Player Rankings and Individual Winners

mepbmlist
#1

Winn, sorry, but you're missing some key points.

You agree that my system would make it more fair to win at either nation, yet
you say "But the greedy individualists will still be greedy individualists".

Yes, thanks. You are arguing that rewarding an individual is anti-team (there is
no I in team, and all that.)

YES
YES
YES

We are already doing that. Either we stop, or we don't. My idea is under the
assumption that if we don't stop, then let's at least make it a more effective
measure of game performance.

It is really disheartening to hear some of these examples you give. Do you
seriously believe that a bunch of those players would be anywhere near winning
a game as the Free Peoples to be so concerned about their selfishness? Please.

The Southern Gondor example:

In MY idea, you say that SG will not give away a MT because it would help the
Woodmen MORE than it would hurt SG. Um, if you're giving away an MT, it's
because the Woodmen need it to stay alive. Which means, they're nowhere near
winning on ANY system. If the team is made of of the Noldo hoarding EVEN MORE
and the SG that won't give an MT to a teammate getting knocked out, then that
team is NOT a team, won't win, and they have no place in this discussion.

Let's not crab about "What if this?" or "What if that?". That's not the big
picture.

If my idea makes it more difficult for the Noldo to win, then IMHO, they will
actually focus on VP's LESS. If they have to be THAT anti-team, then their team
will die.

Here is what is the important quesion, because the 2nd Edition is NOT getting
done next week, heck, neither is a new VP system....

Which would be a better measure of individual play?

A VP system based on absolute numbers/totals, etc, that rewards those nations
that BEGIN the game with them.

or

A VP system based on a comparison between the Player's results compared to the
average results that nation has acheived over time, regardless of quantified
absolutes.

Well?

Measure the Player MORE (no, not Perfectly, if you're looking for Perfection....)
or not.

I believe my idea measures the Player's performance.

We aren't measuring the TEAM. There is a measure for that. It's call the final
pdf and it clearly defines which TEAM wins, and which TEAM loses.

After that, who played their nation better than everyone else. Not who amassed
the most of something they started with 10 times as much of anyway....

Well?

Ideas? Opinions? Examples?

Thanks,

Brad Brunet

···

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

#2

Ideas? Opinions? Examples?

question.

Would a 1650 duns who went dark be compared to the
scores of previous 1650 duns who went free and dark ?

I think its easier for them to go free. So its harder
for them to survive if they go dark.

So if a dark duns scored as well as the average free
duns, then I think they went very well.

Just my 1 cent worth (our aussie dollar must be tied
to the british beef prices since its just went into
'lowest ever' territory again).

I would also like to reflect the neutral score based
on what turn they declare (waiting till turn 20
doesn't score as well as declaring on t2), but I don't
know how to do it. Maybe declaring after turn 10 sees
your score hit by a penalty ? (we can pick the
deadline they use in FA games instead of saying turn
10).

thanks
din

p.s Botp was delayed since the GM was sick. I hope
John wasn't an idiot and went to work ('its just a
little cold' he said), and passed it on to everyone
else ?

···

Thanks,

Brad Brunet

__________________________________________________________

Get your FREE personalized e-mail at
http://www.canada.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin
Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

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

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
- The fastest, easiest way to open an online store.

#3

LBear wrote:

Which would be a better measure of individual play?

A VP system based on absolute numbers/totals, etc, that rewards those nations
that BEGIN the game with them.

or

A VP system based on a comparison between the Player's results compared to the
average results that nation has acheived over time, regardless of quantified
absolutes.

As Arlo Guthrie once pointed out, perhaps there is a third option that
we hadn't considered:

A VP system based on a comparison of a nation's achievements compared to
what they started the game with. (To be fair, you'd probably have to
gague Neutrals from the turn they declare.)

-ED \1/

#4

and a fourth someone mentioned, tailor the VCs as they stand to mean
something meaningful and constructive in the game i.e. for the
woodmen, it might be:

a) survive
b) 2305 is captured/destroyed/owned by freep
c) kill 10 DS characters
d) hold onto 2711, 2508
e) capture/destroy 3221
etc etc

so each nation has a list of objectives similar to the current ones
but ditch artys (useless) and killing specific characters (next to
useless). With pop centres, unsure if you score the first time you do
it or it only scores if its that way at game end. Neutrals can have
two lists, one for each allegiance.

I would still like something similar to the current VCs being reported
every turn, they are needed to guage the comparitive strengths of each
allegiance. Even better would be a breakdown and a ranking (out of
25), take the guess work out. At the end of the game, each nation is
marked on its nation objectives (as above) and gets nothing for what
army, characters, pops and gold as is currently done, this would take
out the selfish play. And if the objectives are set right, anyone who
wants to score well HAS to be doing constructive things which help
your team out!

As Arlo Guthrie once pointed out, perhaps there is a third option

that

we hadn't considered:

A VP system based on a comparison of a nation's achievements compared

to

what they started the game with. (To be fair, you'd probably have to
gague Neutrals from the turn they declare.)

Maybe not make it a VP stat but I would love to see reported how many
troops recruited, how many troops engaged, battles won, troops losses
and kill etc etc an absolute heap of stats which could be recorded.
Clint, any chance here the program can track these things?

#5

--- In mepbmlist@y..., LBear <ditletang@c...> wrote:

Winn, sorry, but you're missing some key points.

You agree that my system would make it more fair to win at either

nation, yet

you say "But the greedy individualists will still be greedy

individualists".

Yes, thanks. You are arguing that rewarding an individual is

anti-team (there is

no I in team, and all that.)

YES
YES
YES

We are already doing that. Either we stop, or we don't. My idea is

under the

assumption that if we don't stop, then let's at least make it a more

effective

measure of game performance.

It is really disheartening to hear some of these examples you give.

Do you

seriously believe that a bunch of those players would be anywhere

near winning

a game as the Free Peoples to be so concerned about their

selfishness? Please.

AMEN!
There is also something to be said for giving people an incentive to
spend extra time and effort in a game. There is some virtue in giving
people some recognition for an individual job well done, in addition
to being a member of a team that pulls off a win.

cheers,

Marc

···

Thanks,

Brad Brunet

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

#6

We thought that we compare with the situation on turn 5.

···

A VP system based on a comparison of a nation's achievements compared to
what they started the game with. (To be fair, you'd probably have to
gague Neutrals from the turn they declare.)

#7

This does sound good, especially if combined with the 'compare with starting
VPs' example to take out the effect of the strong vs. weak postions.

The obvious downside is that it takes time to design these real objectives,
but the benefit would be that it would be a real pointer to new players
about the things that they should be doing to help their team.

came in thinking that Victory Points really were important - its only new
players who read this newsgroup that might get a different viewpoint than
that. Other new players will come in motivated to try and do those
objectives, even if it means hurting your team mates - and lets face it, ME
is hard enough for newbies without doing that.

VPs at the moment really are not beneficial to the game.

Tony

···

From my point of view, I am in my third game of ME and in my first one I

----- Original Message -----
From: John Stagoll <john.stagoll@airservices.gov.au>
To: mepbmlist <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 March 2001 03:13
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Player Rankings and Individual Winners

and a fourth someone mentioned, tailor the VCs as they stand to mean
something meaningful and constructive in the game i.e. for the
woodmen, it might be:

a) survive
b) 2305 is captured/destroyed/owned by freep
c) kill 10 DS characters
d) hold onto 2711, 2508
e) capture/destroy 3221
etc etc

so each nation has a list of objectives similar to the current ones
but ditch artys (useless) and killing specific characters (next to
useless). With pop centres, unsure if you score the first time you do
it or it only scores if its that way at game end. Neutrals can have
two lists, one for each allegiance.

I would still like something similar to the current VCs being reported
every turn, they are needed to guage the comparitive strengths of each
allegiance. Even better would be a breakdown and a ranking (out of
25), take the guess work out. At the end of the game, each nation is
marked on its nation objectives (as above) and gets nothing for what
army, characters, pops and gold as is currently done, this would take
out the selfish play. And if the objectives are set right, anyone who
wants to score well HAS to be doing constructive things which help
your team out!

>As Arlo Guthrie once pointed out, perhaps there is a third option
that
>we hadn't considered:
>
>A VP system based on a comparison of a nation's achievements compared
to
>what they started the game with. (To be fair, you'd probably have to
>gague Neutrals from the turn they declare.)

Maybe not make it a VP stat but I would love to see reported how many
troops recruited, how many troops engaged, battles won, troops losses
and kill etc etc an absolute heap of stats which could be recorded.
Clint, any chance here the program can track these things?

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

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