Midnightguy wrote:Well I play at Euchre too, I'm sure some of the players who tried out the site here went through this scenario. They got their brand new 1500 0-0 provie rating start rating. Then they face someone who is 1350 and provie with a losing record say 5-10 and they found out other team got J's every deal. They get shutout 11-0 or lost 10-3 <hell even 13-0 im sure they get a loner with 9-0 score if they wanted to add insult to injury to other team already> ....the team who won might as well put on autoplay because no matter what they have an idiot proof win and could beat even the top masters of euchre with those cards. What kinda fun is that? Just HW's usual way of making sure the deals are stacked against the better players.
Midnightguy, you seem to have a pretty good grasp on things. However, I have to ask how either keeping or eliminating a Provie system will in any way affect the effect that "lucky cards" would have on a player's game? Skewed deals happen at ALL levels of play.
My total argument against the provie system isn't because I want high tons of high rated games. What is the point to have tons of high rated names if your not playing them in the first place? Again, I support name limitations and could live with having 5 names max. Five names should be enough for an average family. If everyone had only 5 names, odds are people who are 1800 or 2000 will have a period where their ratings will take a hit and they will come back down to 1600-1700. They will be forced to use those names because they can't just keep recreating another new provie name. I contest this is where our problem lies and if we did away with unlimited names, then you'll see less provie games and more rated games and perhaps see a few higher rated tables because players would be forced to use their high names instead of creating new ones all the time.
I completely agree with you here. Hundreds of nicks does seem to defeat the whole purpose of any sort of rating system. However, if the Provie system is REMOVED, just try to imagine how many ADDITIONAL new nicks would be created when people discover that they no longer have to play through 20 games to "establish" their nick!!!
Like you described, MY nick (the one and only that I have ever used on HW) has varied between 1400 and 1800 over the years. When I am "down", I play harder, working to bring my nick back up to a "respectable" level. When my rating is up, I play a little more cautiously, mainly to better protect my rating, but I still find myself playing in games with players having lower ratings, and losing just a few of these games QUICKLY drops that 1800 rating back down into the 1500's or lower!
I just want a fair game and facing people of equal competition. Coming to either Spades or Euchre then finding mostly the tables all are provies or tables rated 1500 or rated but allows anyone to come doesn't seem to promote the site has skilled players. I know Galt and I talk in the minority here in the forum and many disagree with our points, but not many people who do agree with us feel the need to want to take the effort to write in here. That's their loss and if they expect things to change on their own, then they'll never be happy.
Midnightguy, again I have to ask HOW getting rid of the Provie system will CHANGE this fact??? IMHO, just the OPPOSITE will occur when a whole NEW influx of nicks is created, and 1500-rated games will be even MORE prolific.
Then we talk about kicking people out, I only kick people out who are abusive or attack people at my table. I don't kick people out because of their rating. As much as I rather play equal challengers at what table I'm at, I never kicked out a 1200 who came to my provie table. Do I worry they'll win cos of the deals? Yes but guess I'll hope they won't know what to do with the cards to win or maybe I'll get a fair deal and my skills will win over a weaker player. I agree with many that to kick people off a table because of their rating is rude.
I'm a little confused here... You are talking about ways to get the site set up so that there are fewer lower rated players/games (or more high rated players/games, same difference...) yet you frown on kicking people from a game who have ratings low enough to cause concern... You can't have it both ways. Either you are willing to play in games with low-raters, or you are not. If you ARE willing, then why speak against the provie system?... If you are NOT, then why sit at tables with low rated players?...
As for the talk about different rooms, I support it. The server can only take in so many people so why not divide rooms by what type of game you wish to play? If you need to talk to your friends who are in another lobby, get a yahoo or MSN account. Having different rooms should be an asset for the site and newbies coming in seeing they have a choice where to play instead of having one lobby that has max 300 people and can't get in because people are angry room is divided. I'm not a computer programmer, but I'd image for SCE to make the rooms fill up to 300 is no easy feat for them. To demand all rooms are once again together might be a near impossiable task for them to correct. Do we want to go back to the days when server crashed for for a short period or we lost our game because the lobby was too full? For those people who want rooms all in one who disagree with my ending the provie system...."If its not broke why change it?".
Is not the room limit STILL 300??? And when the room is full, does not the Server display a message to the next player who tries to enter indicating that the room is now full and is not accepting any new players?
Rather than splitting up the rooms based on game type, I agree with the person who suggested lowering the room limits. When a room has 200 players, allow no more to enter. The overflow will then go to the next room. After all, overflow was the ONLY reason that people USED to go to another room, and it STILL is the only reason for many.
As for your quote "If its not broke why change it?" I would like to point out that the rooms were ORIGINALLY designed to be "all-in-one", so I could ask the same question THERE... Or maybe I should ask "If it wasn't broke in the first place, why not change it back?"
Anyway that is my 2 cents here. Again great stats on the bell curve abc, however its clear that other posts that have gotten closed have not be resolved yet and being talked about here on a post about data on rating. Unless if there is profanity, or true bashing towards one another, or a programming glitch that was pointed out and corrected why close any posts. Why not just delete or edit the bashing posts? I once was a moderator for a PhPBB forum at another site and I had the ablity to edit or delete posts that lead towards bashing or used profanity. I very rarely used this power to edit/delete anyone's post because I felt it was their right to express their feelings but, I didn't want to see any personal attacks and that was the only time I used the power.
I agree with your point here, Midnightguy. There have been a number of times that I have been in the act of composing a post for a particular thread, only to discover when I tried to "Submit" it that the thread had been closed in the interim!!! Maybe the Powers That Be have had good reasons for locking these threads, but they weren't obvious to me or to many others...
Taking up the gauntlet from Absolutely's post, if the games on HW were made free and the cards distribution "problem" resolved, you would see an influx of players here that would make the Zone, WorldPlay, PlaySite, MPlayer, YaHoo and others ALL COMBINED look puny!