format here. Though ultimately, it's not like the tiebreaker has anything it had to be, I don't see much reason to be surprised with it. They just needed a workable way to move on from a tie.

Looking the history of the arena of a game, I have found my answer : In case of equality, the current format will be the next format !

More strange : The number of votes made (shown) is not taken in account to give the win to the new format in case of equality !!!

That doesn't surprises me. Since whole voting logic favors current format, also ties are on that format favor.

In one of games this season all voted against that format, but since that was current one, and only one, this one still WON and will be next arena format. . or or

Well, if there's only one option, not much to do there.

In one of games this season all voted against that format, but since that was current one, and only one, this one still WON and will be next arena format. . or or

I mean, if no one suggested a new format then what did they think would happen? This case is definitely on the players, not the system.

I would think that good system would just end with not having arena that season. Isn't that funny/strange/bad, when arena has format that no one likes?

If none of the gurus like any of the options, guess they'll just leave whatever they've got left for everyone else.

[tbhp]

And why non-coop? You have exception already, so you can have another for games that aren't fit for arena.

And who decides which games are fit? The Olympic committee?

People wouldn't find it normal that they aren't able to play a game competitively anymore just because the gurus decided they don't want the game. The system is fine for picking the next Arena format because we have no choice but to pick one. So there has to be a vote. But there is no need for a vote that determines whether the game will be available for Arena. There is no strong reason to not just have all games compete in Arena.

I don't see anything unethical there. Site purpose is for players to play game, and site is giving tools to do it online. You don't agree?
If players would like to change rules, as option, and play game their way, what is unethical in giving them tools for that? You find fan-made expansion, house-rules unethical too? I for sure don't.

This is not a place for players to play their own versions of a game. This is the official place to play the official versions of the game. You are free to make your own version of the Mona Lisa if you want, but when you visit the Louvre, you want to see the real version. Same thing here.

[tarongot]

And why non-coop? You have exception already, so you can have another for games that aren't fit for arena.

And who decides which games are fit? The Olympic committee?

People wouldn't find it normal that they aren't able to play a game competitively anymore just because the gurus decided they don't want the game. The system is fine for picking the next Arena format because we have no choice but to pick one. So there has to be a vote. But there is no need for a vote that determines whether the game will be available for Arena. There is no strong reason to not just have all games compete in Arena.

I don't see anything unethical there. Site purpose is for players to play game, and site is giving tools to do it online. You don't agree?
If players would like to change rules, as option, and play game their way, what is unethical in giving them tools for that? You find fan-made expansion, house-rules unethical too? I for sure don't.

This is not a place for players to play their own versions of a game. This is the official place to play the official versions of the game. You are free to make your own version of the Mona Lisa if you want, but when you visit the Louvre, you want to see the real version. Same thing here.

Maybe "The Olympic committee" should also decide on arena formats.

For you maybe its not place. For me it is right place to do it. Isn't that a community driven page? Seems community members are good enough to test games, translate games, implement those games. Even make propositions for this page changes or implementation features to add. But somehow not good enough to propose game changes (for you).
Why not? Because that is "the official place to play the official versions of the game". And who decided it is official place? "The Olympic committee" perhaps?
Are arena formats or ELO/ranking systems also official, consulted with publishers/game authors ?

I'm sure we won't agree on anything including basics. You like what it is, I think it could be much better, even something great, now is just average. Average for many is enough, and that's fine. I won't stop from proposing to improve things anyway.