Page 1 of 1

Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Sep 22, 2021
by Aidan
Ok going to start working on changes to the ranking system now for Version 3.

I will be implementing a monthly competition and somehow also keep track of winners or top 10 for e.g. the last month or possibly the last year.

Please post your suggestions here. I've read the points in the other threads but more suggestions are welcome. It would be nice also to hear if possible from some players who have been playing a long time but have not voiced their ideas yet.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Oct 17, 2021
by Aidan
The version 3 new rankings system will award 5 points for a win and -20 for quitting a game and nothing else.

The rankings will be reset each month with the current month and previous months rankings being displayed in the lobby.

If anyone has any suggestions about where to offer extra bonus points or some other scenarios for reducing points please let us know - it might spice things up a bit more.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Oct 17, 2021
by jbruch
Will the monthly play have a set number of games that count toward the rankings? If you don't do something to make it less of an advantage to those that play more then I don't think it makes sense to make any changes. I believe it had been proposed that the monthly rankings be based on a players last 25 games. This seems like a reasonable number that many players play on a monthly basis and for a player that exceeds that number of games played just count their last 25 games.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Oct 17, 2021
by steveamida
How do you know someone quit? If the program freezes is that a quit? How will you know that is what happened? If someones internet glitches, is that a quit? Etc., etc. I never quit. But I have had the above happen. Does not seem fair to lose 4 wins. We know who the quitters are, and we just don't play them.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Oct 22, 2021
by Aidan
Points noted. Please keep the discussions coming.

Scoring rules from a real-life Hearts tournament that ran some time ago (link ):
After a round is completed, the scores at each table will be Match Pointed by position as follows:

* First place: 6 Match points
* Second place: 3 Match points
* Third place: 2 Match points
* Fourth place: 1 Match point
Does not agree with the "Winner Takes All" approach that has been suggested and that I was going to use going forward.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Dec 06, 2021
by Matheteacher
I have been playing a long time. I worked my way up to number 3 in the rankings. I don't mind changing things, but will be disappointed if my efforts to get to number 3 are completely nullified. Having and overall ranking system, a yearly ranking system and a monthly ranking system would please me better and give others a fair chance to be recognized for their good play.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Dec 10, 2021
by HowCoolIsThat
I violently agree with what Mathteacher, aka "OG" states regarding Aidan's proposed plan to have a do-over on point rankings every month. Any effort to normalize all the scores into a "tighter band" by starting over every month would be the death knell for Hearts 3. Don't Do It!

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Dec 20, 2021
by cenalex67
I have already played in other platforms, and there were two rankings there: a monthly and a historic one
Alex

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Dec 22, 2021
by SunnyCorner
Lose the rankings - it just puts new players off if they perceive there's no chance ever of getting to the top. It will also stop the petulance and stupidity associated with the fragile egos in the game. It was a much better game before the league tables were brought in Aidan as we can well remember - many many more players then.

Regards Ice

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Dec 22, 2021
by jbruch
I totally disagree with Ice/Sunny.

At one time I thought it would be a good idea to do that but it is not. I would advocate keeping the rankings and adding the monthly winner system.

Players play for a variety of reasons and I don't think you want to make changes that might make more players leave.

I look at the top 10 players and Cenalex, CaptCWD, Irishdan, birillone, lighthorse, and Kirkwood play with virtually anyone from my observation. I will note that lighthorse and Kirkwood have to play with anyone since so many players won't play with them. MATHTEACHER, steveamida, Bulldog and Alar play with players they know have a certain skill level, and from my observation they are not too focused on a players level provided by the ranking system.

I had a game with steveamida, Yoda and StewBaby yesterday. Yoda is a top 15 player. StewBaby has a level of around 2,000 so you would think higher level players would not play with him, but he has been around a long time and just didn't play for a number of months and his level sank to the minimum. We played with him because we know he is a skilled player no matter what his game ranking is and it was a great game which he won and each of us lost more ranking points than we would have if we played someone with less skill but a higher ranking. Great game.

Played a game today with 2 players in top 10 and then myself and the other player are top 30. I had some trepidation joining the game as the other top 30 player is a player that I don't think is very skillful and when the player sees they won't likely win they play for 3rd which is not someone I want to play with. That happened and the top 10 player felt guilty for winning because he knew he won because of poor play. Crappy game. Last straw for me with that player and I will not play with him again. One of the top 10 players told him in the chat they could not play with him again either.

I should add that there is a highly ranked player that won't always play with me even when the other players are highly ranked. They likely don't play with me because they think my skills are not up to par. That is their right.

I have been playing this game a number of years and I have a pretty good idea of who is skilled and who is not. The problem playing with less skilled players is that they will determine the winner through bad play and if you play with them you have to hope they make their typical mistake for you and not another player. Weaker players tend to be predictable in a bad way. That is not a game I enjoy and if I want that I can play with the BOTs.

I often wait in the lobby for a game that I find interesting and challenging and it is not fun waiting, but it is better than playing a game I will regret playing. I think that is my right and other players have the right to play for whatever motivates them. If you take away the ranking system I will keep playing. But I will keep playing with players that I find challenging and turning down offered games where it includes one or more players that I do not find challenging.

I am concerned that if you take the ranking system away we will lose some skilled players and I want more of those not less. If more skilled players leave I will reluctantly join them.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Dec 28, 2021
by Mathteacher
What I have seen over the years in playing is that there are people that play differently. Some play for social interaction, some play exclusively for themselves, drop the Q without thought to how the person they are dumping on will impact their ability to win, and some people get frustrated or vindictive at the end of the and try to make certain people win of lose.

Those of us that enjoy the game as competition realize the best games happen when the three people that are not low work together to drop the Q on low. We know who the people are we like to play and try to avoid the others. The people that play like we do are usually higher ranked than the others.

To get to the point, it would be nice when you login if you could choose between social.competitive and perhaps a tournament.

I will probably lose interest if the competitive rankings are not available, because they are my motivation to play.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Feb 28, 2022
by CaptCWD
I like playing within almost anyone. I don't play for ranking, just to have fun.
It would be nice to have a legacy scoreboard that keeps track on ranking scores as they get reset each month?
I would also like to see a 1 point bonus for getting a moon.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Mar 09, 2022
by Aidan
Ok the implementation is more or less complete.

I've introduced monthly rankings giving 5 points for a win and nothing else. This can be changed later as the months go by and I get some feedback from ye people out there.

The old rankings are still there also and the system used for then has not been changed, but may be tweaked a bit before release.

Quitting punishments will be applied separately and is what I am working on now.

"I would also like to see a 1 point bonus for getting a moon." - anyone else like/dislike this idea from CaptCWD?

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Mar 09, 2022
by HowCoolIsThat
If the Captain is in favor of awarding points for a successful moon, I am in violent agreement with him.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Apr 30, 2022
by steveamida
PLEASE read and consider this Aiden ...The more I have thought about your planned 5 points for a win and nothing else plan, the more TERRIBLE I think that idea is. I would call it the "nothing to lose so why not?" plan. If someone gets the q on the first hand and wants to target the rest of the game...."nothing to lose so why not?". If someone wants to pass moons every hand, "nothing to lose so why not?". If someone wants to always duck, "nothing to lose so why not?" If someone intentionally loses to spite someone else, "nothing to lose so why not?" And on and on. If there is no cost to losing...."nothing to lose so why not?" I understand not gaining more points or losing more points based on the level of who you are playing in order to encourage playing folks with lower point totals. I will never understand "nothing to lose so why not?" There is so much bad play and this proposed system would exacerbate that considerably. I would suggest +9 points for a win, -2 points for a loss, a difference of 11 points from winning to losing, not a 5 point difference with ZERO penalty for bad play. Every game would produce a net increase to the system of +3, and folks would at least have some incentive to play the game correctly...not passing moons, stopping moons when possible, helping high at some point in the game, trying to team up to get low, etc. It is hard to find games with folks that play the right way now, this will make it worse.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Apr 30, 2022
by steveamida
I disagree with adding points for a moon. Moons are PART of the game, not the whole idea. Lets keep the game the way it is, not turn it into a MOONFEST.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: May 05, 2022
by Aidan
Fair points. Also correspond more with the tournament rules mentioned above.

How about then:

First: 10
Second: 4
Third: 2
Fourth: 0

This is only a discussion for the monthly rankings. The all-time rankings are carried on from V2, with the same calculations slightly modified (players rakings have less of an affect on calculations).

Release is coming very soon. However these calculations can be changed from month to month if people are not happy.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: May 05, 2022
by steveamida
I appreciate your willingness to listen. However, I feel like the "declining point" concept could be even worse. While it does provide a bit more reward for a win, it then includes 2 disincentives. One, it retains the no penalty for losing, so still "nothing to lose so why not" remains a factor, and second, in order to encourage good play the games objective has to be to WIN. Giving positive points for 2nd and 3rd encourages folks to an even greater degree to forsake the concept of winning for "If I can dump on last place I am assured of points, so if winning is unlikely, dump away. It would be a huge reason to not play properly and would make the game untenable. MANY folks would choose to try to get 2nd or 3rd, as some points are better than none, but provide no motivation to win when winning seems out of reach. My suggestion has none of those issues. There are only 2 incentives in my suggested point scheme. One is to win, and to play for that objective, and two, not to lose as that costs points. As the saying goes, close only counts in horseshoes and atomic bombs. Let's make the objective of the game to win.

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: May 05, 2022
by steveamida
Forgot to mention..I understand you are only talking about the monthly rankings...and that is good. However, don't we want to encourage good play? After all the dual ranking system (long term and monthly) are both part of how folks will play right?

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: May 05, 2022
by HowCoolIsThat
Stevie is correcto-mundo: "Winning isn’t everything; it's the only thing" -- UCLA Bruins football coach Henry Russell ("Red") Sanders.
Giving points to losers doesn't build character, it panders to the woke ideologues who strive for equality (Think Communism).

Why again are you hell-bent on changing the current system?

On another topic...Thought for (or Joke of) the Day: "Release is coming very soon."

Re: Version 3 - Ranking Updates

Posted: Jul 28, 2022
by Aidan
Yes got a few.

Released! Go to the download page to get it. Mac and Windows only for now.