Just try it!
People are wary of changes, even ones they come to
like. Only one way to know for sure.
Dan N
···
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
I don't have to put a bullet through my brain to know
it is a bad idea.
These ratings are a very bad idea. They will create,
backstabbing and bad play. They will create a list of
crappy players, and call them the best. It will cause
some people to be very selective about games and
nations they'll play.
And, Eru forbid, some people do start playing more
games just to get a higher ranking, and the profit
goes up, this "Just try it" will become as perminant
as a bullet to the brain. If it makes money, we'll be
stuck with it forever.
So, I will fight this VERY bad idea every step of the
way. IF it is implimented, I will do everything I can
to make it go very poorly.
This is a horrid idea. The absolute worst idea I've
heard.
Things are fine. Why risk screwing it up? And, that
risk is HUGE.
Darrell Shimel
···
--- D N <nanooknw@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just try it!
People are wary of changes, even ones they come to
like. Only one way to know for sure.Dan N
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
These ratings are a very bad idea. They will create,
backstabbing and bad play. They will create a list of
crappy players, and call them the best. It will cause
some people to be very selective about games and
nations they'll play.
Okay who is going to do this? If anyone on the list will be doing this then please respond to me (off list if you want to).
Things are fine. Why risk screwing it up? And, that
risk is HUGE.
The majority of the players are happy to give it a go. I have only 2 players complain, and one not for the impact of the game. Out of 700 players that's not a lot.
Clint
I will give them a go... But since I am such a bad player (or seem to
attract the wrong type of teammates sometimes <sigh>) I will be happy if I
am not in the bottom 5! At least I should get easier games that way <grin>.
Thomas
In Gunboat at the moment.. Lots of Gunboat
Okay, count me among those who would prefer for no ratings.
I have some experience with this from a different standpoint. I am
responsible for an astronomical observing program with five different
observers. The objects we observe are of varying degree of difficulty.
If we were to give any sort of "success rate" to the observers there
would be a dis-incentive to observe the difficult objects.
I'm afraid that a rating system will encourage play that will result
in high ratings rather than good games. The most positive thing I can
say about the ratings is that, there are so many it will be difficult
to manipulate them all simultaneously.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe for something people pay for they will be a
greater incentive to play well than to play for high score.
I'll gladly participate. I just see a danger for possible manipulation
and bad play, and would encourage you to look out for it and be
willing to abandon player ratings if you see these sorts of things
occuring.
Brian
···
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:
The majority of the players are happy to give it a go. I have only 2
players complain, and one not for the impact of the game. Out of 700
players that's not a lot.Clint
I highly suspect that many of the newer detractors of the PRS weren't aware
of the debates when the originated. What's missing from the description
email sent out recently is "the maths". All the ratings take into account
things like the average rating of all players on each side, and ratings ONLY
go up if your team wins. Am I wrong in this Clint? This is the one thing I
took from the formulas as they were presented originally.
That's a point worth repeating, so I shall:
Your "rating" or "score" ONLY increase if your TEAM wins.
Do strange things happen? Yes
Are everyone's motivations different? Yes
The PRS won't change that. I see bad, miserable, selfish, petty,
vindictive, selfish, and yes, even VC and VP play to this day. A simple
calculation (apologies to Laurence...
who's results are speculatively
published with a cute title on a web site won't cause some sort of manic
behavioural shift. I think we should all just chill.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
I don`t mind participating in the PRS. To begin with it might be
interesting, but i`m sure it won`t change how i play the game. It
might give me more material to taunt my opponents [or team-mates]
with though I cannot tell you what any of my game objectives are
in any of the games i am in. They are irrelevant to how i play. I
also believe that someone who plays selfishly to "get a better score"
will not find favour with his team-mates, without whom it is pretty
hard to win a game!
david murray
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Mason" <elentirmo@m...>
wrote:
Okay, count me among those who would prefer for no ratings.
I have some experience with this from a different standpoint. I am
responsible for an astronomical observing program with five
different
observers. The objects we observe are of varying degree of
difficulty.
If we were to give any sort of "success rate" to the observers there
would be a dis-incentive to observe the difficult objects.I'm afraid that a rating system will encourage play that will result
in high ratings rather than good games. The most positive thing I
can
say about the ratings is that, there are so many it will be
difficult
to manipulate them all simultaneously.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe for something people pay for they will be a
greater incentive to play well than to play for high score.I'll gladly participate. I just see a danger for possible
manipulation
and bad play, and would encourage you to look out for it and be
willing to abandon player ratings if you see these sorts of things
occuring.Brian
> The majority of the players are happy to give it a go. I have
only 2
> players complain, and one not for the impact of the game. Out of
700
···
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:
> players that's not a lot.
>
> Clint
Your "rating" or "score" ONLY increase if your TEAM
wins.
Back in the GWC days, it was Nearly impossible to win
unless your team won.. Okay, it was possible for your
team to drop, and you had a high score, and could win.
However, it is hard to keep the enemey off you when
they've taken your team down to the point where they
quit.
The "norm" back in the days of GWCs was to play "as a
team" until it was clear you were winning. You
know.... As the FP, you've kicked the WK out of the
North, taken DrgLrd out of Mirkwood, have massive
numbers of WMs on Morannon, gotten the bulk of the
neutrals on your side or out of the game.....
It is clear you are going to win... It is just a
matter of time. This is the point when assassins
become gold theifs. Why risk them to enemy assassins
when they could be stealing gold from out of the way
VIs? Emissaries are sent home to ImprPop instead of
in enemy pops doing InfOthrs. Why risk them to the
enemy when you can get even MORE points from a
Improving your towns to cities. Armies march a little
slower. Why be the first to throw your troops away?
You sell your goods to up your treasury instead of
shipping them to an ally. Your commanders are
training troops in fed armies at you pops.
Then, the team sees one nation being OVERLY
non-aggressive. They get pissed, and turn on him.
Character war....
It happened. It will happen again.
I see no reason to have a rating system except to
encourage people to get good scores. Anyone
interested in a high score will figure out that the
way to get a high score is to play timidly in the end
game. Teammates will be upset by people that try
harder than them.
I've already seen more than one set of teammates come
to harsh words over the benifits of tax 39% vs. tax
60%. And that was when the only thing at stake was
long-term financials were being traded for short-term.
What if one player suspected the person wanted their
taxes at 39% just to get a good score at the end of
the game....
The player rating system rewards bad team play. It
doesn't measure how many enemy you killed, how many
pops you burned to the ground, how many supply
shipments you sent to allies, how many characters you
identified with ScoChar, how many artifacts you
tracked with LAT......
THE ONLY ranking that shows anything is a simple count
of:
Positions started.
positions transferred to.
Positions picked up.
Positions dropped (prior to alliance total drop).
Positions transferred away.
Positions complete.
Positions won.
Winning % (won/complete).
Ranking = winning % * (started + transferred to + 2 x
picked up)/(1 + transferred + 2 x dropped)
Look, you get what you reward. If you reward bad
play, you'll get bad play. The VC based ranking
system rewards bad play. The XP one just rewards
spending the most money (why I think Clint REALLY
wants the ranking system). The voting one? Hell, I
have no idea which of my teammates in 234 to vote for.
They're all kicking butt.
The accounting system I've listed above will reward
winning and picking up dropped positions. It will
punish them for drops or transfers.
Let's assume I've started 10 games, 8 are complete and
I won 6 of those. I've never picked up, dropped or
transferred. Great. My winning % is 75%. Multiply
that by (10 + 0) / ( 1 + 0 + 0) = 10, for a ranking of
750.
Now, let's say I drop one of the two games I'm in.
10/(1 + 2) = 3. My ranking drops from 750 to 225.
Had I transferred the position to an ally, my ranking
would have only dropped to 375. I can get the
multiplier back up by starting more games or picking
up dropped positions, but I'll have to play A LOT of
games to make up for that one drop.
This VERY simple ranking system rewards winning and
picking up dropped positions. The things we should
reward. It punishes losses, drops and transfers. The
things we should punish.
And, the best for Clint, it rewards the number of
positions played. It still encourages people to spend
more money in an attempt to get higher rankings. A
person can increase their ranking by starting a game,
getting a position transfered to them, or double gain
from picking up a dropped position.
The only things this system does not reward is selfish
play, backstabbing allies, selection of positions
based on how well you can score with them, dropping
games at the first sign of trouble, and a host of
other things that make you a bad player.
Darrell Shimel
···
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools