This issue has aroused many opinions lately. The most
common consensus is to alter the Victory Point system
to more fairly reflect the struggles the leader of a
poorer nation must conquer in order to place, compared
to the more powerful nations, who coast to victory
regardless of play.
A vote has often been mentioned, MVP, so to speak. I
personally feel that democracy has its uses, but never
has it been able to discern any quantifiable and/or
objective conclusions. Besides, while I doubt that I
will ever personally win based on merit, I am in NO
DOUBT that I would NEVER win what amounts to a
popularity contest....
Here is my idea to guage the individual players success
relative to the nation:
(This is assuming that the information required would
be available, of course!)
Average the final Victory Points for each nation based
on final VP's for every game in which that nation was
active at game end. This is the info required.
Every nation would have its Mean Game End VP, and its
corresponding Standard Deviation. The nation that
excells the most in relation to it's own nations
historical results, wins!
FP Victory example, numbers are imaginary for
simplicity:
Noldo - MGE-VP - say, 1100 VP.
SD - say, 100
N-Men - MGE-VP - say, 675 VP
SD - say, 75
At game end, the Free Win, Noldo and Northmen are
active, the Noldo have 1350 Victory Points, the N-Men
have 900. The Northmen win! They have ended with
exactly (for simplicity!) 3 Standard Deviations greater
than their mean, Noldo only ended at 2.5 SD greater.
Well, comments, criticism?
Regards,
Brad Brunet
ps - oh yes, I'd be willing to put my money where my
mouth is. send the raw data, I'll gladly compile the
numbers required for all 25 nations!
···
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com