Player rankings no thanks

mepbmlist
#1

You're a bit new to the debate here. Nobody's talking about a PRS based on the VPs. At its simplest it would be 1point for each game in which you have appeared on the winning team. LOADS of variations on this already discussed.

_____________Original message ____________

···

Subject: [mepbmlist] Player rankings no thanks
Sender: "Edward Merrick" <midwestmins@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:07:14 +0100

Harley can easily take care of the newbie situation behind the
scenes. They can give them a nation that easy to play, learn the
basics, meet experienced palyers, and have fun so they come back
again.

I don't ever go into a game with the idea of being the individual
winner, so my rankings would always suck. I would rather give my
extra reserves, towns, arties, etc. to the team so we have a better
chance to win. I usually go into a game with a specific challenge
that tests my ability. This could be forming a curse squad by turn 6,
building a mega challenger, team of super agents/ems, taking out a
certain nation by a certain turn. This is what makes the game
enjoyable for me, not gaining victory points. One game, in the old
days, I made Elrond into a dragon killer. I purposely posted camps in
the mountains to find recruitable DS dragons and I went and killed
many. I won't tell you how many I killed or how, but it was very
effective and I didn't die. Very profitable too...

The biggest problem I see is that people are ninnies and quit way too
early. Take 130 for example, the FP side is ready to drop on turn 3
because the Dun and Rhudar seem to be going DS. The biggest joke is
that most of them are playing two nations each also, NG/SG,
Arth/Card, Dwarves/Woodmen...It's turn 3 and nothing is decided by
far in Mordor and these blokes are ready to pack up and go home
crying. Harad and the Easterlings have not committed, and the
COrsairs have just been filled by a stand by. Granted, things in the
North aren't going perfect for them, but the game is far from over.
The game is decided mostly in Mordor, and they still hold Minas Ithil.
Little wonder why neutrals don't want to join their side when they
display this total lack of heart.

I get sick of hearing about how good people are at playing this game
and they quit when they lose one battle, get their best agent killed,
or don't get a neutral commited on their side early.

I would rather have Harley implement a system to keep people from
quitting too early. Maybe start a game and make people pay for the
1st ten turns up front. This way atleast people would be committed to
playing for ten turns rather than ruining the game by quitting on
turn 3. I would join this type of game, even if it was a random
allotment type game.

Anyway that's my 1 1/2 cents.
-NM

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

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

#2

"Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

Nobody's talking about a PRS based on the VPs.

I am. More exactly, I think if the VP system more accurately reflected
player ability, it would be an excellent basis for developing a PRS.

At its simplest it would be 1 point for each game in which you have
appeared on the winning team. LOADS of variations on this already
discussed.

Much as I like simple approaches, this is one case where I think it
wouldn't work. There is no way to distinguish a freeloader from a
highly capable player, since everyone on the winning side gets the same
reward. Winning (especially as a team) is important, but what you
accomplish with the available resources is IMHO the most telling measure
of player ability.

OTOH I have grave doubts about any system that relies too heavily on
player votes. Certainly fellow players will have some idea of how well
a given person handled their position, which might not be reflected in
measurable statistics. But the inherently subjective nature of such
evaluations makes them unreliable.

-ED \1/

···

--
"Remember now thy Creator, in the days of thy youth; while the evil days
come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, 'I have no
pleasure in them;' While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the
stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain."

#3

There is no way to distinguish a freeloader from a
highly capable player, since everyone on the winning side gets the same
reward.

*** Unless there were instances where you could vote on this?

Winning (especially as a team) is important, but what you

accomplish with the available resources is IMHO the most telling measure
of player ability.

*** Dependent on what nation you play and the way the game develops?

OTOH I have grave doubts about any system that relies too heavily on
player votes. Certainly fellow players will have some idea of how well
a given person handled their position, which might not be reflected in
measurable statistics. But the inherently subjective nature of such
evaluations makes them unreliable.

*** But maybe better than nothing. Part of the reason I orginally suggested
a combined system of VPs.

Clint

#4

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

> There is no way to distinguish a freeloader from a
> highly capable player, since everyone on the winning side gets the same
> reward.

*** Unless there were instances where you could vote on this?

As I said elsewhere - perhaps not as clearly as intended - player votes
should be a factor but not the sole or even major factor. Reason being
that such things are inherently subjective and votes are often given as
much - if not more - based on how much you like the person rather than
an objective measure of how good a player they are or how much they
contributed to the team. To expect otherwise of mere humans would be
hopelessly naive.

Winning (especially as a team) is important, but what you
> accomplish with the available resources is IMHO the most telling measure
> of player ability.

*** Dependent on what nation you play and the way the game develops?

Could you please a little clearer? Perhaps my English comprehension is
off, but I find it difficult to know what is being asked by an isolated
dependent clause with no clear referent. I believe my original
statement applies regardless of which nation you play or how the game
develops.

If someone makes use of the Northmen's SNA's to achieve great things,
well and good; if they succeed without making use of said abilities,
equally good. SNA's exist to be used, as do the starting resources of
the nation, but they are not the be-all and end-all of success; even the
Noldo can be wiped out if played poorly. To suggest that running a
given nation is not a fair test of ability because it has built in
advantages/disadvantages is to admit that the positions are not fairly
balanced; if such is the case then one should, at a minimum, not charge
the same amount for playing the Woodmen as for the Noldo. I don't think
you want to open that can of worms...

> OTOH I have grave doubts about any system that relies too heavily on
> player votes. Certainly fellow players will have some idea of how well
> a given person handled their position, which might not be reflected in
> measurable statistics. But the inherently subjective nature of such
> evaluations makes them unreliable.
>
*** But maybe better than nothing. Part of the reason I orginally suggested
a combined system of VPs.

If you'll dig it out of the archives, you'll see my proposed system also
includes a factor for player votes - but only about 10% IIRC, enough to
be noticable but not to tip the balance over actual achievements.
Apologies but my faith in human objectivity only goes so far. :slight_smile:

-ED \1/

···

--
"Remember now thy Creator, in the days of thy youth; while the evil days
come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, 'I have no
pleasure in them;' While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the
stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain."