Player Ranking

mepbmlist
#1

I view the player ranking systems proposed with mixed emotions.

From the game balance point--I see it as good as it will make the
critical nations stonger, nothing is worse than a non-talkative, new
player as North Gondor or the Witch King.

But, from the player choice and enjoyment point--this would mean that
some communicating players that aren't as good(?) as some of the old
salts would have no chance to get the powerful character nations,
such as the Noldo and Cloud Lord. Now, how is any new strategies
going to get made if the same people play the same nations over and
over again? How long will some have to play the same "safe" nations
before their ranking gets high enough to play the "important" ones?
Don't you feel that some brand new players will quit before being
subject to this for any length of time?

Now since I've posted my view on the ranking system, I'll post my
recommendation:

By all means I will support a player ranking system if it is used to
balance out the games, but not to disallow someone (other than a
brand spanking new player playing in their first or second game) from
playing a particular nation. The ranking system should have
(starting now):

1. Number games started--1 point for each game.

2. Number games finished--1 point for each game.

3. Number games finished on winning team--1 point for each game.

4. At game end players would fill out a ranking sheet (a sheet sent
by Harley with their last turn) with the remaining teammates ranking
them from best to worst in categories of: team play, communications,
and strategy. Best in each category would get 15 points (I chose 15
in case all five neutrals join one side and all ten starting players
are still in at game end) and the last would get one point.

I know this has been long winded, but I feel if we regulate too much,
more players won't play as much.

Scott
(not one of the old salts, but someone who plays allot and
communicates with team mates even more)

#2

I would add to that:
3.5: Number of games dropped by player prior to turn 10: -1 point for each. It's the
early/frivolous droppers that ruin a lot of games.

Also, 15 points seems a bit high of a spread, (in my opinion, anyway). Perhaps just
say +3 points for #1, +2 points for #2 & 3, and +1 point for #4 & 5. Everyone else
simply gets the 3 points for starting, finishing, and winning the game.

Mike

···

On Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:20 AM, Scott wrote:

playing a particular nation. The ranking system should have
(starting now):
1. Number games started--1 point for each game.
2. Number games finished--1 point for each game.
3. Number games finished on winning team--1 point for each game.
4. At game end players would fill out a ranking sheet (a sheet sent
by Harley with their last turn) with the remaining teammates ranking
them from best to worst in categories of: team play, communications,
and strategy. Best in each category would get 15 points (I chose 15
in case all five neutrals join one side and all ten starting players
are still in at game end) and the last would get one point.

#3

Player Ranking Concerns:

1-In will actually alter play and teamwork because people will
be trying to increase their rankings.

Oh I've always hated this argument! If your TEAM doesn't win,
you don't get the old GWC's, you don't get recognized for all
your VP's, and you DON'T INCREASE YOUR RANKINGS! Since you
aren't getting scored on gold, pops, etc, but on TEAM VICTORY,
then it would actually PROMOTE GOOD TEAM PLAY compared to the
current VP's, which mind you, I am playing games where people
still seem to care about...ARGH!

2-Make it an Voluntary Opt-In system.

One: If 1/3 of the players actually DID, regardless of the
opinions of the others, I would consider it a drastic success.
Useless and no fun, but bloody successful considering the level
of participation for anything other than sending in orders....

3-Asking players to Vote, or send in forms before/during/after
games, etc.

See argument regarding number 2. It won't happen. It just won't.
Hey, I'd send mine in, you might send in yours. I vote for you,
you vote for some other guy, nobody else bothers, what's the point?

Frankly, the only way that any PRS would work is if it was
universally imposed by the company. Join a chess or bridge or
whatever else league, etc, you get scored, ranked, standings, etc.
Why should this be different? Because you pay to play? You pay
to play those too!

There is more overall consensus support for the concept of having
this kind of ranking system than not, as far as I have been able
to tell over the last year. There is also more reason to believe
that it would only improve the game's marketting as an entertainment
option, especially with the expected wave of new LoTR popularity
coming this year.... Spruce it up, etc.

Frankly, the biggest arguments I would have some empathy with are
from the vet's who would be a little ticked that all their
excellent play over the last million years wouldn't be recognized.
But really....

Regards,

Brad Brunet

···

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

#4

--- In mepbmlist@y..., sm_069@y... wrote:

I view the player ranking systems proposed with mixed emotions.

From the game balance point--I see it as good as it will make the
critical nations stonger, nothing is worse than a non-talkative, new
player as North Gondor or the Witch King.

But, from the player choice and enjoyment point--this would mean

that

some communicating players that aren't as good(?) as some of the old
salts would have no chance to get the powerful character nations,
such as the Noldo and Cloud Lord. Now, how is any new strategies
going to get made if the same people play the same nations over and
over again? How long will some have to play the same "safe" nations
before their ranking gets high enough to play the "important" ones?

Don't you feel that some brand new players will quit before being
subject to this for any length of time?

Good point - which is why, after some thought, I would prefer *not* to
return to the "game winners certs get first pick system."
This is why I'm interested in a handicap system, where people get
points on one scale for team performance (as you discuss) and on
another scale for nation performance *relative to other people who
have played the same nation.* Because Noldo players historically get
high scores, you would improve your rating more by doing well with,
say, the Woodmen than with the Noldo. I give this as an example of
how a creative scoring system could encourage things that we'd like -
such as having talented vets picking tough but important nations and
trying out new strategies...

cheers,

Marc

···

Scott
(not one of the old salts, but someone who plays allot and
communicates with team mates even more)