This morning, an update was applied to fix a bug which caused some players to be unable to see existing ranked tables in Hearts.
The new rankings have generated some discussion! Constance, a Hearts player, has written today's guest blog on that topic. Please take a look at what she has to say. - Marya
The new rankings have generated some discussion! Constance, a Hearts player, has written today's guest blog on that topic. Please take a look at what she has to say. - Marya
I
am delighted to see ELO ratings being applied to Hearts, which should
strengthen the competition. The current ELO ratings reflect place
position - that is, 1st is better than 2nd, is better than 3rd, with 4th
being the big loser. Classic Hearts rewards only 1st place; there are 3
last-place finishers - regardless of score. I am in favor of this
Winner-Take-All position and Marya has offered me the opportunity to
defend it.
For
a game with such simple rules, Hearts is remarkably complex. The
primary goal for Low is to end the game as quickly as possible by
eliminating High or to increase his lead at any opportunity. A
temporary, yet shifting alliance is formed by the other players who
attempt to unseat Low using their knowledge in identifying the Q-holder,
suits in which players are void, and how many of a suit are
outstanding. This forms the complex strategy of the game: teamwork with a
selfish goal - becoming Low.
Part
of the strategy is trusting your 'team' to not hurt you in the effort
to go after Low. It means protecting High, who may be on the brink of
elimination, by taking some of his point-tricks and possibly helping him
moon. It means doing what is necessary to prolong the game at the
expense of increasing your own score: taking a Q to stop a moon, not
leading spades until you are sure it will not hurt the wrong person,
leading suits which Low holds and in which the Q-holder is void, passing
cards that will not prematurely end the game, avoiding dumping the Q on
first opportunity until you are reasonably sure it will target Low.
Having
a rating system which has proportional rewards weakens the game.
Strategy will change to the extent that ratings matter. Players will
begin to strategize for place position. Trust will deteriorate. Dumping
the Q and ducking points will become more frequent, at least as end-game
approaches or in games with skewed scores. If Low has a substantial
lead, he will most likely be given a pass by the 'team' who will now
turn on each other for 2nd place and a resulting ELO rating increase, in
most cases.
Decisions
become more conflicted in Proportional-Reward games. A 2nd place player
may end the game by dumping the Q on high in order to ensure a 2nd
place position. A moon-stopper may not be employed if it results in the
player's own position to be shifted downward. In Winner-Take-All games,
where 2nd is no better than 4th, players make decisions that will
extend the game - not to end it. There is no benefit to ending a game in
which the 'team' places last to a single winner.
I
have no doubt that there will be players who will continue to play
traditional, classic Hearts and that at the beginning of the game,
everyone will strive to win. But traditional players will find
themselves at odds with an increasing number of new players who are
conditioned to a Proportional-Reward game of Hearts, bringing with it a
changed strategy - one which includes trying to improve place position
behind the winner, especially if it appears too risky to go after Low.
The
primary argument I have heard in favor of a 2nd place reward is to keep
players in the game longer - that they find a consolation prize
justification that they did better than 3rd & 4th, that there is no
incentive for high-scorers to remain in the game just to come in last.
To that I say So What! Who wants to play with people of such fragile
egos anyway? On this issue, I would like to reference Marya's Hearts Strategy & Tips: "With 4 players in Hearts, and only 1 winner,
your odds of losing are good: 75%, all other things being equal. So if
you are going to play Hearts, you need to be willing to accept taking a
loss in most of your games. The game is a good test of character, in
this respect!"
I leave with a quote from G Berns: "To
watch 3 excellent hearts players playing cooperatively, stalking the
low-scorer adept at evading, is to watch hearts at its very best."
45 comments:
I agree completely. Playing a team-game is funny and can even improve interpersonal relations (at leat for the duration of a game). Playing a game where there is no cooperation is frustrating, instead.
Regards,
Doriano
I agree, Doriano. It's unspirited, to put it politely, not to play to win ('duckers' and 'dumpers' seem often to be doing this). I don't say that such (poor) play should be banned, only that it should not be counted as a skill.
-drdammit
1 winner, 3 losers, and 2nd is no better than last... I agree completely
I agree, I vote also for winner takes all.
tri
Anyone opposed? Speak now or forever eat pizza.
I agree too. On MS.Net Hearts there's a tournament rated system with 2nd place being way better than 4th place (thats the only choice there currently), and you can clearly see it has a bad effect on quality of game play. Thanks for listening like this Marya.
I played a Hearts game today that ended with second place dumping the Q on high and saying, "Sorry. I only had one other spade."
Since second place is worth approximately half the value of first, shouldn't players who give the Queen of Spades to the person with the second lowest score get half a Skill Ratings point?
It's not nice but it's understandable.
BTW, from your comment, I wouldn't know if 2nd was just trying to retain second place, or if they were hoping to achieve the lead. Clearly, swallowing the Queen is putting them further away from 1st place. So if they are still hoping to win, it could be a reasonable strategy to dump the Queen on high. It all depends on the other scores.
I could certainly do some work to improve the Skill Ratings, and I have considered it. The current Skill Ratings do have the advantage that they are very easy to understand. When I dump the Queen on the low man, I know I will get a point, and I understand the points I get at the end of the game.
I'm not really sure if giving the Queen to the 2nd lowest man is of great value... a lot will depend on how close they are. E.g. with 98, 97, 96 and 45, dumping the Q on the 2nd lowest man is not useful or skillful :) But if it's 10, 12, 45, and 50, then it is useful and can be an indication of skill. I'd like to improve the skill ratings by having them account for something like this.
BTW I am going to change the Elo ratings so that only 1st place is rewarded with a win. It seems most people with an opinion that is strong enough to write about it are in favor of it. This will be coming as soon as I finish some other changes I am working on.
Thank you Marya!!!!
It just goes to show how open-minded you are, not only about this issue but about issues regarding the other games as well. I know everyone is appreciative of your dedication to improving the site. Thank you also to everyone who took the time to post comments. I'm looking forward to playing hearts under the new rating system.
constance
Thank you!!!
-drdammit
In the game mentioned above, the score was, very roughly: 40, 60, 80, 90. By giving the Queen to high, second place effectively conceded the game to low. If he had taken the queen himself, he would at least have survived to play another hand. Where there is life, there is hope.
Your Skill Rating gives you a very direct way to promote good Hearts play. Are you planning on including any other Hearts skills at some point? How about points for not passing moons? for passing Hearts, at least generally? for not leading Spades to low? for not ducking during a possible moon? for not dumping points on high?
When I first came here, I considered changing my name to "PassHearts_QtoLow"
I really do believe that your ratings systems, both of them, will promote good play here. Thanks again, Marya, very sincerely.
second place effectively conceded the game to low
I guess many people play at this level. It does take a certain level of expertise to understand that the object of the game is not to immediately dump the Queen on someone else, but to end the game in 1st place. One does have to make an effort to learn... but people who know how to play sometimes do a poor job of "helping" beginners.
Your Skill Rating gives you a very direct way to promote good Hearts play.
That is specifically why I added it - to call attention to this strategy.
Are you planning on including any other Hearts skills at some point? How about points for not passing moons? for passing Hearts, at least generally? for not leading Spades to low? for not ducking during a possible moon? for not dumping points on high?
I do hope to add more to the skill rating, but only if I have time. I've spent a lot of time on Hearts, and I have other work to do. My current concern is that the ranked tables take too long to fill up. There's no point adding more features to them if only a few people are using them. I'll be thinking about how to fix this.
Totally disagree, Disrespectful for an Elo rating game, unsuitable where the name of the table itself Ranked table. The other sites reward second place so why don't we? Worldofcardgames is the best site I've ever played so far. Do not ruin its value, Marya. Come on guys, all winners and good players raise your voice right now or like someone said forever eat pizza. I am going to play hearts and ask each of em to protest against it. Till now all those comments were in the favor of headline cause nobody disagreed but now I am. Ranked table should remain as it is now. If people have such problem they can play their desiring game under Reg only section where already have all functions they asked for to change. If it is really changed I wont play in Ranked table anymore. Goodbye to all ranked players!
Do you have a reason for disagreeing, or is it just a kind of 'feeling'?
Anonymous @ Nov 9 7:14 AM - What exactly are you saying is "disrespectful"?
The other sites reward second place so why don't we?
If other sites are incorrect in rewarding 2nd place, then there's no reason to follow their lead.
This is one of those cases where I have no strong opinion. Pagat's rules page says "The person with the lowest score is then the winner". He does not say if players can consider themselves as 2nd or 3rd place finishers.
Joe Andrews, who is possibly the world's leading expert on Hearts, has said that "the game was weakened" by giving an award to 2nd place. He has championed giving an award to first-place finishers only.
However, I have no particular opinion here. I always play to win 1st place, not to come in 2nd. I don't care how the Elo ratings are affected by my placement.
As a general rule, when I don't care about something, I'd prefer to let the decision be made by the majority. I've heard from several players who would prefer that only 1st place be rewarded, while almost no one has said they want 2nd place to get Elo points.
I do plan on adding the change to Elo ratings soon. If I get an uproar of protest, I will very likely change it back. I'm still doubtful that people care all that much... but if you care, you really should contact me. I listen to both sides.
When I learned to play Hearts 40 years ago, it was for a penny a point. The rewards and the strategies on this site are very, very different from that game. It took some time to understand how the game is played here.
Different does not mean better. In a money game, the person in second is often collecting rather than paying. The strategies for attempting to pull down High and save Low are not generally understood, and good players often act at cross purposes while pursuing the same goal. Mr. Andrew's book says nothing about the strategies 2, 3, and High might use to work together.
The existing rating system seems to support that style of game while many of the players are intent to play different version. It would also seem that awarding 1st through 4th place is at odds with the "1 winner" game, and should be changed.
As the number of players continues to increase, it might work to separate the two games.
Anonymous @ Nov 12 2015 10:10 PM -
The rewards and the strategies on this site are very, very different from that game
It would certainly be interesting to hear how you played, in general, then.
The site just follows the rules laid down at Pagat's Hearts page. Many game sites set down such rules. If you played differently, could it be due to different rules, or was due to different strategies?
In a money game, the person in second is often collecting rather than paying
How is it decided to split the "pot" in a money game of Hearts?
It would also seem that awarding 1st through 4th place is at odds with the "1 winner" game, and should be changed.
In "ranked" games, 1 winner is awarded, and the change in each player's ratings are computed according to this rule.
As the number of players continues to increase, it might work to separate the two games.
I have thought about this. I wish there were enough players to make this possible, but currently there are not.
Right now, you are taking away as many points from EACH of the losers as you are giving to the winner. Everyone is sinking fast. My last game:
1487-1525
1357-1326
1481-1430
1448-1442
Once you fix this problem, you'll need to reset everyone's ratings to 1500.
-drdammit
There is very little strategy in penny-a-point hearts. You are paid the same regardless of which opponent takes points. The only goal is to minimize the points that you take.
There is a decision to be made regarding whether or not to stop a moon. This decision often boils down to the distribution of points between the potential shooter and the potential defender. Take 18 points while stopping a shoot, and you have "lost" (18 cents paid to other two players and 8 cents paid by the potential shooter nets -28) .
The real difference is not in strategy, but in table manners. In a cash game, your plays are strictly business, not personal. In the winner-takes-all game we see lots of table bickering over the "correct" way to play defense.
- JES (op)
You really don't see the problem? The game prior to the one above:
1432-1487
1533-1481
1474-1432
1515-1466
I won both both games and gained 103 points. Another person who played both games LOST 103 points. Neither of us are playing ranked games now... when you fix it, please let us know.
You are taking away roughly three times as many points from the losers as is correct.
This is disappointing.
I did write you an email in response to yours, saying I would investigate this... did you not get my response?
I've found a bug in the computation of Elo ratings, and I am fixing it. I will get it updated as soon as I can.
I don't plan on resetting everyone's ratings to 1500. If individual players want that, they can request it. I can also reset player's ratings to where they were before the update on November 11.
JES, I am unfamiliar with penny-a-point hearts. Are pennies paid at the end of the hand or the end of the game? From the sound of it, you are paid a cent for each point taken by a player with pts. For example, suppose the distribution of pts at the end of a hand is 1, 3, 10, 12: Then the player who has just 1 pt gets 3+10+12 cents from the other players, and pays out 1 penny to each of them - so has a total of 22 cents earned?
If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes, interesting way of keeping track of the score! It does surprise me that things didn't get personal, even so.
Your understanding of the payment system is correct. Paying out at the end of games reduces the amount of math and wallet grabbing. Otherwise there is no difference between settling at EOH or EOG.
For some players, things always get personal. That aspect of the game is not eliminated. But in a cash game, it is often counterproductive to direct points towards a specific player. When playing for "funsies", you can direct points without a financial cost. And in the winner take all game with known player ratings, it will only be a matter of time before three lower rated players go after the table leader from the first hand. Having points directed towards you is always frustrating.
And this leads right into the best argument for rewarding 2nd place. In the best games, the person finishing in second place is often the person who, through skill or luck, was in the lead when the other three decided it was time to play defense. It seems unfair to reward a random player benefiting from the efforts of three to bring down one while not acknowledging the one.
-JES
>> And this leads right into the best argument for rewarding 2nd place. In the best games, the person finishing in seconnd... >>
Certainly no one is prevented from playing this game as a child might, or as beginners normally do, merely to avoid points, but they should not expect to be rewarded for this, or be surprised when experienced players object to their play ("bickering"?).
note: Marya does offer both Gin Rummy and Go Fish
-drd
drdammit, you have not responded to JES's remark:
In the best games, the person finishing in second place is often the person who, through skill or luck, was in the lead when the other three decided it was time to play defense
It strikes me that this is true, and is one of the reasons that a consolation prize is merited.
Unfortunately, it is also true that the 2nd place finisher often winds up in that place because they decided to sink the person who has the high score, in order to retain 2nd. This makes it difficult to decide whether 2nd place should be rewarded.
The Elo ratings computation is now fixed, see details in today's blog post. Everyone who is concerned should double-check it (I tested it on several cases, looks okay to me).
As I mentioned in the blog post, players who want their ratings reset to where they were last Wednesday can write to me and I will do that. I can let you know what they were at the time if you want to know before resetting.
I TAKE IT YOU HAVE CENSORED MY REPLY TO THIS THREAD?
I don't see any recent replies to this thread other than your remark - Marya
I personally would prefer to see the 2nd place finisher rewarded somewhat. If you don't have any strong feelings either way, would it be possible to put it to a vote on the ranked Hearts page? I am Conquistador, but I don't know how to identify myself otherwise
Hi Conquistador,
While I appreciate your input, it's a bit late for me to take action on it. The Elo ratings were changed soon after I got feedback from enough people to suggest that this is what the majority wanted. I left this post up for over 2 weeks before making the change, which I think gave everyone who cared enough of a chance to give their feedback. At the time, I added the red "news" alert to let people know to read the blog.
This blog post is amongst the top 10 most viewed posts for this blog. The post got a few responses, most of them favorable towards rewarding first place only.
If it were trivial to add a poll to the Hearts page, I would have done that to begin with... However, it is not. It would take time to add and test it, and then it would only be used for this issue (the ranking feature itself has already taken up a lot more time than it deserves, at this point). I prefer to spend my time adding more game features to the site, like a chat lobby, personal messages, new games, and other things that I have planned. That's all stuff that gets delayed whenever I put more work into rankings.
I would hope that by now, people who care would know that they can always post on the blog, or contact me using social media or email.
You can always check your "relative" stats if you want to see how your performance is gauged using a system that rewards second place.
BTW you will notice that some sites do reward second place and others only reward first. I've tried to make concessions to people who like it one way or the other by giving both the "relative" stats and the "absolute" stats.
At this point, my only other thought would be to add a second Elo rating, which gives credit for 2nd and 3rd place finishers - i.e. the same way that the Elo rating was initially done. That way, people could see how they do when 2nd and 3rd place finishes are credited. I suspect some would not be happy if I did that. Also I have other work to do and don't see having time for this in the near future.
Marya
Hi players! It's Linnea (lost my Google sign in). What a great, great, great place WordOfCardGames is! Special, sincere thanks to Marya who has offered me the opportunity to actually have friends around the planet!
I admit, I'm a spades player (ummm, could we get a rated Spades table?). I've been dabbling in rated Hearts.
So let me get this straight, the topic of consideration is: Should the rating Hearts tables be winner take all, or proportional rewards as they are now?
Winner take all: If you keep the ratings penalty and banned from table for X time penalty that will diminish quitters. Maybe bump up the penalty.
Proportional: I am learning this, but very saddened to find all the extremely pointed and mean comments in games when someone isn't playing 'Get Low'. First, it's a GAME. Second, you have chosen a game that has rules. If there are folks wise enough to play the proportional strategy, it is not because they are bad players. They are playing casino rules. What I find most unusual, is those players more often than not (i calculated about 70% of time) end up winning the game.
What is the goal? To one game, or increase your rating? Either way, it's a strategy. And either way, shout out to WOCG, thanks so much for all the enjoyment!
Hi Linnea,
Thank you for the kind words! I plan to add ratings to Spades, and some other games as well... However, I've had to push the schedule back on this, in order to work on some other features. At this point, I'm hoping to get it done in March (this month).
Should the rating Hearts tables be winner take all
Actually, at rated Hearts, it is winner take all. This has been the case since last November. When the game is over, the Elo ratings are computed so that the first-place finisher wins against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place finishers. When computing the ratings for those players, they all tie against each other - they are not proportionally awarded a win against those who did worse than they did (this is how rated games differ from regular, non-rated games).
I am learning this, but very saddened to find all the extremely pointed and mean comments in games when someone isn't playing 'Get Low'. First, it's a GAME.
Yah, it is indeed sad that people will turn something that is supposed to be a fun experience into something that is unpleasant. But there's a dislike button (or, for the less-picky, you can 'hide chats'). Use those on the players who make nasty comments, and you'll eventually find your experience gets better.
What I find most unusual, is those players more often than not (i calculated about 70% of time) end up winning the game.
I did not understand your meaning... if you are playing a rated game, and you play to come in second, you will generally do poorly, because of the way the Elo ratings are computed. Coming in second just doesn't help you, usually. The only way you might get helped is if someone else with a much higher rating than you was also defeated during the game... in that case you might scoop up some points because they were expected to do better than you, but did not.
Marya
Hello Marya,
I currently play spades as DavidMichael (cannot use this handle to comment here). I appreciate the work you have done to hear this issue out and to try to balance the opinions into an agreeable solution that suits all.
I am pretty certain that there will not exist a solution that suits all however regarding the ranking of non first place finishers. There is a certain purity of this game that goes along with first place takes all and that (some would say degenerates into others might say climbs or morphs into) a completely different (and either unenjoyable or better game depending on your view) when second place is rewarded.
While a solution has been to add relative stats, I believe that even calculating relative stats when playing a winner takes all game corrupts that game. I believe the solution that satisfies everyone is to indicate what type of ranking system will be calculated when choosing the game so that each game is either ranked relative or absolute but never both ways in the same game, as there is no point have a table where someone people are playing with one set of goals and others are ignoring some rule sets and playing others. The issue essentially is that these are two different games.
Another related issue you brought up is regarding skills ranking for plays such as playing a queen on the low man or perhaps in the future second low man if he is close to the low man. I believe that in an absolutely ranked game their is no way to employ a skills ranking that will not corrupt the purity of that game in which the pure objective is to win. This is because the circumstance of each play and what makes a good play are too complex to judge empirically; and, even if you get it close, there will be circumstances where one will choose to increase their skills ranking instead of playing strictly for a winner takes all strategy, thus corrupting the purity of the winner takes all game.
Regardless, of what is decided, I would not rush too much, because the primary objective is to make the games more enjoyable for people and there is a chance that ranking can negatively affect that if not done in a manner that best satisfies the complexities of the players and circumstances. I personally was raised on winner takes all hearts but have not really wanted to play hearts on this site since the rankings and ratings were employed. A similar thing could happen to spades if the implementation isn't thought out well enough.
I hope these commments help.
Best wishes, and may your work be joyful and pleasant in the future,
- David
Hi DavidMichael,
I am pretty certain that there will not exist a solution that suits all however regarding the ranking of non first place finishers
No doubt about this!
I believe the solution that satisfies everyone is to indicate what type of ranking system will be calculated when choosing the game so that each game is either ranked relative or absolute but never both ways in the same game
I think you are correct; I have already thought about this. I would like to create two types of ranked tables. One would award 1st place only, and the other would give a small reward to 2nd and 3rd place. Until the site gets more players, it would be unwise to do this. It is already (sometimes) an annoying wait to get a ranked game started, and offering two options would make the wait even longer.
This is because the circumstance of each play and what makes a good play are too complex to judge empirically
I do agree with you that a high "skill percent", taken in isolation, does not necessarily mean that a person is a good player. The current skill percent is crude and only measures one facet of a player's skill. It was designed to give less experienced players a hint as to what helps when playing low-man Hearts. As a general rule, it does help to give the Queen of Spades and her 13 points to the low man. There are many other skills that you will develop as you get better at the game. Often, beginning players try to unload the Queen as soon as possible, and the skill percent gives them some encouragement to try to be more clever about when to play the Queen. Advanced players will most likely ignore skill percent, and use numerous skills in their goal to win the game.
even if you get it close, there will be circumstances where one will choose to increase their skills ranking instead of playing strictly for a winner takes all strategy
This may be the case. I do recommend that people play to win, not to increase their skill ranking. Your number one task is to win and increase your Elo rating.
I personally was raised on winner takes all hearts but have not really wanted to play hearts on this site since the rankings and ratings were employed.
Ranked Hearts is a winner-take-all game at World of Card Games. What makes you avoid playing the ranked games?
Marya
Hello Marya,
While ranked games help to ensure that people are serious about the game especially in helping to avoid playing with quitters, it can also bring in people who are too serious and start hyper-criticizing, something that can make the game less enjoyable. Nonetheless a serious game is enjoyable to play sometimes, however the deficiency that some people are going to be playing for the relative rank in the same game tips the will to play ranked Hearts in disfavor for now.
Everyone has their own liking. Personally I enjoy a game where people play at a medium to high level of playing skill but are not so serious about winning, don't quit when they are behind, and don't rudely criticize others. I enjoy losing a well played polite game much more than winning in any other situation. Fortunately one can make use of the like and dislike feature to increase the chances of being in a such a good game. I am afraid that Ranked Spades might divide the small set of people who are of this nature because the ranked games emphasize winning.
Here is an interesting story that you might find interesting. I played ultimate frisbee quite regularly with several different groups of people. One particular group decided to stop keeping score. They actually had a vote on it and after the vote a bunch of people stopped showing up and it became more fun. This game was the most enjoyable to play and would still attract some of the highest skilled players around. So while competitive it was the most enjoyable also. The goal is for a more enjoyable experience for everyone. While a ranking system can help deter quitters and help to align people with similar playing skills, the emphasis of winning in itself has detrimental aspects that are directly counter to joy.
I wonder if there are more favorable alternatives to the complexities of ranking systems that would directly deter playing behavior that makes games less enjoyable such as quitting early, rudeness, overly serious about winning, significant playing skills mismatch. Back in the late 90's I worked for a company that developed a hearts game and one helpful feature was to be able to explicitly start a game and to title the game table something that enabled one to indicate what type of skill, seriousness is desired at that table. The skill level could also be indicated (if only 2 levels, beginner or tenured, it would only divide in half). Filtering players out by an adjustable quitting percentage might be a decent idea that would directly address the quitter issue. Of course there are so many clocks but so little time in which to do develop these features though.
We'll see how ranking affect Spades. It might be for the net positive or it may not. Of course I am only one opinion and 95% of the rest might think I am nuts. So I suspect that the polls and surveys would be quite helpful. I have not actually noticed any polls since I started playing here. Are they posted on the main game page to opt in? Or are they found deeper in the blogs?
Best Wishes,
- David
Hi David,
I agree with you. I enjoy serious games, but I'd prefer to lose at a table with friendly players than win at a table with grumpy, critical ones.
I've noticed a few hypercritical players at ranked games (and unranked ones, too!). You can do two things. You can hide their chats. Or you can just dislike them and you will not be seated with them again. Do this for a while, and I believe you will soon find yourself playing with mostly pleasant people. BTW there's another option - you can mention to them that their attitude will get them disliked by many people, which makes it harder to get a game started. This probably doesn't help much, usually (and unfortunately).
able to explicitly start a game and to title the game table something that enabled one to indicate what type of skill, seriousness is desired at that table. The skill level could also be indicated (if only 2 levels, beginner or tenured, it would only divide in half).
If the site got more players, segregation would be possible. Adding another layer of segregation beyond the current ones would make the waits even longer, not nice! Currently, there are ranked games for more serious players and unranked for the less competitive types. In addition, there is already some segregation via the "dislike" feature. If I add another layer of segregation (e.g. separating according to rank level), it would take even longer to get a game going. People should not have to wait to play a regular game of Hearts. Since ranked games are more serious, I leave it up to everyone to decide if it's worth the wait.
FWIW it is in my plans to penalize quitters by having them wait a bit longer. I haven't had time to do this, since I've been spending an inordinate amount of time adding rankings.
I have not actually noticed any polls since I started playing here. Are they posted on the main game page to opt in? Or are they found deeper in the blogs?
Occasionally, I post a poll in the blogs, but I don't leave them open indefinitely. I am not fond of polls. It is too hard to avoid "ballot-stuffing". It's also the case that poll results may not represent the feelings of a majority of players. I am pretty sure that most players do not read the blog. They come to the site to play and that's all. It's only after I make a change that I wind up getting a wave of protest. Polls can be useful for collecting information, but I can't let them make the decision about what changes should be added.
In the case of rankings, I've had enough requests for ranked games that I'm sure many people want this feature. So I plan to add it to most or all of the games. Some people have suggested that I make all games ranked to cut down on the wait times. However, I know that many people are just looking for casual games. Therefore, I've just given people the option to play ranked or unranked, as they wish.
Marya
There is a second place winner whether you acknowledge it or not. I don't think it has an affect on the quality of the game. My experience in playing has been pretty bad. Where I play, they all picked on the highest player. Everyone should play their own hand, and try to get the person who is keeping them from being first. I have experienced some bad plays and sometimes I don't understand why they do what they do.It really is a long story. They don't even reply to my questions, but I can't find a more competitive Hearts game anywhere else. I don't want to play with robots, but then, I don't want to play where I have to wait hours or days before someone makes a move. Just wanted to share. Thanks for listening!
Hi Unknown,
you said "Where I play, they all picked on the highest player" - I assume meaning they dump the queen on the person with the highest score (i.e. the fourth-place player). Yes, I've had this happen too, and I do not think it makes for a fun game. I guess I do not get the point of playing this way. When it happens, I think that everyone must really want to end the game as soon as possible. Rather than trying to attack the person with the low score, they heap points on the high-scorer, so that the game is over in no time.
I really don't see anything in the rules of Hearts which requires people to load points onto the low man (or the high man, or anything else). In theory, you are supposed to play to win, however, and I do not see how it helps you to just dump points on the person who has the most points already. It is sort of understandable when the low-scoring player does that. But for the 2nd and 3rd place players, it seems like a good idea to attack the winning player, not the person in last place.
Post a Comment