Laurence:
I concede that your first point is valid. My intent was not to put
a negative spin on it, simply voice another opinion on the matter.
I hope you will agree that I am more than capable of eating my pie
(humble or not).
But on the second point - I am a bit bothered by the thought that a
black mark is occassionally honorable (although, I do tell my
children to "turn the other cheek") or justifiable due to the cost
(literally) of a dull game.
Playing this scenario out again - my slippery slope logic - hold on
now... it may get sloopy at the end...
I drop, get bashed by fellow teammates, for honors sake my PRS
suffers, I save my money. However now I want to join another game.
If I decide to go for the Noldo position, do you think my PRS may
somehow limit or prevent me from getting that position?
I realize I am streching the facts, but I am concerned about how the
PRS will be used or perceived by other players. (I think I
mentioned this before - if not I should have)....
I honestly believe Clint and company (no offense intended to the
other folks at MEPBM) will try to keep everyone happy - (well
almost) with the exception of those few vocal disgruntled players.
If the position (in this case Noldo) is available and the game is so-
called balanced in the eyes of MEPBM, I think I would get the
position (please note that it could be any position the players
view "powerful" or "important" - not Noldo specifically).
Again, I am concerned about the possibility that other players may
dismiss me outright due to my honorably low PRS (i.e., I am somehow
labled a "tootling along" player). Even more so if I do grab the
granddaddy Noldo position. A player with more experience and likely
(okay possibly) higher PRS could view my playing Noldo as
troublesome. These same players may not want to bother or expend
the money to try to work with a "newbieish" player with a low PRS in
such an important position. Alas, a seemingly balanced game is
suddenly dropped by those who have high PRS and presumably more
experience. Now, I am faced with playing a powerful nation with
other "newbies" with limited hope of others picking up. Alas, your
200 Quid is saved, but my game is shot to hell (for lack of a better
cliche - which now I am realizing is my 2nd most popular written
crutch).
I realize it is difficult to balance game play and keep players
interested in wanting to keep paying 200 Quid for a good game. But
the suggestion (not necessarily yours) that a low PRS score or
newbies dimishes the play which leads or somehow results in quick or
dull games does appear a bit elitist (for lack of a better term).
Please don't label me as a conspiracy theorist, but I believe an
outside observer could view that MEPBM community (not necessarily
Clint and company) is trying to separate veterans and newbies.
Remember, I support the PRS. I believe it will help incentivizes
players to compete and cooperate (IMHO). Again - an analogy -
(seems to be my written crutch). When people know they are being
graded on a test, my sense is that they truly want to suceed
(compete). However, if one is simply testing but has no intention
of scoring or otherwise grading them, people will not worry so much
about suceeding (compete). I liken this to the current state of
MEPBM and the introduction of the PRS.
Please understand that my use of suceeding does not necessarily mean
winning a MEPBM game - particularily in light of the mutliple
criteria that comprise the PRS. I do believe the PRS may flush out
the less communicative or cooperative players now that not only does
winning count, but also how you play the game.
But enough of my bantering... what do you think?
Respectfully,
Chris
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:
>I too support the PRS, although not for the reason to determine
who
>should play with whom.
That's a kind of negative skew on what I said. Imagine that you
were a
newishby having a tough time of it, then you found that the chaps
on your
team had a very low total score, and the opposition had a very
high
one. You'd be able to complain. Conversely, if you "felt" that
you'd be
given an unfair opposition, and Clint could prove that you were
reasonably
matched, then he could shut you up and make you eat humble pie.
>However, the scenario you describe - starting a game with 8
newbies,
>and dropping with no loss of honor (yeah us U.S. folks spell it
>without the u! ;-), makes me wonder how will the dropping player's
>PRS rating may suffer. Maybe I am missing something, but isn't a
>part of the player rating system dependent on players feedback
from
>each particular game? If I drop early, won't I get "bashed" by my
>fellow players for it?
Yes, but in the end all games are about personal honour - the main
reason I
would NOT drop in a difficult situation is because I would not
want to let
others down. The main reason I'd drop in the situation above, is
the 200
quid. I can cope with a black mark for dropping much more easily
than 200
···
At 15:31 22/11/2002, Christopher wrote:
quid for a dull game.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
To act or not to act that is the query...
teams. Like you, I'm an advocate of a PRS (though not necessarily every aspect of Clint's complex systems) but it's not inconsistent to be an advocate, and anticipate some of the problems. One of the problems will be with the umpiring - without a PRS, if Clint has to arbitrate over something like a possible breach of house rules, and he decides against you, then it's going to annoy you for about one game. Under a PRS the effects of his decisions will be more lasting.