Board Game Arena

In my opinion it would be great if everyone can filter the game research based on the 4 parameters: Complexity, Strategy, Luck, Interaction.

So, it would be good to set the range of every parameter to help the users find the best games for them.
I give an example here so you can see how useful it can be, especially if the user know only very few games:

I want a game with: minimum luck, really strategic, not so complex and i don't care about the interaction parameter.
I could set these ranges on my parameters:
LUCK: from 0 to 1
Strategy: from 4 to 5
Complexity: from 0 to 3
Interaction: from 0 to 5
The search would display the games that fit into these parameters.

Tell me what do you think about that.
Good games to everyone!

Given that the scores for these parameters are quite arbitrary, inconsistent and undocumented, I think it would do more harm than help.

Not a bad idea, even if these parameters aren't etched in stone.

Right now, we can filter by things like casual, medium-length, wargame, and other factors that don't have rigid definitions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

There are already about a dozen suggestion reports for this. You can start looking and voting for them here: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=46942

Jellby wrote: ↑03 May 2023, 15:55 Given that the scores for these parameters are quite arbitrary, inconsistent and undocumented, I think it would do more harm than help.

You are right, many of them are a default 3/5, which means 3 out of 5. They should be updated.

But on the other hand, this effort actually makes not much sense, because as long as you can't filter the games for them, nobody can take big advantage of these data. If we could filter the games for them, it were worth the effort!

In the meantime we could collectively make suggestions for updating these parameters. So whenever you think the parameters of a game are not correct, please add your opinion here.

What does the interaction tab represent btw? I'm assuming complexity is how complex the rules and actions are, while strategy is more the approximate skill level of the decision tree involved?

Ceaseless wrote: ↑04 May 2023, 13:11 What does the interaction tab represent btw? I'm assuming complexity is how complex the rules and actions are, while strategy is more the approximate skill level of the decision tree involved?

It is whatever the developer (or the person setting the value) thinks it means. Some seem to think it's only face-to-face interaction, like chess has 0 (all interaction is done by moves on the board) and Trusis has 5 (you're supposed to talk and chat)

cigma wrote: ↑04 May 2023, 12:25

Jellby wrote: ↑03 May 2023, 15:55 Given that the scores for these parameters are quite arbitrary, inconsistent and undocumented, I think it would do more harm than help.

You are right, many of them are a default 3/5, which means 3 out of 5. They should be updated.

But on the other hand, this effort actually makes not much sense, because as long as you can't filter the games for them, nobody can take big advantage of these data. If we could filter the games for them, it were worth the effort!

In the meantime we could collectively make suggestions for updating these parameters. So whenever you think the parameters of a game are not correct, please add your opinion here.

Will do. I just recently was looking at the complexity of a game that had 3 and I was thinking how because I thought it was rather simple.

Complexity, probably (if there is a standard like BGG weight). Others are too inconsistent to be used as a search condition.

About complexity, it would be possible to do a list of things to look at. Per example: number of page of the rules (outside of variants), or number of different type of action every turn (Yathzee/7-Wonders would be mostly 1, Ticket to Ride would be 3), or the complexity of effects (Yahtzee has none so 0, Seasons would have some).
Then give a number of points for each of those and the total would said the complexity.

Just to give an idea, not force to use that list, but that seem to be a good start.