Winn, sorry, but you're missing some key points.
Usually ;-).
Yes, thanks. You are arguing that rewarding an individual is anti-team (there is
no I in team, and all that.)
NO. I have no problem with individual VPs. I have no issues with there being a "Winner". I do think that the winner should be the player who gave the most to his team. I think this could be done by keeping score of damage done to the enemy, or by vote of teammates, who should know who was a team player. I think VP categories for anti-team factors like amount of stockpiled gold are simply rediculous.
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.
Agreed.
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.
It only takes one player to get first place by being a jerk. Other 9 might be a great team. And yes, I have seen this happen. If the other team also includes a few bad players, or simply has bad luck, winning is still possible.
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.
Nope. If I'm giving away a MT, its because that player needs it more than I do. That doesn't mean they are going to collapse. This is even more true of smaller resources, like artifacts and gold.
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.
I agree that a team full of such individuals isn't a prime issue. And as you say I don't really care what happens in such a case. It is the case of a team with only one or two such players where the players who win the war get shafted by ones who do very little that is the problem.
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.
I hope that you will continue to be so fortunate as to never encounter a non-team player in your games. They do exist, sometimes even on winning sides.
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.
If keeping score of damage to the enemy isn't possible (of which claim I am still not convinced, as the game already tracks number of characters killed) then perhaps the only way to reward effective team play is by vote of players in the game near the end.
Sure, the best players tend to care very little about VPs, and wouldn't backstab their allies for a winners certificate. But if players care at all about the VPs, then at some point they will take actions to increase theirs. What kinds of actions does the current system, and your proposal, reward? Cautious, selfish, individualist play. If you reward something, you will see more of it. Simple economics.
Winn Keathley
ยทยทยท
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com