Player Rankings and Individual Winners

mepbmlist
#1

One thing people have a hard time with:

VC vs VP.

VC are these little bonuses that can net you chocolates.
VP are Victory Points. They are based on pop centers, armies, gold, characters.

A couple VC's add 100 bonuses to the VP total, which should already be MUCH
higher than that.

VC's can be altered to be better.

VP's ALREADY EXIST.

I'm not talking about a Bold New World. I'm talking about a little leg work, and
an extra line of code, what, a simple formula. THATS ALL.

I never said "Scrap what is there and start fresh!". I was being realistic.

And yes, was it Ed D? The concept of rating a nation's ending vs it's beginning
has been beaten and flogged, and is an extremly good idea. In fact, I mentioned
it a couple of times in the past.

My current averageing idea is just an idea that came across my mind, out of the
blue, in traffic one day, that I thought was an extremely good way to:

Use what is already there to Simulate what we would really prefer.

Is it closer to that ideal or farther away?

Thanks

Brad Brunet

···

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

#2

My current averageing idea is just an idea that came across my >mind, out of the
blue, in traffic one day,

It’s a nice idea but I’m not convinced that there are sufficient data to handle it. It is hardly fair to compare the old Cloud Lord agents to the new ones, for example. Also there are some nations which can get knocked out early or can go on to win (Witch King springs to mind). How do you measure them? Firstly they will have a large variance of results, which needs more data to validate. Secondly how do you score games where they got knocked out. You can’t ignore these games or you would just be averaging over good/lucky Witch King players & so making it more difficult to win, but it is not clear how you would include them either

``