ME Player ranking system

mepbmlist
#1

I would also like to see player ranking system, one that is qualitative and
subjective. Let there be a vote at the end of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., best
skilled player by the players in the game.

I would also have some ranking based upon actual winning position at the end.
1st place goes to the player with the highest points on the winning side,
and then 2nd thru whatever goes by point total. Maybe 10 points for winning,
7 for second, 5 for third, 3 for 4th thru 10th, 2 for 11th thru 20th, 1 fro
21 - 25, 2 points for being on the winning side, 2 points for finishing the
game alive. This is just an rating sytem to run up the flagpole to give an
idea, I'm sure others can come up with better ideas.

This would give players a chance to look at the player list and see who is
most effective at winning, and who is most appreciated and admired by his
peers. Wonder if the rankings would match?

Mark Ferris

#2

--- In mepbmlist@y..., ferrismk@c... wrote:

This would give players a chance to look at the player list and
see who is most effective at winning, and who is most appreciated
and admired by his peers. Wonder if the rankings would match?

I'd rather not see such a list, simply because it be wrong IMHO. It
would show who is good at picking the easiest nations and scoring alot
as the Noldo or Dark Lts. It doesn't reward people who enjoy playing
the more challenging positions who never finish in the top5, like
Eothraim and woodmen.

Those nations are extremely vital to the success of their nation,
espesially if played skillfull, but yet never rank high on the points.