Current Streak Across The Board

[Mike A.]

Here's an idea for a new achievement--
Current winning streaks for all games.

My suggestion probably isn't what you're thinking. It's not looking at a winning streak of all games and adding them up. For example, you win 2 Finito in a row, and then win 3 List Cities, making it 5. That would be kind of fun, but that's not what I'm suggesting.

There's a page that shows all your game ratings and current win streaks. If you get all current win streaks to 1, you get an award. If you get them to 2 you get an award. I would say you could give them up to 5 game winning streaks at least.

I think this would be great because it gives players incentives to play ALL the games.

Since it's a pretty difficult thing to accomplish, along with a badge a gold reward of 100 for each number might be appropriate. To be clear, I'm suggesting a gold reward of 100 for 1, an additional 200 for 2, an additional 300 for 3, and so on. These would be one time awards.

As a tangent, I think it would be very cool if there was a site achievement board that showed everyone's achievements over the last 24 hours. Meeples earned, new player bests for win streaks, the highest current win streaks for each game that have been earned in the last 24 hours (in other words, if someone has the highest streak but hasn't played it over the last 24 hours, it wouldn't count), and career achievements like the one I suggested.

[Jimmy V.]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the suggestion! It is always nice to hear new ideas.

I am not sure how practical this idea is and if it would be of interest to many players.

Food for thoughts anyway!

Nicolas.

[Guest 134529]

I think there is an idea in there with a bit of tweaking.  But I don't quite like that format because trying to get the achievements could block people from being able to play their own favorite games for quite a while after the 1 or 2 wins in each.

Because a person would have to play a game til they won it 3 times (or how ever many they were going for), then stop playing that game.  Say Finito was the first game they chose.  They play until they get their 3 wins in a row, and then stop playing that until they collect three in a row for each of the other games.

Next they would have to play Lost Cities until they won it 3 times and then stop.  etc etc etc. until they had three wins in each of the games.  They could be blocked from playing their favorite game(s), sometimes for quite a while if they hit a snag in one or two of the games where they couldn't get the consecutive wins.

So I think they might give up on the other games and just go back to their favorites.  On the other hand, I think it could encourage venturing out into other games, if there were a kind of Super Meeple award.  You would earn a super meeple each time you managed to get a meeple of the same level for all of the games.  Just as you only earn a new meeple one time, you would only be able to earn a super meeple one time.

And maybe whoever managed to earn all of the black 6 meeples would get a Super Duper Meeple!  lol

[Jimmy V.]

You rightly pointed out the main issue with Mike's idea.

I really like yours though. The Super Meeple is a great idea and probably a great name too!

Another idea for the to-do list. Ah well... As if i needed more work to do...

[Mike A.]

I don't understand. The Super Meeple suggested doesn't really add anything. Either people want meeples already so they play to get them or they don't.

Actually, I think the Super Meeple applied to my idea is far better. Would everyone want to go for them and the streaks? Of course not. Some would. I know I would. It's cool seeing long streaks for all games on your board.

Also, there's something I think you're missing. When people get all the meeples in a game now, there's no incentive to play it ever again. For example, I will probably never play Finito again after I get my final Meeple. I would think giving people an extra reason to play ALL games would be a good thing for the site. You disagree. Alright. No harm.

[Guest 134529]

I don't understand. The Super Meeple suggested doesn't really add anything. Either people want meeples already so they play to get them or they don't.

People might want Meeples, but they can get them from playing their favorite game(s).  A Super Meeple, particularly if it awarded a gold bonus equal to all of the previous meeples of that rank (or even half of the total bonus for a rank).

Some examples:

White Meeples
single white meeple = 20 gold
there are 7 games, if all white meeples are earned, a person would earn 140 gold total for earning all of them.  At the time they earned the last white meeple, they would get both the 20 gold from that one, Plus they would now earn a white Super Meeple and get another 140 gold.  (or 70 gold for the Super Meeple if it was decided half the total was a better amount)

Yellow single Meeple = 30 gold
Yellow Super Meeple = either 210 gold, or 105 gold

Gold single Meeple = 40 gold
Gold Super Meeple = 280 gold or 140 gold

Green single Meeple = 50 gold
Green Super Meeple = 350 or 175 gold

...

Black single Meeple = 100 gold
Black Super Meeple = 700 gold or 350 gold.

Actually, anticipating the Black Super Meeples might be a good argument for only granting half to total for the lower colors.  When entering the Blacks, things would begin to change.  The first two Black Super Meeples (blank and 1 dot) would continue to earn only half the total.  But now they would begin to graduate. 
Two dot Black Super Meeple earns - 420 gold (60% of the total)
Three dot Black Super Meeple earns - 490 gold (70%)
Four dot Black Super Meeple = 560 gold (80%)
Five dot Black Super Meeple = 630 gold (90%)
Six dot Black Super Meeple = 700 gold (100%)

In any event, the large gold bonuses from the Super Meeples (compared to the amount earned for a single meeple) would probably encourage people to expand their focus beyond their favorite games, to include all of the games offered, because that is the only way they could earn Super Meeples.


Now having said all of that, I have to voice a completely opposite point of view when responding to the second part of your post.

Also, there's something I think you're missing. When people get all the meeples in a game now, there's no incentive to play it ever again. For example, I will probably never play Finito again after I get my final Meeple. I would think giving people an extra reason to play ALL games would be a good thing for the site. You disagree. Alright. No harm.

The only incentive to play (and the strongest incentive to play) is simply because the game is fun to play.  The meta game(s) might actually interfere with this important reason that people play.

So an opposite point of view might be...


1.  There should be no meta game, no meeples, no kings favors (except possibly for people who wanted to play the map game with the houses).

2. The site should not try to "encourage/control" people to play any particular game.  Rather they should just watch to see which are the most popular.  If a game were very unpopular, maybe they would get rid of it and introduce a new game.

BUT they would probably also have to get rid of the concept of food to play games unless you have a subscription, because the more expensive games might be played less simply because people don't want to spend that much food on a game.  So the cost of the games might very well be influencing people's "choices" and giving a distorted idea of popularity.


So my answer to your no incentive to play (a game) is...

Great!  That's wonderful!

The only incentives to play, should be the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or possibly socializing in a game.  The meta game we now have might actually destroy some of the sociability, because both people are trying to "progress" in the meta game and their opponent is an obstacle to that larger goal, rather than a potential new friend.

[Mike A.]

"The only incentives to play, should be the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or possibly socializing in a game."

Uhhhh, you're trying to dictate what should be enjoyable for players?! I'm simply suggesting options for players because I understand there are different strokes for different folks.

[Guest 134529]

"The only incentives to play, should be the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or possibly socializing in a game."

Uhhhh, you're trying to dictate what should be enjoyable for players?! I'm simply suggesting options for players because I understand there are different strokes for different folks.

No, I'm rather against the idea of dictating what should be enjoyable.  I mis-spoke.  It would have been better if I had said...

The incentive(s) to play a game is the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or  possibly the socializing in a game.   

Your previous post gave the impression that if a person had gotten all of their meeples, there was no longer any incentive to play a game.

Also, there's something I think you're missing. When people get all the meeples in a game now, there's no incentive to play it ever again.

You would be right, of course, if the person did not enjoy the game, but had only been playing because of some external incentive to play in spite of getting no pleasure from it. 

But I question the value of encouraging people to use their leisure time to do something they don't enjoy.  Over the long haul, I think they would begin to associate unpleasant feelings with the site, which would likely cause them to look elsewhere for enjoyment.   

So my point was I think it's better for a site to not try to control what games a person chooses to play, but rather to simply observe which games seem to produce the most enjoyment for the greatest number of people, and to over time, remove games that are not well liked, and try others.

My position is actually the opposite of trying to dictate people's choices.

[Jimmy V.]

Very interesting reading guys! Keep posting! I love reading your thoughts.