Sorting Games in Prestige Section of Profile

[Silene]

conversely, when there is a new game that i am doing well at .. sorting by games played will bury it down below games that i no longer play.

Actually after having a look at some Profiles I don't see how sorting by prestige is helping the problem you mention at all, because you keep your prestige of games you no longer play (except for the rankings which don't affect many users). Different amound of prestige earned leads to new games I already played about 10-20 times getting buried below a game i played only once about 1 or 2 years ago. Looks odd to me.

If sorting by prestige is the way it should be, I think there should be some severe work of balancing in prestige points given (which would be nice because it looks unbalanced to me in many ways).

[senatorhung]

conversely, when there is a new game that i am doing well at .. sorting by games played will bury it down below games that i no longer play.

Actually after having a look at some Profiles I don't see how sorting by prestige is helping the problem you mention at all, because you keep your prestige of games you no longer play (except for the rankings which don't affect many users). Different amound of prestige earned leads to new games I already played about 10-20 times getting buried below a game i played only once about 1 or 2 years ago. Looks odd to me.

If sorting by prestige is the way it should be, I think there should be some severe work of balancing in prestige points given (which would be nice because it looks unbalanced to me in many ways).

prestige points for games played and games won seem to be based on the number of games played on the site. the higher the games played, the lower the prestige for reaching each level of games played and games won, as there is a fixed amount of prestige in the pool for each game. you can bypass those limits with tourney wins and actual ELO prestige (#1, #2, and #3 .. the ones for top 10 and top 20 are still pooled).

so, a recent game where you have played more games should give you more prestige than a game you played a while ago, unless there were not very many total plays of that previous game, in which case you just have to play the new game a few more times to move it up the list. at least this way, you have a means to move games you enjoy up the list over games that you no longer play. previously, you had to actually play more games, and when some games are shorter plays, that hurts the games that require longer amounts of play time.

in my top 10 games, there is only one game that i am not actively playing. the only reason it is still in my top 10 is because i stopped playing when my ELO rank had been above good level. if i play one more game of that and lose ... it will drop out of the top 10. in the previous sorting regime, i had more games near the top where i was 'unranked' due to not playing them for over 60 days.

[sprockitz]

I believe prestige points for wins and games played is based mainly on how long the game takes. I think there is also a little weight to either or both complexity and strategy.

For example...

Tzolkin takes 39 minutes and gives 123 prestige for 20 wins.
Seasons takes 23 minutes and gives 72 prestige for 20 wins.
Takenoko takes 23 minutes and gives 66 prestige for 20 wins.

Proportional to time a game takes Tzolkin and Seasons give virtually identical prestige, with Takenoko about 10% less.

[cosmosis]

Not going to add to the discussion of whether this order is in general good or not, but just wanted to say I like this sorting order. Thanks for the update.

[Silene]

I understood the number of prestige depends on complexity/popularity of the game. Good to do so but I think it is not balanced between the games. 1 game played (long ago) shouldn't be listed before 15 games played (recently) no matter what the complexity is.

To make it easier to compare/list different games it would be better to use different steps rather than different prestige points. Like 1x, 3x, 5x, 10x played for complex game but 5x, 10x, 20x, 50x played for simple games with the same prestige points for same step#. But also adaptions to skill-level-steps (good/expert/master) would be necessary depending on luck of the game.

The actual system might work for the ranking players who are very skilled in many games. But I think it doesn't work well for average users and low absolute number of games.