Absence of ratings system kind of breaks the game

[wyxxyr]

Ratings systems serve multiple purposes. First, it allows one to determine how good they are at something (relative to others, and relative to oneself). When not playing with friends (i.e. as a social activity), the competitive aspect is the persistent thread throughout the games, keeping it from falling into "casual game" territory (obviously lots of people like casual games, granted).

Second, it provides a means to match users of similar skill. The rating system on Goko (or whatever it wound up being called) was the reason I stopped using the site (as I recall, it was wildly inaccurate, in part due to falling automatically without logging in -- a bizarre mechanic from anything but a pay-to-win perspective).

Third, it provides motivation not to abandon games or otherwise waste someone else's time. For problem users, it also means there's a form of penalty that doesn't require restricting access to the game.

As there isn't a score, rating, or ranking system, people frequently leave games (sometimes on purpose, without actually resigning, as an abusive user just did after complaining about luck and whatnot throughout the game), and I find the games to get kind of mindless. Call me a millennial, I guess (I think I make the cutoff to be called that...).

[Cave-O-Sapien]

Ratings systems serve multiple purposes. First, it allows one to determine how good they are at something (relative to others, and relative to oneself). When not playing with friends (i.e. as a social activity), the competitive aspect is the persistent thread throughout the games, keeping it from falling into "casual game" territory (obviously lots of people like casual games, granted).

Second, it provides a means to match users of similar skill. The rating system on Goko (or whatever it wound up being called) was the reason I stopped using the site (as I recall, it was wildly inaccurate, in part due to falling automatically without logging in -- a bizarre mechanic from anything but a pay-to-win perspective).

Third, it provides motivation not to abandon games or otherwise waste someone else's time. For problem users, it also means there's a form of penalty that doesn't require restricting access to the game.

As there isn't a score, rating, or ranking system, people frequently leave games (sometimes on purpose, without actually resigning, as an abusive user just did after complaining about luck and whatnot throughout the game), and I find the games to get kind of mindless. Call me a millennial, I guess (I think I make the cutoff to be called that...).

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I'm quite surprised that there is still no ranking system. I assumed it would be there at launch.

[SkyHard]

Ratings systems serve multiple purposes. First, it allows one to determine how good they are at something (relative to others, and relative to oneself). When not playing with friends (i.e. as a social activity), the competitive aspect is the persistent thread throughout the games, keeping it from falling into "casual game" territory (obviously lots of people like casual games, granted).

Second, it provides a means to match users of similar skill. The rating system on Goko (or whatever it wound up being called) was the reason I stopped using the site (as I recall, it was wildly inaccurate, in part due to falling automatically without logging in -- a bizarre mechanic from anything but a pay-to-win perspective).

Third, it provides motivation not to abandon games or otherwise waste someone else's time. For problem users, it also means there's a form of penalty that doesn't require restricting access to the game.

As there isn't a score, rating, or ranking system, people frequently leave games (sometimes on purpose, without actually resigning, as an abusive user just did after complaining about luck and whatnot throughout the game), and I find the games to get kind of mindless. Call me a millennial, I guess (I think I make the cutoff to be called that...).

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I'm quite surprised that there is still no ranking system. I assumed it would be there at launch.

That maybe because Stef don't weight is as important as some (me included) do. He wrote somewhere something about it.

[ATTACKBOAT]

Third, it provides motivation not to abandon games or otherwise waste someone else's time. For problem users, it also means there's a form of penalty that doesn't require restricting access to the game.

I always get a little rankled at the "wasting someone's time" argument. In many cases one player refusing to scoop results in a greater waste of time than if they simply conceded the game and moved on.

[SkyHard]

I always get a little rankled at the "wasting someone's time" argument. In many cases one player refusing to scoop results in a greater waste of time than if they simply conceded the game and moved on.

Doesn't it boil down to the "resign vs. don't resign" argument? I usually prefer to play till the end, talk to my opponent(s) and enjoy the game. Other people prefer to play 20 games, no talk and don't care as long as they win. Other people just love to annoy. Other people ... I think you got the point. We are all different and there probably won't ever be a state where everyone is happy.

[wyxxyr]

Third, it provides motivation not to abandon games or otherwise waste someone else's time. For problem users, it also means there's a form of penalty that doesn't require restricting access to the game.

I always get a little rankled at the "wasting someone's time" argument. In many cases one player refusing to scoop results in a greater waste of time than if they simply conceded the game and moved on.

Scoop? As in click end turn? Don't know if there's an easy fix to that, other than to maybe pop up a message if there's still a buy left but only 0-2 coins or somesuch. Or, obviously, a per-turn or per-action/per-buy time limit. Regardless, by "wasting someone's time" I mean people who just abandon the game, play while doing something else (which I've been guilty of), etc. A rating system, especially in combination with some time limit, would require that people actually care that they're playing with another human (or at least, would help that).