How should PG-HQ count scenario plays for player stats

[treadasaurusrex]

Who cares if you count every play and actually report it?
It's just a game.

[plloyd1010]

Well Felipe, for some people it is a pretty important thing. I'm not sure I understand why. For me campaign ribbons mean more, and that only as a side amusement.

[Blackcloud6]

Precisely.

The ranks are unimportant.  I'd rather have full reporting of games played than ranks.

Full reporting of all plays will give a better sense of scenario balance, which is important in person v. person plays... the more plays the better the stats are on the game.  

Although i doubt if there would be cheating and lying about games played, because if there would be, we would already be seeing it.  I could go in and report game after game as being played without ever playing them and nobody would be the wiser.   And I suspect, this could be spotted, and such a person probably wouldn't stay on PG-HQ for the long term.  Has then been any suspect play entries in the life of PG-HQ so far?

If rank cheating is a real concern, then dump the whole rank concept.  I like it, it's a bit of chrome and, maybe, an incentive.  But ranks are no real prize.

ASL has had an online Remote On-line Automated Record (ROAR) website for game play recording since 1997.  It has no ranks, but it is an invaluable tool for gathering balance statistics, especially for tournaments.  All plays are recorded except there is no provision for solo play, but you can simply enter yourself as an opponent and there is supposed to be a way for solo play to not count in balance because the ASL community did not want solo play to count in balance. only play against an opponent.  I've never heard of any abuse of the system.  But I have an automated record of every game of ASL I've played, not including playtests.

[plloyd1010]

Interesting. Did Player B's concern of playing a scenario get addressed in any of that? It seemed from your next to last post that Player B was looking for some PG-HQ glory points, but since they had already played the scenario, that glory point was unavailable. So until that glory point problem is alleviated, I don't think the problem you noted is addressed.

As far as every play being recorded, I think they are. I have several rounds of Vassal mentoring with players who did not want me to leave their shared play opponent as unknown. While I don't think they should be on my win-loss record, they are there. The records exist, the problem in your previous post may be more of a data application problem.

Has then been any suspect play entries in the life of PG-HQ so far?

Well, I've always been a little suspicious of Beast013's very rapid completion of Eastern Front.

[goosebrown]

.... Who could change it, even in a validated dispute?

Well no one because that feature is broken. I have a bunch of bogus plays that I want to delete and can't at this time.

[waynebaumber]

Interesting post's

Felipe's  "Its only a game"    Wash your mouth out Sir 

Blackcloud's  "The ranks are unimportant"   Having just reached Captain after many years of blood sweat and tears, I deeply resent this remark 

Peter's suspicions about certain players completing modules in short time is completely correct. There are a few dodgy reports in the archives.  I won't name names but it's a shame.
Its why I write AAR's and in them I usually say if the game was called early, any known errors etc it indicates that I at least played the game and if it was FtF who the opponent was even if they don't do an AAR or even note the play.  This is purely to help the stat's give some true indication of what games are played and if the scenario is a balanced game and/or fun to play.
The whole issue of how many plays should be recorded is slightly missing the point but I think playing both sides against a live opponent does give a better understanding of each scenario.
But after all its only a game  (err did some already say that) 

[goosebrown]

I think this conversation for me is like a Rorschach test and I see myself in it. I am a rules guy. Not to the extent that I slavishly follow rules, I would prefer to agree with my opponent and pick the rules that we use, However; I am a rules guy in as much as it represents a system and I love systems. For me I think this system is skewed a little and should be tweaked to be a better representation of knowledge. I believe in depth and I think that playing both sides represents depth and understanding. 

I like that. 

As for the scores and the counts, I don't pay much attention to them although I would like to get the chevrons at some point. But how these scores are obtained to me means how in depth I understand or my opponent understands a game or scenario. 

But in the end it is all academic. I just love playing with you guys so how ever it works out, I'll see you on the Vassal-field.

P.S. It's all about the AARs...

[Shad]

Well no one because that feature is broken. I have a bunch of bogus plays that I want to delete and can't at this time.

I patched this on the test server late last week. It should go live on the real server by Friday this week. Need to do a few more safety tests before I push new code to adjust the most core site functionality.

[plloyd1010]

That should make Felipe happy.

[goosebrown]

"I patched this on the test server late last week. It should go live on the real server by Friday this week. Need to do a few more safety tests before I push new code to adjust the most core site functionality." - Shad

Thank you sir. I have looked like a moron for all the bogus stuff there. Now that I can fix them, no one will know I am a moron