BGA's idea of a beginner

[veme]

It isn't all about the numbers for all people.

I became a member to support the site, not to see my ELO. I'd like to think there are others like me.

I think most people are like you, that is my point. I will be buying a membership myself soon, and it is not to see ELO. It is mainly the recent attempt to improve the lobby that pushed me over the edge; I like to see UI/bug fixes most. Also, they deserve it for reading my numerous rants about all the things they are doing wrong Certainly they do more right overall.

But this is irrelevant to to the issue now. With lobby filtering, they could implement user-specified ELO restrictions immediately, either at set intervals (ELO within 50, 100, etc. of table creator) or by just letting people enter their own number. It would still be nice to have more specific skill levels, but this would solve the problem of having to kick people from games and stuff.

[ThierryC]

Hello,

I would like to add my two cents about this.

A below average player will completely ruin 3+player games such as Puerto Rico, Tokaido, Legendary Inventors, etc. since they will inevitably make questionable moves that imbalance the game.

Being a beginner, I clearly have been —and certainly will be— responsible of such "bad moves", leading to a less pleasurable game experience or even to frustration for better players.
* I felt some empathy about it.
I perfectly understand the wish to have a more accurate restriction system and that such feature is desirable (even for me, when I'll hopefully be better ).
* But it made me think.

May I suggest you and others to consider it from another, philosophical (?), perspective:
Let's say player A is a beginner, whereas B and C are equally good.

• The rules were chosen to get a game as balanced as possible (at the beginning!).
• B and C take as rational and optimal decisions as they can (as do A, by the way ) —building on their experience, making assumptions about other players' actions;
• A makes an unexpected action, non-optimal (or even stupid) for his/her score; It is regarded as irrational from B and C;
• The action affects B negatively and C positively. The action "imbalances" the game (from their viewpoint, at least).
• But the rules allow this action, right?

So, should player B (and C) blame the game?, player A?, the interface allowing players to join around the game?, or maybe life (another game with its own rules)?
My opinion: none of them (or all of them, + B and C themselves, and of course: bad luck). Why?

Because B and C did not take into account the possibility that A acts in an irrational way: surprise!
They were confident that A would act as in their experience, without considering the uncertainty hiding in the game-experience otherwise set as a Swiss cuckoo clock.
I'm not saying B is not good. B may sometimes reverse the situation if s/he masters the game. Otherwise, well, it's just bad luck. Yes, even in games designed for less randomness, the reality of life, evil uncertainty, comes back! (and life sucks, sometimes ) —and that is, in my opinion, exactly what frustrates (us) players, who wish to control everything.


Again, I'm not saying it's always a pleasure to play with players of different levels. That's just part of life. Even great masters may fall when they meet with "bad fortune".

All the best,
Thierry

[Shaq Jenkins]

Hello,

I would like to add my two cents about this.

A below average player will completely ruin 3+player games such as Puerto Rico, Tokaido, Legendary Inventors, etc. since they will inevitably make questionable moves that imbalance the game.

Being a beginner, I clearly have been —and certainly will be— responsible of such "bad moves", leading to a less pleasurable game experience or even to frustration for better players.
* I felt some empathy about it.
I perfectly understand the wish to have a more accurate restriction system and that such feature is desirable (even for me, when I'll hopefully be better ).
* But it made me think.

May I suggest you and others to consider it from another, philosophical (?), perspective:
Let's say player A is a beginner, whereas B and C are equally good.

• The rules were chosen to get a game as balanced as possible (at the beginning!).
• B and C take as rational and optimal decisions as they can (as do A, by the way ) —building on their experience, making assumptions about other players' actions;
• A makes an unexpected action, non-optimal (or even stupid) for his/her score; It is regarded as irrational from B and C;
• The action affects B negatively and C positively. The action "imbalances" the game (from their viewpoint, at least).
• But the rules allow this action, right?

So, should player B (and C) blame the game?, player A?, the interface allowing players to join around the game?, or maybe life (another game with its own rules)?
My opinion: none of them (or all of them, + B and C themselves, and of course: bad luck). Why?

Because B and C did not take into account the possibility that A acts in an irrational way: surprise!
They were confident that A would act as in their experience, without considering the uncertainty hiding in the game-experience otherwise set as a Swiss cuckoo clock.
I'm not saying B is not good. B may sometimes reverse the situation if s/he masters the game. Otherwise, well, it's just bad luck. Yes, even in games designed for less randomness, the reality of life, evil uncertainty, comes back! (and life sucks, sometimes ) —and that is, in my opinion, exactly what frustrates (us) players, who wish to control everything.


Again, I'm not saying it's always a pleasure to play with players of different levels. That's just part of life. Even great masters may fall when they meet with "bad fortune".

All the best,
Thierry

I'd say that players B and C should "blame" (that's a strong word to use here) player A. There's a difference between uncertainty based on how the game is designed and uncertainty based on the bad moves players make. Isn't the game winner usually the person who controls the game effectively? It's hard to control a game when someone makes nonsensical, nonstrategic moves, especially in a game where turn order is very important. In Puerto Rico, an inexperienced player will inadvertently help the person who goes after them and completely screw over the person who goes before them. This happens in Legendary Inventors as well, but usually, the biggest problem with lower level players is that they mindlessly finish inventions without paying attention to what other players need or they use the very ineffective "all or nothing" strategy (this is where they either focus on ONLY upgrading their inventors or ONLY taking invention cards). Because of this, I try not to play these two games with Average level and below players. These are the types of games that people should play with those ranked similarly as them; once they become better and are no longer challenged by people at their level, then they can try playing with higher skilled people.

I also think it's important to make a distinction between games that are largely luck based and games where luck isn't that much of a factor. In luck based, easy to learn games such as Can't Stop, Love Letter, and Colt Express, I don't put restrictions on the table and am open to playing with people of all levels. I rarely see inexperienced players ruin these games.

The new BGA ranking system has made finding similarly ranked players easier. I think the Apprentice and Strong Player categories were excellent additions.

[sourisdudesert]

Hi

Thanks for your message.

Just a word to say that beginner+apprentice steps has been also added to address this original suggestion.