Regular members can no longer see their ranks

[Edredon]

You can play all those games for FREE! In unlimited number! What do you want more, or what should you pay for in that case? Want some statistics, just pay for them. Do you think it will be better, for example, to be able to play only 5 games at once without membership but see all stats instead?

[veme]

Complaining that "Hey, this free stuff you are giving me isn't as good as what I want" leads to financial instability.

I never complained about anything, so I don't know where you are getting that from. I am very thankful for all the hard work they put into this site and all the parts of it that are free. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense to hide peoples' own ELO from them. I merely asked why it is hidden.

I think the overwhelming majority of people who pay for this site do it because they want to support this great service - not because they care about seeing their ELO. So my thoughts run like this:

1. People who get pay memberships are not primarily motivated by the hidden ELO.
2. In some cases, hiding peoples' own ELO from them can make them feel bitter and actually motivate them not to pay (I know this is at least true of myself, and likely also the person who started this thread).
3. Hiding non-paying members' own ELO from them negates the possibility of ever having the ability to limit who joins your games by ELO range instead of arbitrary player level - even for paying members.

Thus, I am unclear on the rationale for hiding ELO. If there is a good reason to believe showing people their own ELO would somehow hurt profits or the community, then I would love to hear it. I'm quite broke, but I want to want to pay for a membership. It is just hard for me to justify contributing to a site that (in my opinion) hides information which might make the site better for everyone, in a misguided attempt to squeeze some money out of people. I don't want to support that kind of behavior, personally.

You can play all those games for FREE! In unlimited number! What do you want more, or what should you pay for in that case? Want some statistics, just pay for them. Do you think it will be better, for example, to be able to play only 5 games at once without membership but see all stats instead?

I don't give a darn about stats. I also don't think they should let you see the stats for free, or even other peoples' ELO, and neither did the OP. Just your own ELO.

And for the record, I technically can't play Takenoko and Hive (my two favorite games on here) as the rules are still not implemented correctly - believe me, all I care about is being able to play the games. The thing that annoys me the most about this site is that they are always adding games and features, but people can still cheat at Takenoko, and one misclick loses a game of Hive. If I had any inkling they were thinking about fixing the multiple issues with those games instead of just adding more stuff and ignoring the old problems, I'd happily pay despite my issues with hidden ELO.

[Jest Phulin]

I never complained about anything, so I don't know where you are getting that from.

Um...

I also hate this

... and (at least in my case) builds ill will and makes me LESS likely to ever pay you.

Perhaps we should work on the definition of "complain."

complain [kuh m-pleyn] verb (used without object)
1. to express dissatisfaction...

OK, I'm at a loss on how to continue this discussion

[sprockitz]

And for the record, I technically can't play Takenoko and Hive (my two favorite games on here) as the rules are still not implemented correctly - believe me, all I care about is being able to play the games. The thing that annoys me the most about this site is that they are always adding games and features, but people can still cheat at Takenoko, and one misclick loses a game of Hive. If I had any inkling they were thinking about fixing the multiple issues with those games instead of just adding more stuff and ignoring the old problems, I'd happily pay despite my issues with hidden ELO.

Can you expand on these, I haven't played Hive enough to know the rules well, but just saying 1 misclick can lose a game on here, that is true for every single game on here.

As for takenoko, I've played a bunch and also own the game, and have not seen any rules that are not being followed.

[senatorhung]

And for the record, I technically can't play Takenoko and Hive (my two favorite games on here) as the rules are still not implemented correctly - believe me, all I care about is being able to play the games. The thing that annoys me the most about this site is that they are always adding games and features, but people can still cheat at Takenoko, and one misclick loses a game of Hive. If I had any inkling they were thinking about fixing the multiple issues with those games instead of just adding more stuff and ignoring the old problems, I'd happily pay despite my issues with hidden ELO.

Can you expand on these, I haven't played Hive enough to know the rules well, but just saying 1 misclick can lose a game on here, that is true for every single game on here.

As for takenoko, I've played a bunch and also own the game, and have not seen any rules that are not being followed.

the hive misclick can happen when you are moving a beetle down to surround the enemy queen and click on the wrong hex. happened to me multiple times lol. just have a validate move like battle sheep and the problem is solved.

for takenoko, the implementation here is the advanced variant that prevents you from drawing any completed objective. i prefer that since it is more strategic and you can eliminate objectives from consideration, but it is not the standard rules which allow you to play any completed objective (not just pandas) immediately after picking it up.

but i still disagree with the OP about ELO. i have no issue with it being a BGA member perq.

[ringersoll]

In Hive, the "three repetitions = draw" rule is not implemented. The "Offer a Draw" button helps, but with the rule in place (like at BoardSpace.net) there are times when one player can force a draw when the other player does not want one.

[veme]

Re: Jest Phulin - I guess I didn't consider it a complaint because I personally don't care whether I can see my ELO. I hate it because of what I feel it says about the decision making by site administrators: that they care more about trying to force a few bucks out of people than about maximizing the experience for their paid members. If I was a paying member, I'd be even more annoyed by the ELO thing. So I will grant that I am complaining about their attitude, anyway. In any case I still haven't seen someone present a convincing argument for hiding ELO...

Re: sprockitz - For Hive, when I mentioned rules that are not implemented correctly I was referring specifically to this bug:

http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!bug?id=3419

But ringersoll also makes a good point about forcing draws via a loop. Hive also has UI problems of course: the ubiquitous missing 'confirm' or 'undo' button coupled with clickable areas that don't map exactly to hexes ( http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!bug?id=100 ), inability to zoom out or view the whole hive at once, inability to view some replays ( http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!bug?id=4275 ), and the hexes are oriented wrong for use with the positional descriptions and shorthand notation popularized by the aforementioned ringersoll's seminal Hive book.

For Takenoko, I prefer the advanced variant implemented on BGA, and it is how we play the game in my real life group. However, it is not implemented correctly, as reported here:

http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!bug?id=576

If we caught somebody doing this IRL (it is possible, as you must regulate your own objectives with the physical copy), they would be branded a cheater, and no longer be welcome at the table. But online play (where the rule could actually be enforced) allows rampant bamboo hoarding, which is a very powerful and illegal strategy. Both this and the improvement bug ( http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!bug?id=3868 ) serve to buff panda objectives, which are probably the most powerful type of objective even without the help. This situation bothers me to the point where I no longer play Takenoko online, since panda spam rules the day.

There is also a minor rule which is unimplemented in that one is supposed to be able to choose the order of their unchosen plots when they place them back on the bottom of the stack after taking the plots action. I can see why they wouldn't bother with this as it seems very minor, but it can definitely impact a game if you know what plot is on top of the stack. However the BGA implementation does not allow for you to set the order of the unchosen plots, nor does it indicate in any way in what order the plots are drawn from the top of the stack, both of which would be known when playing the physical copy of the game. As I don't see plot stack management as integral to the game, this bug doesn't really bother me that much, it just saps a small amount of strategy from the game to save one click whenever someone takes the plot action.

[Een]

Hi,

because of what I feel it says about the decision making by site administrators: that they care more about trying to force a few bucks out of people than about maximizing the experience for their paid members

Well, everyone is entitled to the way they feel, but maybe you should consider that not doing something is not necessarily a strategy. There can be other reasons, such as lack of time (only 2 admins, you know) or not considering something as a priority. Seems to me that you are assuming the worst.

In any case I still haven't seen someone present a convincing argument for hiding ELO...

Cause maybe there isn't one. As sourisdudesert explained, this was done at the very start and has not changed since. There was not yet even a "restrict" functionality for joining table. At the time, it was hidden like other statistics. Maybe it doesn't make sense any more. Maybe it does. Maybe it's not important: you seem to feel very strongly about it, but that doesn't make a case.

For Hive

For Takenoko

That thread was not about games, but since things have been mixing up happily off the original topic (which was itself based on the false premise of a change that wasn't)...

• BGA is a community website. Hive was developed by two developers of the community. They are not currently active anymore fixing bugs and improving the game. Some developers have requested and obtained access to the game in BGA studio to try and make some changes (including you), but there has not been further developments yet. Isn't it a bit easy to blame the admins about it?
• Takenoko was developed by one of the two admins. Believe it or not, the strength of the panda objectives was debated at the time. You might have noticed that the FAQ you refer is versionned 1.5. I'm don't know for sure which version it was when the game was released some years ago, but I remember nothing about this being in the FAQ at the time. Also, the bug report has gathered only two votes in two years! Are you surprised it's not on our radar?
  The other bug you referenced is in fact not a bug but an interface improvement request since doing the action is possible (if not as intuitive as you might like) and has only one vote. And about the last point: yes the digital version is necessarily an adaptation of the physical game, and sometimes there can be a little less (and sometimes a little more) info than in the physical game. Sometimes you have to choose where to stop so as not to make things too cumbersome (and not spending an infinite amount of time on the development and not ever releasing anything).

I'll close the thread with this since it has been drifting already far from the original (invalid) point. Feel free to open new topics on any of the points mentioned, but please keep it focused and analytical. Going admin bashing is more likely to dishearten us and make us lose time ranting in response than it is to make us do the changes you try to force down on us. We spend a lot of time on BGA, and we do intend to keep our freedom of action and not let us be bullied into things (which doesn't mean that we can't be convinced, but not this way).