Discussion on Player Ratings

mepbmlist
#1

I am letting the items that you have brought to my attention concerning
Player Ratings mull over a few days and will then get back to you. (Here
are some of my first thoughts).

Thanks for the input so far. Anything more is very welcome.

One thought I would like discussed is the all opt in option. My suggestion
would be that we have a rating system (there is one already in the form of
VPs which most players are disastisfied with it appears).

The suggestion of a normalised (eg 400 vps for Wo it the average and then
you get 600 VPs mean you are more highly rated) is useful but it still does
not take into affect the way VPs work as this particular player has a rating
that is dependent on Individual play, rather than Team play.

A voting scheme will help address this partially - but is open to some abuse
(minor I think). Having actually tried this out in me39 I was very
surprised by the results. :slight_smile: (I played in that game on the winning side so
have a unique perspective as GM and player which really surprised me as to
who the team thought had played the major part in the win etc).

So back to my original question - all in or some in? If we do it then doing
it for all is not much more work (20% guesstimate) so that's not a problem.
So working on this assumption we can have all in, and for thse that are
interested in the rating scheme pay it some heed, and those who do not
don't. I don't think it will particularly address the balanced game at
set-up situation though it might help.

Assuming we use a voting scheme - what should be voted on? (And what points
should be added on for being on the winning team etc).

Adding these onto the VPs for the nation concerned would be one method:

VPs, VPs with pts from VCs and thirdly VPs with pts from Voting
would then be the 3 items relayed to players and kept as a record.

Then a comparitive scale with the norm for that nation would give you an
overall rating to be added to your score. Divide that score by the number
of games taken part in (yes/no?) to give you your rating for that nation?

If you can address the questions and thought experiements that I have above
that would be very helpful. (What have I missed?)

Thanks

Clint

···

****************************************************************
      Harlequin Games Middle Earth Games
pbm@harlequingames.com me@middleearthgames.com
www.harlequingames.com www.middleearthgames.com

               340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
           Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
                  Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
****************************************************************
        Middle Earth - Legends - Serim Ral
            CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
                   Battle of the Planets - Exile

#2

I'm personally not interested in a player ranking
system and probably would not vote if one was
deployed.

We form grudge teams with the players we play well
with and hope that kismet gives us the chance to play
against the ones we thought were awful. It sorts
itself out most of the time. I don't mind playing
with newbies, the selfish, the whiners, or the insane.
What I dislike intensely is playing with and against
those who lack commitment to the games they are in.

So, I think we're chasing the wrong fox on this one;
I'm more concerned with how to manage the early drop-
outs who can destabilize and destroy games for the
other players. I think players should be required to
pay for the first 10 turns upfront (which would take
them through Turn 12) and then in 5-turn increments
thereafter. If pride cannot keep them committed than
perhaps an economic incentive would.

I know there are flaws to the above idea but I'd
rather see the creative energies flowing to solve this
problem than dealing with player rankings (we can
deal with that one after we've adjusted the game
dynamics).

Joseph

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
wrote:

···

Assuming we use a voting scheme - what should be
voted on? (And what points
should be added on for being on the winning team
etc).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

#3

To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the
maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that amongst
all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for free...

It's called putting your money where your mouth is.

Not in jest,

Gavin

#4

Joseph Williams wrote:

I think players should be required to
pay for the first 10 turns upfront (which would take
them through Turn 12) and then in 5-turn increments
thereafter. If pride cannot keep them committed than
perhaps an economic incentive would.

You're not the only one to suggest this. But apparently it would put off
enough people to make it counter-productive. There must be an awful lot of
people handing over a fiver every couple of weeks for that to be true...

When I first started playing PBM, this was the norm. You paid up front for a
few turns or you didn't play. Back then the games I was in cost the
equivalent of three pints per turn, which makes MEPBM quite cheap really.

Then you've got the additional problem that some of today's players seem to
have the commitment span of a Liz Taylor clone...

Gavin

#5

I'm having trouble following this.

Ex.

1-SG with 987 vps
2-SG with 987 + VC's (how many for those anyway...??)
3-SG with 987 + VC's + Vote Score

Which one gets compared to the norm?
Then we ADD (subtract?) even more from that untouched total above?
(total 3=vp+vc+vote..??).

Then we average MY scores for SG or MY scores for ALL my finished
games? Every player has 25 rankings, one per nation...?

···

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

Assuming we use a voting scheme - what should be voted on?
(And what points should be added on for being on the winning
team etc).

Adding these onto the VPs for the nation concerned would be one
method:

1-VPs
2-VPs with pts from VCs
3-VPs with pts from Voting

would then be the 3 items relayed to players and kept as a record.

Then a comparitive scale with the norm for that nation would give
you an overall rating to be added to your score.

Divide that score by the number of games taken part in (yes/no?)
to give you your rating for that nation?

_________________________________________________________________

I would propose the elimination of the VC's as a factor, period.
Seriously, why should Rhudaur get rewarded if Din Ohtar dies? I
certainly didn't have anything to do with it....In fact, how can
Rhudaur, even the historical family grudge argument, even have HEARD
of a contemporary, mortal Din Ohtar? Geez, these just have to go...

The concept of Normalizing VP's as proposed by both Marc P and
myself is a way of using the current VP's to eliminate them in
favour of a neutral, even, non-nation specific form of play rating.
Repeat the main point: use your VP's to eliminate the VP's....

By comparing MY score the the Mean of that nation, you can end up
with any style of number you want! A percentage, a number based
on Standard Deviation with 1 as an Average, etcetera.

The key being choosing which is to be the BASE of the rank/score,
and then Converting the other considerations to the same scale in
order to be added (or averaged, etc) together.

Do you want scores from 1-10, 1-100, or find an equivalency between
Votes and VP's to have 1250's etc....

1-VP's
2-Normalized VP's
3-Player Votes
4-Binary-esque Compiling as discussed recently (1=finished + 1=win...)

Those are the 4 base scores that have been proposed.

Which is to be the primary score?
Which others are included (ie, is it realistic to expect enough
votes from each game that isn't advertised as a Play-Test which
guarantees that players would vote instead of the normal just
disappearing afterwards...to make it worthwhile to tabulate them?)
Which numerical scale is to be used?

As an example, using VP's would, of course, be the easiest.
Then, if you wanted to include a Vote and the Binary Compiling, then
the election would merely be the 5th categorie, with the same spread
of VP's awarded for rank (excluding those who didn't get a vote?) and
then each auto point would be, say 100? 400? (finished, win, etc..).

Ach! Enough already! I'll go away now (unless I'm forced to defend
myself from the meanies...) and eagerly anticipate the published ranks!

Regards,

BradGB

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#6

A number of us have made public offers on numerous occasions to
do much of what has been proposed. Offers of free labour, I'm
sure, are saved in some special folder, and I fully expect to
be called upon some day to do just as you recommend.

I believe some others that I myself recall would echo my
sentiments.

regards,

bb

···

--- Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the<BR>
maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that
amongst<BR>
all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for
free...<BR>
<BR>
It's called putting your money where your mouth is.<BR>
<BR>
Not in jest,<BR>
<BR>
Gavin<BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0
cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial
size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1650662.3186813.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705334760:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1650662.3186813.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705334760:HM/A=763352/rand=717105236"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->

<br>
<tt>
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone<BR>
To Unsubscribe: <a
href="http://www.yahoogroups.com">http://www.yahoogroups.com</a><BR>
Website: <a
href="http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com">http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com</a><BR>
</tt>
<br>

<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.</tt>
</br>

</body></html>

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#7

That would not be a problem to out-source it.

Clint

To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the
maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that

amongst

···

all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for free...

It's called putting your money where your mouth is.

Not in jest,

Gavin

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#8

Yes we tried this one before but I know that for lots of players the cost of
the game is expensive as it is. With an initial outlay of a considerable
amount of money they would be very unlikely to take it up. For new players
to the game this would be disastrous I think as we would get very few
players take up the game.

I think part of the idea of the rating system is to work out who to play
with and that might help stop early drop outs.

In a Grudge game there is (IMHO) no reason for a missed turn. :slight_smile: (Okay the
odd one but very rare).

Clint

···

I'm personally not interested in a player ranking
system and probably would not vote if one was
deployed.

We form grudge teams with the players we play well
with and hope that kismet gives us the chance to play
against the ones we thought were awful. It sorts
itself out most of the time. I don't mind playing
with newbies, the selfish, the whiners, or the insane.
What I dislike intensely is playing with and against
those who lack commitment to the games they are in.

So, I think we're chasing the wrong fox on this one;
I'm more concerned with how to manage the early drop-
outs who can destabilize and destroy games for the
other players. I think players should be required to
pay for the first 10 turns upfront (which would take
them through Turn 12) and then in 5-turn increments
thereafter. If pride cannot keep them committed than
perhaps an economic incentive would.

I know there are flaws to the above idea but I'd
rather see the creative energies flowing to solve this
problem than dealing with player rankings (we can
deal with that one after we've adjusted the game
dynamics).

Joseph

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
wrote:
> Assuming we use a voting scheme - what should be
> voted on? (And what points
> should be added on for being on the winning team
> etc).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#9

1-SG with 987 vps
2-SG with 987 + VC's (how many for those anyway...??)
3-SG with 987 + VC's + Vote Score

Which one gets compared to the norm?
Then we ADD (subtract?) even more from that untouched total above?
(total 3=vp+vc+vote..??).

Then we average MY scores for SG or MY scores for ALL my finished
games? Every player has 25 rankings, one per nation...?

Do be discussed and agreed upon.

Clint

#10

After some thought, I don't really know about the "trash the current VPs" thing. The
current VPs allow someone to flaunt their prowess at winning the most points very
well. Yes, some of these players will forsake their allies in order to garner more
victory points for the end game, but no matter what you do and what kind of rating
system is developed, this will almost certainly still apply in some form or another.
  Specifically as a measure of how well a person is able to build their position into
the strongest one, the current system works fine, and could be used to add to an
overall player rating system by simply adding how many 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finishes
someone has had. (3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for 3rd or whatever)

  However, the rating system I'd like to see would tell me 2 things about a player in
addition to the above. What is the player's commitment and how good an ally will they
likely be? But a single rating number isn't going to be very helpful in either regard.
That's why I think a rating would be more useful if it were split into 3 separate
ratings.

1. 1st thru 3rd place finishes (as above, +3, +2, or +1 points).

2. How many total games have they started in, and how many games have they dropped
that were subsequently assigned to a standby player? (Say before turn 10, or 15, or
whatever the current limit is for standby player assignments.)

3. How did the players previous allies feel about his teamwork? (This would be the
voting aspect, though rather than rank who was best, give ALL allies (even the ones
who are out) a teamwork rating of 0-100. (0 being the equivalent of an enemy, and 100
being "couldn't possibly have won without them".) This would be averaged for all votes
in that game, and each game's average would be averaged with the next. (Whether you
allow people no longer in the game a vote for this second one is questionable, but
might provide some additional insight.)

So, a multi-category rating might look like:

14-17(0)-86
where...

14 = 1st-3rd place finish rating
17 = Total games started
0 = Games dropped and filled by standby
86 = Percentage teamwork rating average

  While this is certainly a little more complex, (though not very much more work if a
voting system is established anyway), I think a rating system that differentiates
between these points would be incredibly useful. If you don't care how many times
someone finished 1st, but would rather know how good a teammate someone might be, you
can choose to look only at the teamwork rating and/or the game finishes. If you saw
someone with a 24-20(12)-34, you'd have a much better idea what you were in for than a
simple, one number rating system.

As others have offered, I would also be willing to help with such a system. I'd be
willing to compile the data, (assuming it were available), and I could make and host a
website for it as well, (including the feedback forms, etc.), if MeGames didn't have
the resources for it. I'd do this because I honestly don't think it would require too
much work to do, once the initial data compiling were done. (The biggest workload
would be trying to get everyone to vote once the game was over and they'd lost
interest.)

So, that's my proposal, as late in the game as it is. Feel free to pick it apart and
let me know what you think wouldn't work or what would be an improvement.

Mike Mulka

#11

Mike,

are you referring to 1000 where all (but the kingdoms) start off
with the same hope/choice of score? or 1650/2950 where the
INTRINSIC differences between nations refute the statements above?

The entire cause for the work that was done on alternative scoring
systems last winter/spring was motivated by the desire to find a
way to level the field between the Noldo and the Woodmen. Either
eliminating the VPs as they are, Or Normalizing them, are the only
ways to do this.

Regards,

Brad

···

--- Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote:

Yes, some of these players will forsake their allies in order to
garner more victory points for the end game, but no matter what you
do and what kind of rating system is developed, this will almost
certainly still apply in some form or another.
Specifically as a measure of how well a person is able to build their
position into the strongest one, the current system works fine

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#12

Player wrote:

···

--- Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the<BR>
maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that
amongst<BR>
all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for
free...<BR>
<BR>

I certainly didn't insert all that HTML ruggish...!

Gavin

#13

[snip]

Feel free to pick it apart

[snip]

Have you seen Bobbin's Fictional Player Roster on his site?
The idea being the list of names, and whatever/however many
columns of information as required/desired, sorted by the
primary concern. In his case, it's average votes per game.

1-Again, eliminate the number of times Placing. While that
has meaning in games where 20 or so nations start out with a
reasonably equal chance of being equal.. (??).. it's just dumb
in 1650/2950. The long term standings by nation are on Bobbin's
site also. Meaningless as far as individual performance is
concerned.

2-Express Started and Dropped as a percentage of games that have
been played to a technically defined point of completion. Easier
on the eyes!

Regards,

Brad B

ps - it appears I've lied and not gone away. oh well, guess that's
why I play neutrals, eh? hehehehe

···

--- Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote:

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#14

Brad,
  My apologies. I have pretty much given up on 1650 or 2950 for the very reason you
mention, (the inequities between positions). I only play 4th Age anymore, and wasn't
really referring to the 1650/2950 aspect of VPs.
  Certainly I agree that some sort of VP leveling should be considered for the
1650/2950 scenarios. What I should have said is that I don't believe that the VP
system should be scrapped altogether, but rather folded into a Player Rating system,
as one aspect of a multi-category system, (assuming one is developed). This could be a
levelized one (for 1650/2950), or a standard one (for 4th Age, which works pretty well
overall).

(As an aside...For those who think the NK/SK have too big an advantage, they usually
get hammered pretty hard, so the advantage isn't quite a big as you might think.)

Mike Mulka

···

---Player <mailto:pbmnoot@yahoo.ca> wrote:
--- Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote:

Yes, some of these players will forsake their allies in order to
garner more victory points for the end game, but no matter what you
do and what kind of rating system is developed, this will almost
certainly still apply in some form or another.
Specifically as a measure of how well a person is able to build their
position into the strongest one, the current system works fine

are you referring to 1000 where all (but the kingdoms) start off
with the same hope/choice of score? or 1650/2950 where the
INTRINSIC differences between nations refute the statements above?

The entire cause for the work that was done on alternative scoring
systems last winter/spring was motivated by the desire to find a
way to level the field between the Noldo and the Woodmen. Either
eliminating the VPs as they are, Or Normalizing them, are the only
ways to do this.

Regards,
Brad

#15

1-Again, eliminate the number of times Placing. While that
has meaning in games where 20 or so nations start out with a
reasonably equal chance of being equal.. (??).. it's just dumb
in 1650/2950. The long term standings by nation are on Bobbin's
site also. Meaningless as far as individual performance is
concerned.

Adjust to use whatever levelized VP system is developed for 1650/2950. It still has
some value, especially in a multi-category system.

2-Express Started and Dropped as a percentage of games that have
been played to a technically defined point of completion. Easier
on the eyes!

But if someone played 1 game only, you wouldn't have any idea how experienced a player
they were. a 100% might be easier on the eyes, but a 1(0) or 18(0) gives you more info
about the player.

Mike

···

---Player [mailto:pbmnoot@yahoo.ca] wrote:

#16

TOUCH�

···

--- Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote:

But if someone played 1 game only, you wouldn't have any idea how
experienced a player they were. a 100% might be easier on the eyes,
but a 1(0) or 18(0) gives you more info about the player.

Mike

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#17

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

I am letting the items that you have brought to my attention

concerning

Player Ratings mull over a few days and will then get back to you.

(Here

are some of my first thoughts).

Thanks for the input so far. Anything more is very welcome.

One thought I would like discussed is the all opt in option. My

suggestion

would be that we have a rating system (there is one already in the

form of

VPs which most players are disastisfied with it appears).

The suggestion of a normalised (eg 400 vps for Wo it the average and

then

you get 600 VPs mean you are more highly rated) is useful but it

still does

not take into affect the way VPs work as this particular player has

a rating

that is dependent on Individual play, rather than Team play.

I like the idea of three numbers.
One is some variant of win-loss - this is easiest if it is simply
computed for everyone. This measures the "team" side of things.

Another is normalized score for your nation excluding the silly
indivdual VCs; it is an individual criterion that tells something
about how you do with the starting resources that you have. This -
again - is something that can just be done for everyone.

The virtue of these two is simple: they use things that can easily be
identified and they use machinery (e.g. scores) that already exists in
the code.

We can put new and creative concepts - such as voting, etc. - into a
third category and discuss what goes there.

What to do with this? The one thing that I'd like is to reserve
2-3 slots (*not* specific nations) on each allied team for people who
"rate well" in some fashion to be crafted. This could affect setup
choices - but geared towards *team* needs (e.g. Northern Gondor in
1650) rather than individual needs (gimme the Noldo).

cheers,

Marc

#18

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Player <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:

A number of us have made public offers on numerous occasions to
do much of what has been proposed. Offers of free labour, I'm
sure, are saved in some special folder, and I fully expect to
be called upon some day to do just as you recommend.

I believe some others that I myself recall would echo my
sentiments.

regards,

bb

Agreed. I cracked the production and scoring algorithms in less than
a days work each when I had the pdfs that I needed; this is a fun
mental exercise for me. As long as I have the info, I can easily run
some numbers based on past games to show what a given scoring system
would actually look like if based on win/loss or scores...

Marc

#19

An "all opt in option"? No you've lost me there, is that the same as the "no choice option"? :wink:
I think we need to talk about whether we have:
- No opt out (all players get ranked)
- An opt in system (players get ranked if they sign up for the PRS)
- An opt out system (players get ranked unless they ask not to be)
While I'm a very keen advocate of some form of PRS, I have to say that I think the first of these is harsh. There are one or two detractors, and I don't think you should impose on them something which may make them leave. The opt out system would be preferable to me, but I would not object to the opt in system.

ON THE DETAILS OF A PRS
With apologies to those who read all this when we first discussed it some months ago (we do seem to have a lot of people who are coming to this fresh)

If you publish a table similar to the example from the original debate on Bobbin's pages, then players can make their own judgement about what's important:

            Team Played VPs Votes and many other possible columns
            Wins
Tom Tidy 6 9 4500 26
Tim Nice 5 8 7200 14
Jim Pugg 5 12 9300 13
Jon Zogg 9 10 4500 32

I'd personally be looking at team wins. Someone else (sorry, was it Brad?) who was concerned about "freeloaders" would be able to look more at something else, such as votes. Someone who enjoyed independent play, and believed that voting was open to cronyism might look at VPs. You could have other columns too, for example there could be one for Marc's slightly complicated formula, and depending on your view of his method of assessment, you could use it or not.

The number and type of columns, the voting system etc. need a lot more discussion, but you won't get consensus on such things, so let's have a catholic, inclusive table similar to the above, which will please most people, most of the time.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 09:00 PM 28-10-01, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

>One thought I would like discussed is the all opt in option.

#20

I think this looks like a good idea, if you'll include a "Dropped
Games" column also.
Everyone can check whatever they want, be it team wins, VC's, votes or
drops - and read into it whatever they desire.
It should give as good a picture of the player and his games as I
think is possible - without resorting to written reviews!

It reminds me of soccer lists: Games played, won, lost, goals scored,
and player(s) of the match - something most people should be able to
relate to I guess.

42!
Who certainly vote once a game was over.

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:
*chop*

If you publish a table similar to the example from the original

debate on

Bobbin's pages, then players can make their own judgement about

what's

important:

            Team Played VPs Votes and many other

possible

columns
            Wins
Tom Tidy 6 9 4500 26
Tim Nice 5 8 7200 14
Jim Pugg 5 12 9300 13
Jon Zogg 9 10 4500 32

*chop*