ME New Ratings

mepbmlist
#1

Player and Team Rating Tables

Here are my versions of what players have put forward as changes to the
rarting system. Please discuss and give feedback on what we can do to
change it (what changes you would make and what you would keep the same),
what you think of it (good or bad), what is unclear and needs improvement
and anything other feedback you think useful. We have in mind 6 ratings:
Valar, Maia, Istari, Ainur, Council of the Wise and Nazgul.

Istari - individual success, based on ability to score well for a particular
nation relative to how that nation is normally scored at the end of the
game. In addition we'll have an overall rating.
Council of the Wise - a player voting system. At the end of the game
players vote for their team-mates.
Nazgul - a rating of experience combined with Winning percentage.

Istari Rating

Victory Points refers to the final score of each player, not including those
gained through completion of individual victory conditions. Each scenario
will have ratings for the individual nation. So there will be a total of 25
from 1650, 25 from 2950, 3 from Fourth Age and 5 from Bofa. Fourth Age will
be for North Kingdom, South Kingdom and normal nation.

We'll show the top 10 ratings on the website and occasional Brees. This will
be presented under the title "Top nations".

In addition there will be an overall Istari rating.

VictPoints = Victory Points scored for that nation without Victory
conditions
AveRateNtn = Average rating of that Nation at game end.

New Istari Rating = Original Rating + (VictPoints - AveRateNtn)

With multiple nations you will alter your score multiple times for that
game.

Eg Your Istari rating is 1600. A 1650 game ends with you as the Woodmen
and the Northmen scoring 1050 and 1300 respectively. If the average ratings
of Woodmen before that was 1100 and Northmen 1150 then your new Istari
Rating would be:

Woodmen = 1600 + (1050 - 1100) = 1600 - 50 = 1550

Northmen with your new I Rating = 1550 + (1300 - 1150) = 1550 + 150 = 1700
So your new rating would be 1700.

Council of the Wise

At the end of each game players will be given the opportunity to vote for
their team-mates. Vote for players, that given their position's resources
and characteristics made the best use of that nation and best contribution
to the team.

You get to allocate 100 points amongst the best 5 players for each of the
two following ratings:
Best Individual Player (1,2,3,4,5):
Best Team Player (1,2,3,4,5):

Best Individual Player - voting advice: *******Needed*******
Best Team Player - voting advice: *******Needed*******

These are some of the ones that have been suggested as guidelines:
Co-ordination, data gathering and mapping, suggestions, overall tactics,
assistance to less experienced players, neutral wooing, error checking,
morale management, [skill at playing a nation, success with nation, small
scale tactics].

[ ] are what I consider Individual playing skills but I would like your
feedback.

Nazgul Rating

GamStTa = Games Started or Takenover
Games Completed
Nations dropped - we'll keep an appropriate record here of that. ******
Guidelines required.*******
GamWon = Number of Games won.

Nazgul rating = Winning% = GamWon / GamStTa

Eg if you had played 5 games and won 4 of them you would get a Nazgul
rating of 4/5 = 80%.

Multiple positions in games only count once. We would not include Bofa.

So if you can get back to me with some more bits and pieces that would be
great.

Thanks

Clint

#2

So I "can" allocate some amount of my 100 votes to "up to"
5 players on my team for Best Individual Player with the
total votes allocated not to exceed 100?

Then, I "can" allocate some amount of my 100 votes to
"up to" 5 players on my team for Best Team Player with the
total votes allocated not to exceed 100?

So, I can disperse 20 votes each to 5 guys for Best Ind. Plyr,
and give 50 votes each to 2 guys for Best Team Player?

Do these votes get applied to some sort of player database, so
the 1 vote my cousin gives me for Best Individual Player and
the 2 votes his wife gives me for Best Team Player are compiled
such that I have 1 and 2 votes respectively, or will they be
reflected in an "Average Votes Per Game" style?

Brad Brunet

···

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

You get to allocate 100 points amongst the best 5 players for each of
the
two following ratings:
Best Individual Player (1,2,3,4,5):
Best Team Player (1,2,3,4,5):

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#3

> You get to allocate 100 points amongst the best 5 players for each of
> the
> two following ratings:
> Best Individual Player (1,2,3,4,5):
> Best Team Player (1,2,3,4,5):

So I "can" allocate some amount of my 100 votes to "up to"
5 players on my team for Best Individual Player with the
total votes allocated not to exceed 100?

Yes that is what I am proposing, based on an amalgam of the systems of voting that have been offered.

Then, I "can" allocate some amount of my 100 votes to
"up to" 5 players on my team for Best Team Player with the
total votes allocated not to exceed 100?

Yes

So, I can disperse 20 votes each to 5 guys for Best Ind. Plyr,
and give 50 votes each to 2 guys for Best Team Player?

Yes

Do these votes get applied to some sort of player database, so
the 1 vote my cousin gives me for Best Individual Player and
the 2 votes his wife gives me for Best Team Player are compiled
such that I have 1 and 2 votes respectively, or will they be
reflected in an "Average Votes Per Game" style?

*** Average per game seems good. As this is not something I have put a lot of effort into as it's other peoples thoughts feedback off those on how to use it would be good.

Clint

#4

Clint,

I like what you've come up with so far. As far as the concern with more
ratings vs. less, this is probably a good thing. People can look at the
ratings that interest them, and ignore those that they feel aren't
important to them.

Best Individual Player - voting advice: *******Needed*******
Best Team Player - voting advice: *******Needed*******
These are some of the ones that have been suggested as guidelines:
Co-ordination, data gathering and mapping, suggestions,
overall tactics,
assistance to less experienced players, neutral wooing, error checking,
morale management, [skill at playing a nation, success with
nation, small
scale tactics].
[ ] are what I consider Individual playing skills but I would like your
feedback.

Are you saying that each of the categories would have a separate vote
score, or that people should consider these factors when voting? If the
latter, then go ahead and include anything relevant, since they're
really only examples of what to consider, rather than a concrete rule.

I would personally prefer the latter, as voting on so many things would
probably tend to put people off voting. I know that I throw away surveys
sent to me that are long, drawn-out affairs. I'd suggest keeping it
simple for the voting.

Thanks for all the effort you're putting into this. I know that many
people would like to try it.

Mike Mulka

#5

Are you saying that each of the categories would have a separate vote
score, or that people should consider these factors when voting?

*** That they should should consider these factors when voting. It's only a suggestion though.

If the
latter, then go ahead and include anything relevant, since they're
really only examples of what to consider, rather than a concrete rule.

*** Okay any other that should be added? I am specifically looking for individual but if there are some that could be added that would be useful.

I would personally prefer the latter, as voting on so many things would
probably tend to put people off voting. I know that I throw away surveys
sent to me that are long, drawn-out affairs. I'd suggest keeping it
simple for the voting.

*** It should then only be 2 votes for upto 5 people. Ie a maximum of 10 things to consider at most.

Thanks for all the effort you're putting into this. I know that many
people would like to try it.

*** Thanks

Clint

#6

Thanks to Richard, Laurence, Ken and others for some excellent feedback on the Council of the Wise rating. More very much welcome, and I hope I can incorporate it.

Clint

#7

Just throwing in my 2 danish ears worth (yes our smallest denomination
is an ear (literaly translated, that is)!).

I think it's a good idea with a general rating system - and I don't
have any preferences, but I think the Council of the Wise could work
really well if it was tweaked a bit.

I think 100 points is too much as it makes it too arbitrary when
trying to give out points. There will be a high potential for
"supporting" your friends with very high pointscores and a general
confusion on what a good score is.
Say you play in a game with one really good player and you give him 60
(or something) and the next game you play with 3 really good players
landing them each about 30 points - does that mean the first guy was
twice as good? Probably not!

I think something like 20 or 25 points would be better as you won't
get so big point variances for a good performance, which should help
it become a more useful rating.

More generally when it come to voting systems: Getting them to wote is
all about incentives and ease of use.
So the voting procedure should be easy and simple, not something you'd
need to use hours on and it should be easy to get back to you guys.
Preferably you'd want a ballot that can just be filled out and re-sent
to you in a minute or so; as the less job involved in voting the more
votes.

Some kind of incentive should be used as well, generally it's best if
it's a positive one like 2 free turns randomly distributed among the
ones that voted in each game - or a free startup for someone; whatever
you may think is appropriate without ruining you.
You could also force people to vote in order to get their last turn,
but I think that would produce a lot anger and trouble, because of
slow return of votes or holidays, etc. etc.

And remember - "People are dumber than average!" so to get success
with this system it has to be insanely easy (both to use and
understand) and an award will get a higher rate of returned votes.

Cheers
Mikkel Berget
Who likes a voting system as it encourages good play and involvment
from the players more than a computed rating does.

#8

So the voting procedure should be easy and simple, not something you'd
need to use hours on and it should be easy to get back to you guys.
Preferably you'd want a ballot that can just be filled out and re-sent
to you in a minute or so; as the less job involved in voting the more
votes.

*** Yes when I have created the final item with your feedback I can organise a form for everyone. It will then go out to everyone in the game when the game ends with a deadline to send it in by.

Some kind of incentive should be used as well, generally it's best if
it's a positive one like 2 free turns randomly distributed among the
ones that voted in each game - or a free startup for someone; whatever
you may think is appropriate without ruining you.

*** Who's going to pay for that? We can't afford to. The reward should be that you get to vote for someone you think worth it. I might consider a small prize for the best player.

You could also force people to vote in order to get their last turn,
but I think that would produce a lot anger and trouble, because of
slow return of votes or holidays, etc. etc.

*** Um I don't want to go there. A whole world of pain...

And remember - "People are dumber than average!" so to get success
with this system it has to be insanely easy (both to use and
understand) and an award will get a higher rate of returned votes.

*** I agree do you think my proposed system is too complex?

Thanks for the feedback Mikkel, what do you think I should then do with the ratings. Should it be
1) Tallied total of all the ratings for that player
2) Average total of that player's rating
3) Best 3 ratings?
4) Some other system I haven't thought of.

2) Seems a fine way at present. That would be their Council rating x3. (BIP,BTP, BEP).

Clint

#9

>And remember - "People are dumber than average!" so to get success
>with this system it has to be insanely easy (both to use and
>understand) and an award will get a higher rate of returned votes.

*** I agree do you think my proposed system is too complex?

Thanks for the feedback Mikkel, what do you think I should then do

with the

ratings. Should it be
1) Tallied total of all the ratings for that player
2) Average total of that player's rating
3) Best 3 ratings?
4) Some other system I haven't thought of.

2) Seems a fine way at present. That would be their Council rating
x3. (BIP,BTP, BEP).

Clint

Hi Clint

I don't think the system will be too complex at all, I am just
pointing out that in my experience, nothing kills a voting system like
complexity and lack of ease of use. But if all you have to do is type
in 5 or so numbers in a form, I think you are ok!

As for the actual rating an average total (number 2 above) seems most
fair especially if you can see how many games a player has played to
get his rating.

Any ideas as to how want to count the votes?
It occured to me that you need to calculate the average rating of the
votes cast in a game in order not to penalize players whose teammates,
for some reason, doesn't vote.
That rating then gets added to your total game rating and a new
average calculated - right?

As for voting for the opposition maybe that could work better if you
had less votes for them than for your own side - like 20 for your own
and 5 for the opposition, so that you are capable of influencing the
ratings of the other team only in a minor way, to indicate that you
can't really know which enemy was the best.

As for incentives - I know you don't have money to burn and I guess
it's worth seeing how many will participate in the voting system,
before trying to add some sort of incentive to gain higher
participation rates. I, for one, will participate no matter what...

Cheers
Mikkel Berget

#10

As for the actual rating an average total (number 2 above) seems most

fair especially if you can see how many games a player has played to
get his rating.

** That'll be in the Nazgul rating for you to cross reference. At present I could do with more feedback on that Rating.

Any ideas as to how want to count the votes?
It occured to me that you need to calculate the average rating of the
votes cast in a game in order not to penalize players whose teammates,
for some reason, doesn't vote.

** It depends on how we push it, how players push this system, how well received the PRS is and how much effort the players are prepared to put in to get the votes back. Okay I can imagine it working like this. We get 7 out of the 12 (for the one side) voting. With 100 votes per player allowed that's 1200 points who could have voted. We might get 6 of the players vote all 600 points and one player vote 50 points, having not been that inspired by his team-mates maybe? So we would have to normalise the rating given to the player's rating here by 1200/650 right?

As for voting for the opposition maybe that could work better if you
had less votes for them than for your own side - like 20 for your own
and 5 for the opposition, so that you are capable of influencing the
ratings of the other team only in a minor way, to indicate that you
can't really know which enemy was the best.

*** This would be a separate rating so I don't see it needs to be linked. With the 3 ratings it would be fine I think. Then on the website you would see then BIP, BTP and BEP as ratings.

As for incentives - I know you don't have money to burn and I guess
it's worth seeing how many will participate in the voting system,
before trying to add some sort of incentive to gain higher
participation rates. I, for one, will participate no matter what...

*** We'll see how it goes. Any other thoughts out there? This looks like it is coming together nicely.

Clint

#11

Hi Clint,

Council of the Wise

At the end of each game players will be given the opportunity to vote for
their team-mates. Vote for players, that given their position's resources
and characteristics made the best use of that nation and best contribution
to the team.

You get to allocate 100 points amongst the best 5 players for each of the
two following ratings:
Best Individual Player (1,2,3,4,5):
Best Team Player (1,2,3,4,5):

In my opinion, if you want to make this one really worthwhile (although heavy
on the number crunching), make the value of the vote dependent upon the
existing Council of the Wise rating of the player casting it.

So if I got a 20-point rating from an experienced player with a CoW rating of
1000, that might garner me 200 points, where as a 50-point rating from a
newbie with a CoW rating of 100 might only get me 50 points.

Earning the respect of those whose skill exceeds yours is far more tricky and
should be more rewarding in terms of ratings than impressing those are
naturally more easily impressed.

Maybe a decaying average too so you can't coast by on old victories for
ever...

OK, it's probably possible to set this up with a group of friends all voting
for each other to leapfrog up the ratings, but firstly I'd like to think that
we don't have anywhere near as many weenies playing as some people seem to
think, and secondly that it ought to be fairly easy to spot.

Just my two-penn'eth, anyway.

Regards,
Tim.

···

On Wednesday 30 October 2002 3:33 pm, you wrote:

#12

Um - starting to get complex. Thoughts on this?

Clint

···

In my opinion, if you want to make this one really worthwhile (although heavy
on the number crunching), make the value of the vote dependent upon the
existing Council of the Wise rating of the player casting it.

So if I got a 20-point rating from an experienced player with a CoW rating of
1000, that might garner me 200 points, where as a 50-point rating from a
newbie with a CoW rating of 100 might only get me 50 points.

#13

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

Um - starting to get complex. Thoughts on this?

It's getting complex on your end, though, not the player's end. That may or may not be a good thing. :wink:

The only problem I see with weighting the scores is, people might give points differently based on that.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#14

Telling a newer player (or one with a lower rating) that they're vote
isn't worth much will probably reduce the number of people bothering to
vote.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 6:07 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME New Ratings

Um - starting to get complex. Thoughts on this?

Clint

In my opinion, if you want to make this one really worthwhile

(although heavy

on the number crunching), make the value of the vote

dependent upon the

existing Council of the Wise rating of the player casting it.

So if I got a 20-point rating from an experienced player with

a CoW rating of

1000, that might garner me 200 points, where as a 50-point

rating from a

newbie with a CoW rating of 100 might only get me 50 points.

#15

That's possibly true - must admit, I'd not looked at it from that angle.

Regards,
Tim.

···

On Monday 04 November 2002 12:14 am, you wrote:

Telling a newer player (or one with a lower rating) that they're vote
isn't worth much will probably reduce the number of people bothering to
vote.

#16

Mike makes a good point. All votes should be of equal value.

Secondly, a word of caution on voting. Many people put forth that it
will be hard to get people to put in thier votes. Making the voting
system complex from the player aspect will probably lower the number
of people voting as well. I would say, keep it simple as possible.
I've played in other games that have tournament systems that use a
voting method and the more streamlined it is, the better for
everyone...

The last thing you want is someone saying...this is too hard..screw
it!<S>

Fletcher Brown

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Tim Franklin <tim@p...> wrote:

> Telling a newer player (or one with a lower rating) that they're

vote

> isn't worth much will probably reduce the number of people

bothering to

> vote.

That's possibly true - must admit, I'd not looked at it from that

angle.

···

On Monday 04 November 2002 12:14 am, you wrote:

Regards,
Tim.