Drops, finishes game how do you tell?

mepbmlist
#1

I agree drops are a major problem, but negatively affecting someone's
ranking can be difficult.

What if someone just buys too much stuff on purpose and bankrupts
their nation? How would you differentiate this from somone just
quitting?

What if they evacuate their capital and tell their enemy to come and
take it?

Would someone who is the last nation standing on the losing side get
more points than the one who dropped the turn before?

A drop penalty can be easily avoided.

I think if you just had games started, games won, and games lost that
lasted over 25 turns, it would be a good start. So someone's rank
might look like 10/8/2. This person would have an 80% winning
percentage and in the two games he lost he lasted over 25 turns. I
wouldn't mind having this person on my team. No it's not perfect, the
excellent player who plays the Woodmen gets screwed because of poor
team play doesn't get credit. Well too bad, the game is based on team
play, you can't win if your team loses. You don't get your money back
for crappy teammates, so you don't get any ranking points if your team
doesn't win either. The only way you would get "good" credit for
losing is if you lasted 25 or more turns. Maybe this would help
discourage the "quit on turn 10 or before people".

Take the other extreme, say a person is 5/0/5. Hell, I know this
person needs to be watched and hand holded. Maybe even post the
rankings of the players before you sign up for a game. ie game 132 has
6 people signed up 3 FPs (1/1/0,0/0/0,4/4/0), 3 DS (10/10/0,
2/0/2,4/2/0). This way you might have a more informed decision on what
you are getting into.

Everyone agrees that VP rankings stink, they don't encourage team play
and any ranking system that uses VPs to rank people would discourage
team play. I want no part of any ranking system that discourages team
play. The VP system is obviously broken, lets not base a ranking
system on a broken VP system.

I say we all start from the games we are currently in now, not from
any past games. Make everyone start on equal footing.

Anyway, that's my 1/2 cent.

NM

#2

Disagree. I've been on the winning and losing sides
of tremendous games where the losers -- down to maybe
3 or 4 nations after being plagued by drops -- played
heroically and with phenomenal skill as they almost
(but not quite) pulled off a miracle (indeed, our
valiant Freep opponents in Game 305 are one such,
although they will be denied the miracle). They get
the generic loss while bozo neutrals who jump to the
winning side just in time get the win?

Frankly, my time is better spent as the loser in an
awesome game than as the winner in a stinky game. I
don't support the concept of player ratings, but if
you must implement it, "quality" of the wins and
losses should come into play.

Joseph

ยทยทยท

--- Edward Merrick <midwestmins@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think if you just had games started, games won,
and games lost that lasted over 25 turns, it would
be a good start.

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