Is It Time To 'Up' The Minimum Plays ?

[Matt W]

Vince,

I would hold off on changing that. We only have 134 people who have logged a play at all. 5 plays means that 1 out of 25 people (roughly) have played a scenario (4% of the total population). Since not everyone has every product this represents a much higher percentage of those who own the product have actually played it and found it wonderful.

If we require a higher number of plays to be ranked some true diamonds will go missing. Let's take a f'rinstance.

Based on current numbers only one quarter of the members have actually logged a play (134/528). If we apply that total to Go For Broke that means of the 48 owners, only 12 will have logged a play if indeed they have played it at all (half of my collection remains completely unplayed at this point and I have only played 12.4% of the scenarios that I own! Assuming there is a scenario in Go For Broke that warrants ranking, even getting 5 plays would be a trick.

This will work fine for games like Eastern Front which are owned quite broadly but not all games and supplements are owned

God help us if War of the Worlds is the best. With only 9 owners we'd have to get nearly every one of them to assemble it and play it.