Same old arguments against VP's PERIOD. Here's the same old counter: you play
like that, especially as a FP, you lose, you don't win, take your 2500 VPs to
who was that? right...mommy.... With a NEW way to measure that, it makes it
HARDER for the Noldo to do so, and EASIER, relatively speaking, for other nations
to actually have hope to compete. The average system DISCOURAGES #2....that's
the whole point.....
No, it doesn't discourage grasping for VPs, it encourages players to do it who arent in the top 4-5, while keeping the top 4-5 still doing it because they have to get still higher scores in order to be 3 standard deviations higher than the average player in their position.
The LAST thing the game needs is some elf player grasping for more VPs because he doesn't think 16-1700 points is a very good score for the Noldor Elves. If the victory appears certain enough, this system would actually encourage the strongest nations to crush weaker nations who seem to be ahead of the curve for their nation. I mean, dont the Eothraim, Woodmen and Northmen have enough to deal with without having to worry about an Emmy attack from their allies?
>
> Better might be a running talley for points scoring in current categories,
> like:
> Current # of soldiers + total number of enemy soldiers slain.
> Current character points + total points of enemy characters slain.
> Current treasury + total amount of gold/resources given to allies.
> Current pop center levels + total enemy pop center levels destroyed + total
> levels of pop centers given to allies.This type of measure would be fascinating, but has the same results as the
currently slanted VP. The Eothraim will score more Army Destroying points in the
first 5 turns than the Woodmen will for the entire game. Similar problem with
character based actions. Those nations who have the better characters will grab
millions of those points, the weaker nations would do nothing....In other words, this would be a programmers and administrators nightmare, but
would not acheive the desired results: measure the Player, not the Nation.
Agreed. Both VP proposals have flaws. Mine measures which Nation is most active against the enemy or in supporting the team. Yours measures which Player is most devoted to anti-team play. I support helping weaker nations by adjusting their positions, not their victory requirements.
Hey, agree with the team issue. With an even scoring system in an uneven world,
the abilities of the players can be measured instead of the predilictions of the
nation.
OK, consider this. I am playing a nation with a super character (Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, a few of the Ringwraiths). With your VP setup, I am not playing against the enemy, I am in effect playing against the other players who played my nation. My super mage-emmy can do lots of useful things in the background, like upgrades and Lats, or can engage the enemy directly, such as with curses or personal challenges. Now I know for a fact that without my super-character my game end score is going to drop, probably pushing me entirely out of the running for having a significantly above average score for players of my nation. So if Elrond, say, can PC a powerful enemy, the equation becomes...
Well, I have about 80% chance of winning the challenge, which removes a threat to my team, but will not in itself win or lose the game, and a 20% chance of losing the challenge, which virtually guarantees that I myself will not win. An active Galadriel or Ji Indur, who kills half a dozen powerful enemies before dying to a bad dice roll, is in this point system far worse than one which never encounters an enemy.
Or what about this reasoning, equally valid under this point system...
If I as South Gondor give the woodmen this extra MT, which I dont really need, it will help them a lot. But it will make them STRONGER than the average Woodman player, while making me weaker than the average SG player, so that's a really bad idea.
Yes, give away MT's to keep allies in the game, but the better players
will inevitably rise to the top. An effective measuring tool will show that.
Perhaps. When we find an effective measuring tool it will be interesting to look at.
Another example. Lets say the woodmen do nothing but build up their characters and pop centers the entire game. Now, the woodmen are clearly among the weakest free, and it isn't too hard to see a good free team winning without too much help from the woodmen. Now this woodman will have a HUGE score compared with the woodman who used his agents doing ScoChars (helps an ally gain rank through Assass or Steals while not improving your rank at all). IMHO, your point system goes a long way towards identifying the LEAST valuable player.
Remember, it's based on standard deviation. If the Woodmen end with an extra
150 VP's may be equal to the Noldo ending with an extra 1500. Think about it.
Oh. So encouraging everyone on your team to play towards goals that hurt team play is a good thing. OK.
Winn Keathley
ยทยทยท
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com