> It would distort the game by distorting the decision making
> processes of players who think that points are important. Such
> individualists will go for the orders which clock up points rather
> than those which are best tactically.
You must realize that your argument here is that keeping score is
bad, period. Which is related, like drought and poaching are
related topics regarding sub-saharan africa, but not relevant to the
thread.
> Secondly the idea does not address the problem of uneven starts.
> The Gondors start with massive armies, so have the potential to
> inflict massive casualties, and under your system, immediately
> accumulate points which the best Woodmen player could only dream
> of. Likewise the Noldo have more wizards than Hogwarts, and are
> in position to fire off points earning spells right from turn 1.
Agreed. The questions are 1-do we want to measure, in whatever way,
the actual actions on the field (whether the player talks a lot and
is popular with his "teammates" or not....) or not. If so, 2-how do
we get around the inate differences amongst nations? 3-Do we want
to?
1-yes
2-unknown
3-i default to No. Not because it is just too difficult, but this is
a fantasy war game. The stronger shall reign supreme more often than
not, kind of Darwinesque, if you please. The only viable way to
measure one's worth as a Woodman is to compare the player of the one
game against the average result of all past Woodmen players. This
comparison would be using some sort of arbitrary scoring system,
suddenly we're in a "Hole in the Bucket" loop here, no? Besides,
the concept of comparing a player against his nation's mean has been
criticised heavilty too... Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, will
lift the heavier weights (gold medal), win the race (gold medal),
pass the tests, etcetera. A medieval world is MORE like that,
certainly not closer to some human-equality utopia....no?
> Sorry, but I think you should return to your drawing board.
Never left it, actually!
Any ideas on how to better balance this or ANY scoring system to
level the field more?
Many thanks,
Brad Brunet
RD: I've been trying to avoid commenting on this thread but find myself
being sucked in. Brad, nobody is ever going to change ME scoring to your
method - it simply involves too much work. I thought we were looking for a
realistic alternative to Victory Conditions and/or Victory Points, ie, an
alternative which Harlequin are able and willing to implement, if it gets
enough support.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the common VCs as they stand.
They are a fair measure of a nation's power and whoever on the winning team
has got the most is the winning nation/player. If team members think that
one guy deserves to be the winner, it is quite possible to pump his nation
up to no 1 by transferring gold and pop centres before the game finishes.
That's the equivelant of a vote!
Looking at the individual VCs, most of them are pretty logical, altho it
would be nice if 3) holding a particular pop centre, or 6) holding a
particular artifact, were tailored to Tolkien's writing instead of being
randomised. The only one I really object to is 1) termination of characters
for the FP. Fair enough for DS and neutrals, but for the FP to openly adopt
murder as an instrument of policy - nah, I don't buy that at all.
Instead, why not have Build city at a specified hex? This is especially
relevant to the FP. The Dwarves want to rebuild the Lonely Mountain (3107)
and, in 2950, Khazad-dum (2212). Arthedain, looking to restore past
glories, would want to rebuild Amon Sul (1609); Cardolan Lond Daer Enedh
(1319); the Noldor Ost-in-Edhil (2013) etc.
Or, Destroy pop. Again this is more relevant to the FP. Pick any of the
orc-nests in the Misty Mts: 1804, 2305, 2409 etc. 2715 and 2809 would be
particular targets of Sinda & Woodies.
But as these changes are not likely to happen, let's focus on the VPs. Are
they fair? No - they favour the strong nations. But you knew that when you
started playing the game. Is there a better system of sharing the VPs?
Debatable.
If you're going to get rid of the VPs, what are you going to put in their
place? A voting system? If so what kind? All surviving players on the
winning team get one vote each for best player. If there's a tie, it's a
joint win. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?
Richard.
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "BBrunet" <ditletang@canada.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] An Order Based Scoring System
On Sun, 02 September 2001, "Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
