Changes to rating - Who to contact?

[Daggerheart]

I see the games are given a rating: Complexity 1-5, Strategy 1-5, Luck 1-5, and Interaction.

I feel several of the games got a wrong rating. Who do I message, contact, regarding my comments to individual games?

[Een]

Hi Daggerheart,
Every rating like this is kinda subjective, but if you have some comments, how about just discussing it here in the forums?

[Daggerheart]

I want to talk/chat/write to somebody that actually have the power to change the ratings.

I can give some examples: Can't Stop is given a higher complexity than Carcassonne, Can't Stop 2, Carcassonne 1.
I am very skilled in both game. Have been no 8 in Can't Stop and are closing in on top 200 in Carcassonne.... and I can tell you. Can't Stop is 1 complexity and Carcassonne is 2.

Complexity = the number of rules, and how hard making a very skilled decision is?

In Carcassonne luck and strategy is both given 3. I would of course state that strategy is higher than luck in the game... but it depends on the criterias for the "luck" rating and the strategy rating.

The game Isaac is given a strategy and complexity rating of 2 both.
Lost Cities are given a strategy rating of 4!! and Luck is put at 2!!! (the guy that rated Lost Cities loves the game and thinks the strategy is so high compared to other games here??)

Just some examples... but there are more.

[Jest Phulin]

I want to talk/chat/write to somebody that actually have the power to change the ratings.

Um, does this mean that you think the person who responded responded and suggested you post in these forums doesn't have the power? In that case, you'd better learn who Een and sourisdudesert are.....

[N_Faker]

I think Terra Mystica should have a luck rating of 0.

The only random element is the initial setup and faction selection, if setup/1st player benefit is counted then no game is without luck.

[Liallan]

I can give some examples: Can't Stop is given a higher complexity than Carcassonne, Can't Stop 2, Carcassonne 1.
I am very skilled in both game. Have been no 8 in Can't Stop and are closing in on top 200 in Carcassonne.... and I can tell you. Can't Stop is 1 complexity and Carcassonne is 2.

I have to agree here. My guess is that someone just did these independently and wasn't making a comparison when they were done. (I think a lot would be different if they were layed side by side and compared.) Although I cannot imagine why anyone would rate the complexity of Can't Stop as a 2. What? It's not "all luck" like some people think, but it's not a very complex game, especially if "complex" means mostly rules.

Complexity = the number of rules, and how hard making a very skilled decision is?

Since both complexity and strategy exist, I have to wonder if this refers only to rules, how much is involved in the game. It's hard to define these exactly.

In Carcassonne luck and strategy is both given 3. I would of course state that strategy is higher than luck in the game... but it depends on the criterias for the "luck" rating and the strategy rating.

I sort of agree here, but only in that I think strategy is higher than the luck. But I don't think it's useful to compare a game between categories within itself. That is, I don't think being a 3 on both means it has the "same amount" of both. The game has higher luck than a lot of other games, but I don't consider it to be a highly strategic game. So if you rate those comparatively with games as a whole, I could even see luck coming out on top. (Or maybe they meant strategy is 3.1 and luck is 2.9. But really, there is something to the fact that these are rounded numbers.)

Lost Cities are given a strategy rating of 4!! and Luck is put at 2!!! (the guy that rated Lost Cities loves the game and thinks the strategy is so high compared to other games here??)

Yeah, that's weird. Although I think there's more strategy to this game than what I first thought, and sometimes when you don't know a game very well, it doesn't seem very strategic, especially when luck is on the higher side. But to me, as a not very experienced player, it doesn't seem very high strategy. It's not a 1, but certainly not a 4. I think someone went a little nuts there.

[Daggerheart]

My suggestion is at least than someone that is a master in this games rate them, not a random "I love my game" dude

[Finding Deodato]

Somes games (like Hack Trick) have rating of 3,3,3,3 but it does not suit the game. I think that was made randomly!

[Liallan]

My suggestion is at least than someone that is a master in this games rate them, not a random "I love my game" dude

First, you don't even know who is rating them, only that you disagree with them, so that's an assumption.
Second, that would mean that for every new game they put up they have to hunt down a master. I'm kind of curious how they would even do that, though they could find information from other sources (and perhaps do - might be coming from the publisher). I also disagree that it has to be a master. What's wrong with someone who just knows the game reasonably well?
Third, these are still just people who are basing it on opinion, and will never agree with each other, may be using different criteria, etc., and there's no way you'd ever get these to come out "perfect," whatever that is.

If they want to change some of it based on a conversation like this, they can, but I think that's about the best you will accomplish.

[veme]

I think Terra Mystica should have a luck rating of 0.

The only random element is the initial setup and faction selection, if setup/1st player benefit is counted then no game is without luck.

Well, faction and location selection is pretty important, since I think some are markedly better than others. And which factions are chosen and where they are setup drives the course of the whole game, so I'd say a 1 is fair.

You can also make the argument that any game with non-simultaneous action choice has a degree of luck, in that you do not know what your opponents will do between your turns. The more people playing in a 'take turns' game, the more the gamestate at the beginning of your turn will be a matter of luck since it is impossible to predict the actions of all those players.

As for your comment that 'no game is without luck', I would disagree. Consider first a game like Chess or Hive, where both players have all the same abilities and setup and the only luck element is who takes the first turn. You refer to the 'first player benefit', but these games have not been solved - so why do you think the first player would have a benefit? It is true that many people suspect that white has the advantage in these games, but if they are solved it may be found that perfect play results in a win for black, or even a draw. So if it is unknown which side has the advantage, and the game space is too large for a human to ever solve/remember, is it fair to say that the decision about who is chosen to play first introduces a 'luck' element into the game?

And finally, if we exclude the randomness introduced by opponent choice, there are many games with no 'luck' in the sense we are talking about it here. Although, paradoxically, these games often feel the luckiest of all - 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' for example.


Regarding the initial reason for the thread though: these are ratings, not measurements. You will disagree with many, but they are impossible to standardize anyway, so it is probably best just to ignore them. I'd suggest boardgamegeek for better ratings (or really, anything about games other than playing them), as theirs are at least an attempt to poll the community and not just one person's guess.