In a message dated 10/27/01 5:26:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
BRILLIANTINTELLECT@hotmail.com writes:
<< I agree in essence with what Mr. Courtiour said in his last posting
and in many way his opinions mirror my own. However, I would like to
add that I am open to the idea of player rankings (though I am
currently oppossed to them) if I was convinced that they provided a
true benefit to the game.
A great deal has been discussed concerning how a system would be set
up, and I think conversations in that vein should continue. However,
I haven't seen much concerning how this benefits the game. Will the
player base increase if it is developed? Will the majority of
players feel the service has made their gaming experience enjoyable?
Will the system benefit all players and not just the old salts as Mr.
Courtiour fears?
Comments?
>>
There are so many variables, a few examples being:
1) "good" nation, i.e. strong characters, artifacts, rear echelon placement,
vs. "bad nation", i.e. weak characters, lack of artifacts, exposed placement;
2) "good", i.e. helpful, sharing, tenacious allies vs. selfish, "out to win,
allies be damned", or "drop out if things not going your way" allies;
3) "good luck", i.e. enemies decide to gang up on one of your allies, vs.
"bad luck", i.e. enemies gang up on you;
that the concept of a fair and objective player rating system is probably as
far from reality as the idea that the game allows all players an equal
opportunity to excel.
So forget it.
Ed
In a message dated 10/27/01 5:26:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
BRILLIANTINTELLECT@h... writes:
<< I agree in essence with what Mr. Courtiour said in his last
posting
and in many way his opinions mirror my own. However, I would like
to
add that I am open to the idea of player rankings (though I am
currently oppossed to them) if I was convinced that they provided a
true benefit to the game.
A great deal has been discussed concerning how a system would be
set
up, and I think conversations in that vein should continue.
However,
I haven't seen much concerning how this benefits the game. Will
the
player base increase if it is developed? Will the majority of
players feel the service has made their gaming experience
enjoyable?
Some folks enjoy these things, and I've posted earlier some of the
benefits. Allowing Harly to make sure that there are a few vets on
each allied side of a game, discouraging drops, and encouraging vets
to take some of the tougher positions could be some of the upsides.
There is also the added benefit that it will spur some interesting
discussions - sort of like keeping statistics in sports - that makes
for a fun hobby. This is a role that used to be filled by the mouth
of sauron. A lot of the older and more vibrant discussions that made
the game fun came from having a lot of numbers and raw data to play
with - for examples, the articles on winners and losers in ME PBM.
I used to enjoy getting the end-game wrap up stats from DGE/GSI, for
instance - most kills, best assassin/emmy etc., all of the nation
scores and that sort of stuff.
Marc
Will the system benefit all players and not just the old salts as
Mr.
···
Courtiour fears?
Comments?
--- In mepbmlist@y..., TaborekEJ@A... wrote:
There are so many variables, a few examples being:
1) "good" nation, i.e. strong characters, artifacts, rear echelon
placement,
vs. "bad nation", i.e. weak characters, lack of artifacts, exposed
placement;
2) "good", i.e. helpful, sharing, tenacious allies vs. selfish, "out
to win,
allies be damned", or "drop out if things not going your way"
allies;
3) "good luck", i.e. enemies decide to gang up on one of your
allies, vs.
"bad luck", i.e. enemies gang up on you;
that the concept of a fair and objective player rating system is
probably as
far from reality as the idea that the game allows all players an
equal
opportunity to excel.
So forget it.
Ed
Things don't have to be perfect to be useful.
Marc
