Proposal for guidelines for reporting incomplete games

[Green]

For me it’s the reporting the turns played for the reporting system that is important. I realise it cannot be back dated. It would also has seen in a recent thread be difficult or impossible to implement without a talented web guru moving forward so it seems no go. A guidance system for reporting games would not matter as a player who had played say 30 turns of a Minsk campaign would feel cheated if honour bound not to report. As Rick just pointed out the effort and time commitment involved in such a game is far greater than playing a scenario like desolate dump on the Desna say 50 times.

It is worth pointing out that 25% of turns for a Minsk campaign is 32 turns. I would not quibble about 2 turns. Desolate Dump on the Desna is 18 turns long so playing it 50 times would require 900 turns. I do not believe 30 turns of a Minsk campaign would be a 'far greater' effort.

Whether some will choose not to follow a guideline is not an argument for not having one. What I find interesting is that not many people are happy to commit to one. Either we prefer that everyone should just come up with their own or that there should be a generally agreed and stated standard. Or we just do not care as we we see the issue as unimportant. These are the three choices the poll provides.

The suggested guideline does not address the inequities between games of different sizes but is about fairer treatment for games of the similar size. Perhaps we cannot fix everything but should we at least try to make things slightly better? Do people seriously think that less than 25% of turns should constitute a completed game? I am genuinely surprised.

[typhoon]

We could disagree about the desolate dump and Minsk all day it’s not really the point though for me 30 turns of the Minsk campaign as Soviet would be about 120 hours game play.The guidance could be included but perhaps a player could record the result if the effort is felt worth it and record the turns played in the comments section of the report.Though not sure if this would help with the scenario database the info would be there but would require digging for

[Green]

Okay, how about this for an option. Those that complete 25% or greater record the game as normal. Normal ladder points and normal stats. Otherwise the game is reported as a less than 25% game and gets less points but still recognizes the effort involved. Those that play less than 10% are asked not to report it. All this would be based on a guidleine, not an enforced rule.

The reporting of less than 25% games would require a separate game entry on the database which uses a smaller SM value to give fewer points. This would only be needed for games over a certain SM, as it is only the large scenarios (primarily campaigns) that are worth adjusting. [For those that do not know, the SM values range from 1 to 10 and the details are found using the 'Calculate scenario SM' link on the scenario page.]

This approach leaves historical ladder points and stats unchanged but will improve the future stats as no one would bother looking at the under 25% stats.

This would mean some data entry for Mr Grumpy but I understand he finds it very fulfilling.

[typhoon]

That for me sounds like the best option I have heard so far.Though I would prefer a web guru a small fix is better than no fix at all. I believe most here would be happy to follow guidelines and this would certainly help the accuracy of the data base moving forward

[LordDeadwood]

Okay, how about this for an option. Those that complete 25% or greater record the game as normal. Normal ladder points and normal stats. Otherwise the game is reported as a less than 25% game and gets less points but still recognizes the effort involved. Those that play less than 10% are asked not to report it. All this would be based on a guidleine, not an enforced rule.

The reporting of less than 25% games would require a separate game entry on the database which uses a smaller SM value to give fewer points. This would only be needed for games over a certain SM, as it is only the large scenarios (primarily campaigns) that are worth adjusting. [For those that do not know, the SM values range from 1 to 10 and the details are found using the 'Calculate scenario SM' link on the scenario page.]

This approach leaves historical ladder points and stats unchanged but will improve the future stats as no one would bother looking at the under 25% stats.

This would mean some data entry for Mr Grumpy but I understand he finds it very fulfilling.

I voted in the poll that I don't care either way, but this option sounds good.

[Kool Kat]

Gents: 

I voted for an informal guideline of 25% of a game completed before it can be reported as a ladder game.

I believe it is a sensible, honest, and fair approach to handling incomplete games.

The Blitz already has a reporting game mechanism in place - simply report an incomplete game with less then 25% turns completed as a "non-ladder" game. A non-ladder game will not count as a ladder result, but will be visible on your profile.

I am curious why nearly 70% of players who responded to the poll either "don't care" or "don't think we should introduce a guideline?" 

[Mr Grumpy]

Must also thank mr grumpy for giving us a chance to air our views

Hey no problem, we are always happy to "chew the cud" on any subject related to these games and the ladder. 

[Mr Grumpy]

This approach leaves historical ladder points and stats unchanged but will improve the future stats as no one would bother looking at the under 25% stats.

This would mean some data entry for Mr Grumpy but I understand he finds it very fulfilling.

This approach would indeed avoid skewing the DB results for the "main" scenario, but unless I am missing your point the players reporting the game for reduced points would still see those points added to the ladder? (I am not sure what "historical ladder points" refers too? Sorry if I am being a bit dim) 

Just throwing ideas out there, I could award bonus points for scenarios less than 25% completed? In that way we would not require additional DB entries (yes I just LOVE adding those!) the results would not skew the DB and players would still receive some points for their efforts? 

[Green]

This approach would indeed avoid skewing the DB results for the "main" scenario, but unless I am missing your point the players reporting the game for reduced points would still see those points added to the ladder? (I am not sure what "historical ladder points" refers too? Sorry if I am being a bit dim) 

Just throwing ideas out there, I could award bonus points for scenarios less than 25% completed? In that way we would not require additional DB entries (yes I just LOVE adding those!) the results would not skew the DB and players would still receive some points for their efforts? 

Darran,

I cannot pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity. Yes, you are being dim! (I can now cross off that debt I owed you.)

What I am suggesting is that for each title we add a single dummy campaign entry to the database. Anyone who completes more than 10% of the turns but less than 25% of the turns for any campaign associated with that title would record their results against the dummy scenario. As this scenario would have a lower SM value, the player still get points on the ladder to reward them for the time they invested, but not as many points as normal. And anyone completing at least 25% would report the game as normal using the normal database entry and get normal points. And you would have nice clean stats associated with the scenario and rubbish attached to the dummy.

The historical ladder points I was referring to are the career points players have accumulated. If we changed the SM values for existing scenarios it would presumably have a retrospective effect on these points. If not, then that is something else that should be looked at as the SM values are not ideal.

Applying bonus points is just too much work. We want a simple solution that takes care of itself once it is up an running.

Make sense?

John

[phoenix]

According to the poll, so far, a desirable simple solution would be to not do anything. That's what I would favour, the simplicity of not making rules of any sort where they were not absolutely needed, but I'm not a big user. I don't report most of my games. In fact, I only report if my opponent wants that.