BGG Weight Rating.

Supporter

This is inspired by the post asking about the BGG ratings. 

I like the BGG Weight Rating. I do recognize that weight is very subjective. But I do find it a little helpful when I am researching a game. Of course the more ratings it has the more "accurate" it is. But it leads to seem really funny things. It's there a way that BGA could impliment a weight system that is fixed? Do the users of this forum like looking at weight ratings when they look at games? Are there ways that the system could be fixed. 


The only idea I have is to allow people to put partial numbers in. For example 4.25.as it stands right now, you can only put whole numbers in. 

Like| 14 comments | report | subscribe

Please log in or make an account to post a comment.

Owner13 months ago

I also look at weight ratings and find it helpful. I've been thinking through what I like and don't like and have an idea. What do you think about having 2 metrics. Decision making Weight and Learning Complexity. I'd consider Gloomhaven to higher learning complexity and lower decision making compared to Pipeline which would have lower learning complexity and higher decision making which is why turns take so much longer in Pipeline.

Does that make sense?

Supporter13 months ago

I still like this. But, the fact is that people do learn games very differently. If am learning the game from the rulebook I would give it a higher "learning complexity score." If, on the other hand someone teaches me the same game, I will give it a lower score. 

13 months ago

I think I like it. Would "decision making weight" be the same thing as something like the "amount of strategy/tactics" in a game? Just trying to get a little clearer understanding of what you mean by that.

Owner13 months ago

Yes, something like that.

Supporter13 months ago

I think so. I quite like it. 

Supporter13 months ago

I actually have a hard time actually using the weight rating. I check it out - but I don’t always of a firm grasp of what the weight actually means. And often just looking at a number won’t really tell you much of anything. As with anything, weight is subjective. What might be an incredibly heavy game for one person or group could be a medium game for a different group. It all depends on the personality and plays styles of the people in question. 

Supporter13 months ago

I just see, "this game I'm going to try and learn scores a 3.32. This other game I like scores a 3.38. So they must be somewhat close in complexity." Sometimes I feel like they are and sometimes not. But it does help me have an idea for how much time I'm gonna need to devote to the game, or how you're I can be while still learning it. Also the weight ratings in the BGG top 100 are far far better than looking up some obscure game with the votes.the more people have rated it, the better the rating is. 

Supporter13 months ago

For sure it could be improved. 

One great idea which someone else has said is to have it broken down by play complexity and rules complexity.  The question that comes up is that the weighting isn't entered very often.  If you double the entries required are you going to cut down on people entering that value even further?  

My thinking is that if you make the weighting more accurate for most people then more people are likely to enter it but it's hard to be sure.

Another good idea is to tightly define what the weighting means.  Maybe give examples or set a standard.  "Catan is weighted X for rules complexity and Y for weighting complexity.

I'm not sure if giving partials will help.  One of the things I like about BGA is the 1 - 5 rating scale.  No one gets caught up on rating something 10/10.  If you love the game it's a 5 and it's hard to argue with that.  That's a subjective opinion on my part of course.

Supporter13 months ago

I like the examples - kind of like a standard in science so you know what to compare something to. 

Supporter13 months ago

I hear you about the ratings, though I do not necessarily believe that it applies to weight ratings.

In other words, I think they're is a lot more varience in game weights. For instance I weight Race for the Galaxy, Agricola, Scythe, Fief: France 1429, Innovation, and Castles of Burgandy a 3. But, would feel a lot more comfortable if I could bump one or two of those up to a 3.5 and one or two down to a 2.5. It feels wrong to have them on the same complexity level when they do clearly seem like they are different. 

Supporter13 months ago

Yeah you might be right for weightings. Although if you have rules and play as separate weightings maybe you don’t. Either way probably works. 

i was also thinking about war games. My copy of Rise and Decline of the Third Reich is complex beyond all belief in rules and play versus any non-war game boardgame you can think of. (To the point where I mostly keep it for nostalgia reasons. I don’t have 3600 hours to plays it.). They really need their own category!

Owner13 months ago

I visit BGG solely for the weight info

13 months ago

At this point, I am using it in a similar vein. 

13 months ago

I look at the weight ratings, but yeah, it's pretty subjective. I like to see how many votes there are. The more votes, as you said, the more accurate the rating. If there aren't a lot of ratings I simply disregard the rankings.