new ratings

mepbmlist
#1

Far far too complex still. The more complex a system is, the fewer players will participate.

Take the Council of the Wise:
Why oh why do you want a vote for best individual player? It's a TEAM game. The ONLY thing that matters is the TEAM win not any individual's ego trip.

And why on earth 100 points divided between the best 5 players? In most sports there are 3 awards: 1st gold, 2nd silver and 3rd bronze.

Personally I advocate each player casting just ONE vote for the player he considers to have made the best contribution to the TEAM.

But if you must have points, give each player 5 points to divide between the top 3, maximum.

I still think it is just as important to cast a vote (or 3 if you must) for the opposition. The point has been made, and perhaps overstated, that a group of players can rig the votes for their own team. You can NOT rig the votes for the opposition nations if you don't know who's playing them! Therefore a vote for the opposition is impartial and should, if anything, carry MORE weight than a vote for one of your own team.

Richard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

Take the Council of the Wise:
Why oh why do you want a vote for best individual player? It's a TEAM game. The ONLY thing that matters is the TEAM win not any individual's ego trip.

*** Because other players enjoy this aspect as well. Hence it is valued by some players. I am not just representing your viewpoint here I am representing others as well.

And why on earth 100 points divided between the best 5 players? In most sports there are 3 awards: 1st gold, 2nd silver and 3rd bronze.

*** Why not? 100 points allocated allows a variety of voting methods. Eg I think that the "best" player 1 played excellently and so I give him 50 of my points. In a different game a different "best" wasn't as good but still well worth a 40 points. Not only does it indicate who you think is the best, but by how much. Simple.

I still think it is just as important to cast a vote (or 3 if you must) for the opposition. The point has been made, and perhaps overstated, that a group of players can rig the votes for their own team. You can NOT rig the votes for the opposition nations if you don't know who's playing them! Therefore a vote for the opposition is impartial and should, if anything, carry MORE weight than a vote for one of your own team.

*** I don't think the voting for opposition is a particularly valid vote. Clearly the WK and Arth will know about each other but might not interact with any other nation in the game as far as the WK is concerned.

Clint

#3

Take the Council of the Wise:

  >Why oh why do you want a vote for best individual player? It's a TEAM
  >game. The ONLY thing that matters is the TEAM win not any individual's
  >ego trip.

  *** Because other players enjoy this aspect as well. Hence it is valued by
  some players. I am not just representing your viewpoint here I am
  representing others as well.

  >And why on earth 100 points divided between the best 5 players? In most
  >sports there are 3 awards: 1st gold, 2nd silver and 3rd bronze.

  *** Why not? 100 points allocated allows a variety of voting methods. Eg
  I think that the "best" player 1 played excellently and so I give him 50 of
  my points. In a different game a different "best" wasn't as good but still
  well worth a 40 points. Not only does it indicate who you think is the
  best, but by how much. Simple.

  >I still think it is just as important to cast a vote (or 3 if you must)
  >for the opposition. The point has been made, and perhaps overstated, that
  >a group of players can rig the votes for their own team. You can NOT rig
  >the votes for the opposition nations if you don't know who's playing
  >them! Therefore a vote for the opposition is impartial and should, if
  >anything, carry MORE weight than a vote for one of your own team.

  *** I don't think the voting for opposition is a particularly valid
  vote. Clearly the WK and Arth will know about each other but might not
  interact with any other nation in the game as far as the WK is concerned.

  Clint

  RD: Well pardon me for stating my point of view.
  As you've obviously made your mind up, why are you putting it up for discussion?

  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] new ratings

#4

RD: Well pardon me for stating my point of view.
As you've obviously made your mind up, why are you putting
it up for discussion?

Richard.

Hmmm... Obviously another case of someone reading some sort of insult
into an E-Mail where none apparently exists (unless I'm missing
something here). I can't see where Clint is insulting you, or where he
says he doesn't want your input. He simply answered your E-Mail with his
point of view. (In fact, you actually asked him twice WHY he was or was
not doing something a certain way, which he answered.) Simply asking for
suggestions doesn't mean you will follow each and every one. In fact,
that would be impossible, given the conflicting viewpoints on this list.

This just highlights the difficulties with the written word in that you
can't get a feel for what someone's "tone" is, and might take something
the wrong way. While I can't say for certain what Clint's intentions
were, and I suppose Clint could have meant to be insulting or
stand-offish regarding your suggestions, I haven't seen evidence of this
in any of his other E-Mails, so I would assume his "tone" wasn't
condescending.

Still, I guess that a person might feel more put-off if it were their
suggestion being turned down than if they were completely unattached to
the subject. I suppose it's just human nature.

Mike Mulka

#5

  RD: Well pardon me for stating my point of view.

** Sorry that was not my point. I was attempting to put forward what has mostly been your and Laurence's, and a few others support, opinion to have a Voting scheme despite my reservations and the validity of this system. I don't agree with your comment that it is too complex - I think it is simple and in that point we do differ. With 100 (or 10 votes) I can just tally them up as a modifier for their score. Voting for best player - on what criteria is this to be done? The danger there is that players will all have different criteria by which they vote. Hence I am trying to advise players on what criteria they might want to consider voting for people.

It's not as simple as clearly player 5 is the best player from my experience of having done some of this before.

>And why on earth 100 points divided between the best 5 players? In most
>sports there are 3 awards: 1st gold, 2nd silver and 3rd bronze.
*** Why not? 100 points allocated allows a variety of voting methods. Eg
I think that the "best" player 1 played excellently and so I give him 50 of
my points. In a different game a different "best" wasn't as good but still
well worth a 40 points. Not only does it indicate who you think is the
best, but by how much. Simple.

*** I have answered your opinion here and gave an example. The "Why not?" was simply that - why not use this system? It's quite simple to use.

  As you've obviously made your mind up, why are you putting it up for discussion?

*** For input to hone it to a finished article and see if I have missed something. Committee defining of this would not work... Sorry if I offended you - not my intention just debating.

Clint