The Valar rating gives you less points reward if you win a game with a
'better' side. Either a side full of good players, or a side with lots of
neutrals.
But under the original proposal, a newbie has the same ranking as an expereince player that is 2 of 4 vs. other equally skilled opposition. A group of newbies could stomp another group of newbies in their first game, and suddnely be more skilled that team of 7-year veterans that went 2 of 4 against another team of veterans.
What the system really encourages is lots of little victories against weaker opponents. By dominating a weaker team, your sure of getting at least a small boost. By playing an equally matched team, you are 50-50 of getting a boost or an equally sized drop.
If you win a game with 14 nations beating 11, you earn just about 0 VPs
If you win a game with 15 nations beating 10, you *lose* VPs
If you win a game with 11 brilliant players beating 14 new players, you'll
earn a moderate amount of points.If you win a game with 11 new players beating 14 brilliant players, you'll
earn a lot of VPs!
Only if those "brilliant players" have been going around stomping newbies. If they have won half their games against equal opponents, they have the same ranking (1500) as those newbies.
b.)
I also think that Clint can balance the teams in games by comparing the
player's ratings. That will lead to more fun.
Assumes the rankins are meaningfull beyond who was best at finding ways to scam the system for max points.
I truely doubt they will be.
Darrell
···
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp