More PRS

mepbmlist
#1

CLINT I will rephrase that. What are you proposing to use the PRS for? What
I think has got people worked up and contributing to the board is the
suggestion that it be used in some way to 'reward' players and assign
positions. Is this what you are proposing? If not, we can scrap half the
discussion straight off.

If on the other hand it will be used for nothing other than parading ego's
(Not necessarily a bad thing, got a fine specimen myself!) it is still
poison but not deadly.

You say there is a demand for it. There certainly is amongst some players
but equally not amongst others. It is interesting that as the reality rather
than discussion looms there is increasing resistance. Perhaps that may be
because a majority like things as they are and only bother to contribute to
the list when they see, in my opinion and irrespective of the proposers
motive, gratuitous change.

And change it is, whatever system is chosen. So far all the proponents of a
system I have seen, have argued that it will either prevent drop outs,
balance the game or keep new players in. How, if there is no change, will it
do this? The reality is that players will adapt their play to enhance their
PRS ranking (Clint has said that he favours using the current VP system as
part of it,before someone informs me the arguement has evolved beyond
it)which, good or bad, will change the way some play the game. Add to this
'I'm ranked no3 your and your ranked 23,721 so shut up and do what I tell
you' syndrome! 'Change, change, change' as the song goes.

There are of course some disadvantages you may not have considered. Any
system of ratings has winners and losers and if you are one of the losers
eternally stranded at the bottom of the ranking perhaps you might just
decide to slope off rather than have unending public humiliation, however
much you enjoy playing the game. Of course MEPBM can afford to drive people
away. How many will join because of a shiny PRS. 'It was because I wanted to
be part of a league that I spend all this money'.

Slightly off PRS, but why, if the current VP system does not work as some
suggest, is it that the same people often win games and these are usually
strong team players?

Regards
Chris Courtiour

#2

CLINT I will rephrase that. What are you proposing to use the PRS for? What
I think has got people worked up and contributing to the board is the
suggestion that it be used in some way to 'reward' players and assign
positions. Is this what you are proposing? If not, we can scrap half the
discussion straight off.

Chis, you seem disproportionately anxious about all this. As far as I understood, there was only one writer who proposed using a PRS to assign positions, and only one other who really seemed to respond positively to it.

And change it is, whatever system is chosen. So far all the proponents of a
system I have seen, have argued that it will either prevent drop outs,
balance the game or keep new players in. How, if there is no change, will it
do this?

No, it certainly is a proposal for change. But if it's done well, and calmly it doesn't have to be the "gratuitous" change that you fear.

The reality is that players will adapt their play to enhance their
PRS ranking (Clint has said that he favours using the current VP system as
part of it,

Er no. IF the current VP system was part of a single ranking formula, THEN players would play more selfishly. Since most of the proponents for a PRS want it to increase team play. The very concept _came_out_of_ dissatisfaction with the current VP system. A small minority do actually like the VPs, but a VP tally can easily run alongside a list of how many times players have been on winning teams. I hope you've seen my table proposal - it's an attempt to find a format that would have something for lots of different player types.

  Add to this

'I'm ranked no3 your and your ranked 23,721 so shut up and do what I tell
you' syndrome! 'Change, change, change' as the song goes.
Any
system of ratings has winners and losers and if you are one of the losers
eternally stranded at the bottom of the ranking perhaps you might just
decide to slope off rather than have unending public humiliation, however
much you enjoy playing the game.

Look, if I joined a chess club, there'd be a chess ladder, and I know jolly well where I'd start. But I also know that I'd get a buzz out of it if I ever ascended to the second from bottom place. I don't know many players who'd say "I'm ranked 23,721... so shut up...", most players are (despite the paranoia about getting "shouted down" recently) kind and supportive to less experienced team mates. BUT I accept that there may be people who were shy, and that's why I have argued that there must be at least an option to opt out. The table suggestion also should go some way to assuage these fears. An offensive player ranked no 3 in VPs is soon going to see the figure in his "votes" column go down. A team spirited player will see his "team games won" figure go up and won't give a monkey's about his VP column. A "games played" column even enables the newbie who wins his first game, 1 out of 1 = 100% to claim superiority over the veteran with 14 out of 20 wins, if he needs a little massage to his ego. Update the table every month, and every player trying his best, is going to see improvement in some field.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 11:54 AM 29-10-01, Chris Courtiour wrote:

#3

CLINT I will rephrase that. What are you proposing to use the PRS for?

*** That's what we are discussing. No easy answer to this one.

What
I think has got people worked up and contributing to the board is the
suggestion that it be used in some way to 'reward' players and assign
positions. Is this what you are proposing? If not, we can scrap half the
discussion straight off.

** I am not particularly interested in using it as a GWC spin off.

You say there is a demand for it. There certainly is amongst some players
but equally not amongst others. It is interesting that as the reality

rather

than discussion looms there is increasing resistance. Perhaps that may be
because a majority like things as they are and only bother to contribute

to

the list when they see, in my opinion and irrespective of the proposers
motive, gratuitous change.

Okay out of the players who have expressed a preference there is a desire
for an updated VCs or PRS system. I am trying to reflect that.

And change it is, whatever system is chosen. So far all the proponents of

a

system I have seen, have argued that it will either prevent drop outs,
balance the game or keep new players in. How, if there is no change, will

it

do this?

*** I am not convinced it will do this but it might be an interesting
exercise non-the-less.

The reality is that players will adapt their play to enhance their
PRS ranking (Clint has said that he favours using the current VP system as
part of it,before someone informs me the arguement has evolved beyond
it)which, good or bad, will change the way some play the game. Add to this
'I'm ranked no3 your and your ranked 23,721 so shut up and do what I tell
you' syndrome! 'Change, change, change' as the song goes.

*** Players like to see their rating. It's something to brag about and just
enjoy. Also a good way to invent reasons for Grudge games or uneven games
(Tally up ratings and allocate nations accordingly 10vs 9 games could then
be an option based on this; note they are an option already).

There are of course some disadvantages you may not have considered. Any
system of ratings has winners and losers and if you are one of the losers
eternally stranded at the bottom of the ranking perhaps you might just
decide to slope off rather than have unending public humiliation, however
much you enjoy playing the game.

*** I am basing this somewhat on my experience with ratings in MtG and
seeing players who know they are not as good/bothered as others. Let's try
it and see. If it's BAD then we stop it, if its' mediocre then no real
loss.

Slightly off PRS, but why, if the current VP system does not work as some
suggest, is it that the same people often win games and these are usually
strong team players?

And vice-versa - I can point out many examples where the team won, and the
individual player who most contributed to that win was someone with a very
low VP total.

Clint

#4

Could you elaborate? How to the MtG ratings work?

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 06:43 PM 29-10-01, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

*** I am basing this somewhat on my experience with ratings in MtG and
seeing players who know they are not as good/bothered as others.

#5

When you play against an opponent you have a rating. If you are higher
rated than the opponent then you get Less points for a victory and lose more
points for a loss. Vice versa you gain more points (than norm of say 20
pts) if you take the scalp of a better player (rankwise) than you and lose
less pts if you lose.

So there are reasons then for playing against a team/opponent that you are
"outclassed" by. Made it very competitive.

Clint

···

>*** I am basing this somewhat on my experience with ratings in MtG and
>seeing players who know they are not as good/bothered as others.

Could you elaborate? How to the MtG ratings work?

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/