Okay I have gone through the messages so far about the proposed rating system and will try to answer some of the questions and my thoughts (***) below: (Note I have not covered very recent discussions below in the most part).
My first question is exactly what are these ratings to be used for?
*** For fun, and also to get a rough feeling for the various strengths of individual players and teams. I think it will also add to the excitement of the game.
Just as a refresher, what would be the as of date of these ratings, meaning do they just start with new games, do they attempt to pick up old games, or games in progress?
*** We're not even sure that we want to implement this yet. Feedback has been mixed with a small vocal minority wondering about the system at all. I think that overall players are not a major fan of the Istari system though as it has a strong relation to the Victory Points but some players enjoy this aspect of the game and I would like to support them. I have yet to make a decision about this as I would lots more feedback before coming to a decision about what changes to make and what to add or remove from the overall concept (if we use it all). We have records for the last couple of years that are accurate. Before that reports and information is harder to come by so we'd probably aim at having just the information from this period (including current games).
What is the Istari system?
*** Istari - individual success, based on ability to place well at the end of the game. This follows GSI's Victory Points system, rewarding those who are not only on the winning team, but who have achieved their four goals (on the 1st page).
Does this involve VCs, or just gold/armies/PCs/etc?
*** This would include VCs as well (but only for the Istari). We could aim to have the original 4 only, without VCs, but they are not what normally defines who wins the game. Although there are negative aspects to having this we don't really have the right to change it and its how the game is sometimes played.
I think this should be counted, possibly by counting drops (as someone else suggested). Players should be punished for bailing on their team when a nation still has life. Players should also be rewarded for picking up difficult positions.
*** What do others think about this? We could come up with a system that works with this.
> Any games which start with less than 20 positions will count for less and so
> only earn 1/2 points. Each rating will also alter as time goes on to show a
Does that include games with 2 nations/player?
*** Not at present. Note nothing is written in stone (ie unchangeable) at present all up for discussion. Other players have offered other systems of scoring. (Mostly simpler to work out more like the Football where you get 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss). [Note I use the World wide name for Football meaning Soccer as it's more internationally known]. I would like feedback on that if possible.
Dr Deep checking in with the ratings question. I am not in favor of ratings as too much depends on the
team you inherit when you enlist yourself to a new game. You may not be able to perform to your best
ability due to a multitude of reasons not related to the game. So, in all, I think a ratings system is not
realistic to me. But I am sure there are those who will like the idea. Just my two cents worth.
*** Certainly true. One of the motivating factors for creating this system is that I am able to better balance games at game start. At present I just have to guesstimate teams when I create a game. This should help.
I don't really understand why your rating would degrade 2%. Chess ratings don't degrade.
*** We want to do this to show an active status of players. You might run up a high total and then leave the game for 4 years, but still be in the top slot. This will also reduce those embarassing losses that happen to all of us from time to time.
It's not and GWC's sucked. One game back then I was the Corsairs in a Grudge Game. I declared for Dark, destroyed SG and then sailed up to the Noldo and was attacking them. The DS team thought I had too many Victory Points and would get a GWC. So they convinced Harad to attack me to knock my point total down. The game itself was pretty much over, the FP were beaten. From that point on, I NEVER played a neutral again in a Grudge game. I told GSI NEVER AGAIN. Now you want to bring all this crap back to the game?
*** You are able to opt out of the scoring if you want. We're trying to offer this as a service for players (ie an additional piece of fun in the game) and to try and add some excitement to the game. No doubt this won't suit everyone but for those that it does then they should have more fun, and for the others I can see if having minimal or no impact on the way you play the game. Only the Istari rating (of the 4/5 suggested ratings) has a value which is related to VPs. Note players still play for the Victory Conditions in the game as technically it is still a part of the game.
I've heard lots of this type of story, but always in reference to "the past". The non-North American players claim that, because they never had GWC's, they play more of a team oriented game. I've never seen anything even remotely similar in my various games as a neutral
** We've not heard a lot of this but it has happened that some players attack others to gain the VC or reduce their VPs. Game 71 it recently happened so my opinion is that players will do it regardless of the game. Note Grudge games are to be defined as no-Neutrals or at least that is the what I propose to put to player opinion and debate.
I just wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with starting up the players rating system. Even if it isn't perfect to start with it should get better over time and it would add a bit of extra fun (not something to be taken too seriously, some of the comments on the MEPBM board suggest some people are taking it far too seriously already - we play the game because we enjoy it and I don't think this will change that dramatically).
*** That's the intention and overall I agree with this sentiment. No doubt to get a working system will need tweaking as time goes on.
If Richard's eyes "glazed over" when he read the mathematics of the proposed player ratings system, mine positively popped.
*** You don't need to do the maths. If you win you get points (45 + around 20ish for the Valar rating and similar quantities for the others) and if you lose you lose a similar amount of points. I use the present Ratings of players partially to equalise teams at game start, and to use as a factor in the determination of points allocated. (If you beat a better team/more players ie more highly rated than yours you deserve more points being the simple policy behind it).
We currently have the old VC points inherent to the software, which are almost universally disliked.
*** Yes my around 75%+ but I would estimate that the other 25%- like it or are tolerant of it.
The Valar and Maia ratings actually do reward team players a LOT more than the old VC point system. In fact, it seems that the only people who should be overly worried about the new ratings systems would be players like those you mentioned.
*** Yes that's one of the points we want to address and encourage as we think it makes a better (ie more enjoyable) game. Emphasising other aspects of the game over the negative of others is what we hope to achieve here.
We should keep the "World Chamionships" (or "Team Championships" - or, even better, BOTH), no matter what. The results "to date" should be included. A "challenge system" (or "ladder system" as seen in lower-level tennis competition) would allow for past results to be included on a basis that would not be unfair to those yet to "enter the fray." A new national team would know in advance that they have to start at the "bottom" of the ladder.
*** We'd like to revitalise the flagging World Championships either in the same format or in another format. Lots of debate on this one to organise yet especially with those actually playing in the WCs. I have been thinking of using the Ainur rating as the new Team Championships. Basically Ben's team has effectively won the game their only challenge left is the Aussies.
Any ratings system has got to weight nations somehow - obviously someone who does well as the Woodmen deserves more points than a player who wins with the Noldo on turn 16. Comparing Woodmen against Noldo or Dark Lts players is rather unfair - nations need to be compared with performances of other players running the same nation.
*** This is an interesting idea. Rating them on VPs is one method relative to how others have played that particular nation. More complex solutions to this are possible with ratings on various aspects of their play as that nation but I don't see how we can easily do this without a lot of player support.
The only ratings that I would truely be interested in, would be a private rating communicated at end of game that measured your performance vs the average of your position before you. So, I would be interested to know that as NG I eliminated 25000HI and 4 MTs, when the average was 20000 and the best was 35000, for example. This just as a gentle way of helping me gauge my performance....
*** Very hard to arrange but possible if players wanted it. We're presently working on aspects of the program at our end and might consider being able to take out lots of the information from this. (Bit of a pipe-dream at present but we've managed to pull off a lot more of those so far than expected). The other way would be for players to tally this up. PCs (captured/created), armies (destroyed/created), characters ( kill/kidnaps/challenges), money gifted/received, what other factors for actual game mechanics? Playerwise there would be other factors to involve, team-manship, hard work on collating information, diplomacy, helping out with turns that sort of thing might be factors to involve as well.
So in closing there is lot of debat on the subject which is what I was hoping for. We're happy for this to continue until I can get a feel for what is the correct course of action to take (even if that is no-action).
Thanks for all the hard work you have put in so far.
Clint
