sm_069@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm confused. I'm a relative newcomer to the British company, having
played most of my Middle Earth with GSI out of Miami, Fl USA. What
is this player rating system? I haven't seen it, or know anything
about it. Is this something that we're doing already? Or is it
something that is coming down the pike?
It is something which has been proposed to replace the current Victory
Point system with a measure more accurately reflective of both technical
skill and less objective things such as team play and communications. A
tall order to be sure, but desired by many.
As long as we're on the topic, here's my $0.02 worth:
In previous discussions I mentioned that in some games such as Victory!
(which I mention mostly because I'm familiar with it) the victory points
are based on concrete things such as number of enemy forces destryoed,
territory gained, etc. In addition, each player is allowed to choose
from a list of optional goals such as destroy the most enemy ground
troops, have the highest treasury, or have the highest national morale
(sort of a global loyalty instead of the pop-center based we're used
to).
The current system of measuring VP's by the nation's primary resources
(population centers, characters, and troops) is not so bad IMHO; but the
measure of wealth, if used at all, should at least include the value of
other resources held. It's the nation Victory Conditions that seem to
be the real sticking point, since they appear to be fairly random and in
many cases encourage either backstabbing or at least non-cooperative
play.
Ergo, as seems to be the custom, I hereby propose my version of an
alternative:
First off, while nations should be given some running measure of how
they're doing, this should not be expressed as 'Victory Points' since
'victory' *anything* by definition belongs only to the victors, i.e.,
the winning team. If nothing else, this removes the annoying spectacle
of seeing an undeclared Neutral or enemy nation in the 'Top Three.'
Moreover, it focuses attention where it belongs - on what you're doing
right now.
Final Victory Point totals would be broken down into several categories;
overall total possible is 10,000 instead of the current 2500.
Mathophobes please bear with me - this is not as bad as it looks!
30% (3000 points) would be based on measures of national strength -
armed forces, population centers, and characters. Note that there is no
category for gold, since population centers are the basis for economic
power and the level of gold in the national treasury is not only
incomplete but redundant in reflecting this. Each category is worth
1000 points, with the highest nation [1] being arbitrarily set at 1000
and others valued on a percentage basis - IOW if your army is 80% the
strength of the highest nation you get 800 points. (As matters stand it
is possible for even slight differences in strength to put a nation
several places down the list giving a disproportionately low VP rating,
or less commonly a far weaker nation may be 'next' with relatively
little difference. The proposed measure allows a more direct evaluation
of relative strength.) Nations should get a rough (but not exact)
measure of how they are doing in each category as the game progresses,
e.g. 'Military advisors indicate that our armies are [the most powerful,
very strong, strong, above average, average, weak, very weak, puny,
pathetic] compared to those of our allies.' (Yes it's possible for all
nations to be at or above 'average'!) Lastly, measure of the 'strength'
of population centers should include some factor for the ability to
produce resources (both taxes and materials).
35% (3500) of the VP's would be based on achievements during the game
such as:
* Strength of enemy troops destroyed
* Value of enemy pop centers destroyed/captured
* Value of gold and resources produced
* Value of gold and resources sent to allies
* Number and/or strength of enemy characters killed
* Number of artifacts found/recovered/stolen
etc.
There would be 7 categories (not necessarily those mentioned), each
rated at 0 to 500 points as for the nation categories above. Again,
some sort of running total should be provided.
20% (2000 points) of final score would be based on nation victory
conditions at 400 points each; these would be all-or-nothing, either you
get the points or you don't. One of the Victory conditions should
reflect the nation's personality, goals etc. and be invariable from one
game to the next - for example Northern Gondor might seek to hold all 3
pop centers from 2924 to 3124, or the Corsairs might seek to own
Pelargir. In 2950, the Dunadan Rangers might want to keep Aragorn
alive, and the White Wizard definitely wants to find the One Ring - but
he has to keep it to get the points! The other 4 VC's should be chosen
by the player, based on what they hope to achieve. In addition to
familiar goals such as owning a particular pop center or gaining 10
additional artifacts, players could choose from such things as:
* Have the largest army (or most powerful armies) at games end
* Keep a particular character alive to the end of the game
* Make the highest total profit from selling products
* Ship the most gold and resources to allies
* Steal the most gold from enemies
* Have the greatest increase in [armies, pop centers, characters]
between game start and end - a good chance for weak nations to get some
extra points, as it's far easier for the Woodmen to double their
character points than it is for the Noldo
* Have the highest average pop center loyalty
In fact, one might allow players to design their own VC's so long as the
goal is measurable, attainable, and doesn't involve acting against
teammates - for example you cannot seek to hold an artifact that starts
with an allied nation.
5% (500) of VP total is based on achievement of various 'feats' or, if
you will, general Victory Conditions open to all nations. These would
be minor but satisfying or symbolic achievements such as destroying or
capturing an enemy capital, ownership of a strategic population center,
killing an enemy's leader (Nazgul, Elrond, Tarondor, Eoder, Saruman,
etc.), keeping your nation's leader (or all 8 starters) alive to game
end, or coup de grace (eliminate a nation by direct action such as
capturing the last MT or killing the last character). Each is worth a
set number of points with an overall cap of 500 - past a certain point
pulling off feats is just hogging the spotlight! Successfully
destroying the One Ring would be worth 500 points all by itself.
10% (1000 points) of final score would be based on vote by team members,
again on a sliding scale from 1000 (unanimous first place votes) to 0
(unanimous 'you suck' from your teammmates). Exactly how players would
vote is open to question, but it should be possible for everyone to get
a 'good' rating if the team is in fact well-knit and capable; rating
each separately from 1 to 10 would be the simplest way to do this, but
maybe a limit on the number of '9' or '10' ratings would be advisable.
[2] Here's the kicker: Losing alliances also get to rate their
teammates, and all players' ratings are listed separately in the game
report.
Scores could then be reported something like: [3]
Game 1650/27 Nation VP/Rank Player Rating
Top Nations: Noldo 7765/1
Northern Gondor 7542/2
Dunlendings 6232/3
Players:
John Doe Woodmen 4556/10 (775)
Jim Shue Northmen 5672/8 (780)
Ben Dover Eothraim 2336/12 (850) Nation Eliminated
Anne Other Arthedain 5784/7 (820)
Mike Hunt Cardolan 6104/4 (540)
Jim Shue Northern Gondor 7542/2 (860)
Ben Dover Southern Gondor 5996/5 (850)
Anne Other Dwarves 3225/11 (820) Nation Eliminated
Mike Hunt Sinda Elves 4783/9 (540) Nation Eliminated
John Doe Noldo Elves 7765/1 (775)
Oh My Witch King (820) Resigned
Golly Gee Dragon Lord (760) Nation Eliminated
G. Whiz Dog Lord (850) Nation Eliminated
Dat Hurtz Cloud Lord (670) Dropped
Oh My Blind Sorcerer (820) Resigned
Jack Koff Ice King (650) Nation Eliminated
Golly Gee Quiet Avenger (760) Resigned
Jack Koff Fire King (650) Nation Eliminated
G. Whiz Long Rider (850) Nation Eliminated
Dat Hurtz Dark Lieutenants (670) Dropped
Jim Shortz Corsairs (N) ( 0) Undeclared
I. Noshare Haradwaith (DS) (440) Nation Eliminated
York Hunt Dunlendings (FP) 6232/3 (450)
Kid Ding Rhudaur (FP) 5889/6 (790)
Ring Ding Easterlings (DS) (860) Resigned
Note that Dark Servants only have Player Ratings listed, while the sole
undeclared Corsairs get nada. (In Fourth Age games Neutrals are an
alliance unto themselves and could rate each other.)
A cursory glance at the above standings would indicate, for example,
that Kid Ding got both a respectable score for Rhudaur and good ratings
by teammates, whereas the Hunts (brothers perhaps?) may have made
respectable scores but did not exactly endear themselves to their
teammates. Anne gets good marks for team play despite losing a nation.
Over time individual players could develop a history that looks like
this:
John Doe
1650/27 Woodmen 4556/10 (775)
Noldo Elves 7765/1
1650/36 Northern Gondor 4532/8 (750) Nation Eliminated
1650/47 Witch King 8996/1 (890)
1650/89 Haradwaith (DS) 5666/4 (810)
2950/22 Rhun (FP) 6704/3 (790)
2950/76 Corsairs - Undeclared, no points
1000/15 Buggles (N) 4550/5 (780)
1000/29 Wrecking Crew (DS) (830)
Well, that ended up being a lot longer than I planned, but IMHO it's not
as complicated as it looks, and requires no changes in the essential
game mechanics - however it would require a little extra code and some
more work for the GMs so maybe not very feasible.
OK, fire away...
-ED \1/
[1] Whether the index is the highest on the winning team or the highest
overall is a point of legitimate debate.
[2] This is simply an overall rating; one could have separate ratings
for skill and team play, the former being used to 'match up' players on
similar ability to keep newbies from getting steamrollered. I submit
that a separate skill rating is unnecessary since it is easy enough to
just match players by how many games they've been in - ex. 0-5 'Newbie,'
6-15 'Veteran,' 16-30 'Master,' 30+ 'Grand Master.'
[3] Disclaimer: Stats are for illustrative purposes only. Any
resemblance to actual players, scores, or games is purely coincidental.
