I titled this post in this manner because I think Message 7896 raises
some very interesting points. I do not agree with them in full; but
I believe it is a good starting point for a discussion.
I only plan to discuss the first point raised in Mr. Pinsonneault's
message; but first I would like to make a small aside.
I think that Mr. Courtiour made some fine points; but they were
diminished due to his posturing tone. I am sure there was no insult
intended to any players of ME; but we as a group must realize that
grandstanding and aggressive statements are better suited in
discussions involving two aggressive nations and not in a forum where
players are discussing their views on what is best for the game and
what might be best for the overall player base.
Now as I understand the first point raised in your message Mr.
Pinsonneault the idea is that the player rankings will give Harly the
information needed to balance experience levels in new starting games
making them evenly balanced and therefore better.
Now on a game by game basis I see little to disagree with here. It
is impossible to make a game with five variable neutrals balanced;
but your point is not that Harly is attempting to balance the game;
but to balance the aligned sides as best they can from a moderator
standpoint.
I think everyone wants a good, even hard fought game; but my concern
lies in the implementation of this system and how it affects to small
aspects of the game: Nation Choice and Quick Game Starts.
I say these aspects are small but that may not be quite right. A
moderator in a past post said that players overwhelmingly prefer to
play a nation of their choice and while I have no said moderator to
echo my thoughts on whether players would prefer to have their games
start as quick as positions can be filled, I can refer players to the
Message Board where there is a current thread for Game 90 in which
players are begging for positions to be filled so that the game can
start.
As I said my concern is that the player ranking system used in this
way would ask our player base to make a trade off: an empirically
balanced game at the expense of some players being able to choose a
nation they wish to play and for a slower start time while Harly
assembles the right statistical mix of players to guarentee the best
chance for game balance.
So I am curious as to the opposite view. I have not intended to
misrepresent your view and system and if I have let me offer my
apologies. Any comments are welcome from both Mr. Pinsonneault or
anyone else with a pro/con arguement concerning the player ranking
system.
Yes I would prefer it if players kept their language toned down as otherwise
I might have to take action. Some of the emotions are running a little high
at present.
(Something I would really hate to do.)
Either we
have rumbustious free speech or we have polite discourse with Clint
playing Thought Police and banning repeat offenders for increasing
periods of time.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., BRILLIANTINTELLECT@h... wrote:
I titled this post in this manner because I think Message 7896
raises
some very interesting points. I do not agree with them in full; but
I believe it is a good starting point for a discussion.
I only plan to discuss the first point raised in Mr. Pinsonneault's
message; but first I would like to make a small aside.
Now as I understand the first point raised in your message Mr.
Pinsonneault the idea is that the player rankings will give Harly
the
information needed to balance experience levels in new starting
games
making them evenly balanced and therefore better.
Now on a game by game basis I see little to disagree with here. It
is impossible to make a game with five variable neutrals balanced;
but your point is not that Harly is attempting to balance the game;
but to balance the aligned sides as best they can from a moderator
standpoint.
I think everyone wants a good, even hard fought game; but my concern
lies in the implementation of this system and how it affects to
small
aspects of the game: Nation Choice and Quick Game Starts.
As I said my concern is that the player ranking system used in this
way would ask our player base to make a trade off: an empirically
balanced game at the expense of some players being able to choose a
nation they wish to play and for a slower start time while Harly
assembles the right statistical mix of players to guarentee the best
chance for game balance.
So I am curious as to the opposite view. I have not intended to
misrepresent your view and system and if I have let me offer my
apologies. Any comments are welcome from both Mr. Pinsonneault or
anyone else with a pro/con arguement concerning the player ranking
system.
Thanks very much. I've retaining this text because it is on point.
I actually think that reserving a certain number of slots on each
allied side for folks with a minimum experience level would be a good
choice; it would likely have the side cost of delaying starts, but
with the reward of much better games. I belive that it is important
to have 2-3 people on each side who know the game mechanics, and have
been on successful teams in the past. It is less important - at least
to me - to have these folks in "plum" positions. The northmen can
coordinate team activities as well as the noldo can.
You could also make a case that you'd like to actively encourage vets
to pick *important* positions, which are not by any means the ones
that get high scores. Northern Gondor in 1650, or the Dragon Lord in
2950, would be examples. This would interfere more with the first
come/first served mode, and is therefore (at least for me) a harder
call...
