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.
I don't know about this. Do you think it would tend to equalize teams (i.e. good players want a challenge) or would experienced players want to be with the better teams? Also, do you think it would make games hard to fill ("Hmm, so the DS have 10 veterans, and the free have 7 newbies and three open slots, maybe I'll wait for the next game"). I'm not criticizing, I'm just not sure how it would work out.
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.
Right!!!
Winn Keathley
···
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Winn Keathley" <Gnaeus@h...> wrote:
>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.
I don't know about this. Do you think it would tend to equalize
teams (i.e.
good players want a challenge) or would experienced players want to
be with
the better teams? Also, do you think it would make games hard to
fill ("Hmm,
so the DS have 10 veterans, and the free have 7 newbies and three
open
slots, maybe I'll wait for the next game"). I'm not criticizing, I'm
just
not sure how it would work out.
I've been in a bunch of games with very good players - and I find that
balance is very important for them. I've actually been in non-grudge
games where the two sides had an (effectively) joint dialog with the
neutrals to find the right split for a good game. My preferred twist
on the signups is having a minimum of 2-3 slots (not specific nations)
that go to more experienced folks on each side before a game can start
up.
As we have established before, we completely disagree on the
individual VC thing. I think there is sufficient interest to track it
- and if folks don't care about it, ignore it - since it would not
give someone dibs on nifty positions in the plans that we're seeing.
I don't know about this. Do you think it would tend to equalize teams (i.e. good players want a challenge) or would experienced players want to be with the better teams? Also, do you think it would make games hard to fill ("Hmm, so the DS have 10 veterans, and the free have 7 newbies and three open slots, maybe I'll wait for the next game"). I'm not criticizing, I'm just not sure how it would work out.
It could operate as an aggregate. Clint would track totals for both teams, and post those. So, we'd know we had a "5/5/0 (3 people)" team and a "16/12/2 (3 people)" team. Clint could make sure that the numbers don't get too egregious.
I also think it will help the current problem. Now, people don't sign up for "random" games because of the risk of getting a bad team. This way, more people might play non-grudge because of the reduced risk. Some might skip certain games, but again, if it gets more people to play non-grudge (and therefore reduce the "clique" factor), I think that's good.
jason
···
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
MEGames doesn't tell you NOW who else is in the game, I don't
see them having any intention of changing how they fill their
slot of games at this time.
Considering that this hypothetical PRS would take well over
a year to have any numbers worth giving the slightest
consideration to even if it started TODAY, I can't forsee any
changes happening to how the game is set up, run, played, etc,
that have anything to do with the subtle, secondary effects of
any PRS for years if not longer.
IF the business increases like projected due to the movie this
year, changes may be forced upon the company due to the sheer
weight of the market. I personally think that the PRS is in
it's own small way, merely one small step towards perparing for
a larger gaming population.
do you think it would make games hard to fill?
"so the DS have 10 veterans, and the free have 7
newbies and three open slots, maybe I'll wait for
the next game"
_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
