Player Rating plus

mepbmlist
#1

3 additions:

- please add an MVP vote to the score. Yes, it's
subjective, but also helpful -- ratings aside, it
doesn't take long to see who helps your side, and this
is a good way to account for an important factor.

(>have a hard time beliving that most MEPBM teams are
going to vote for the QA who sent 100k gold to his
allies over the CL with 75 kills

I concur.)

I don't. In my last game of 1650, our CL player was
excellent not because he got the most kills (which he
did), but because he was always there to contribute to
any effort, in many ways. Other players felt the same.

Of the three of us who have commented on this so far,
all agree that team contribution -- more than, say,
strict number of kills -- matters most. Maybe other
players would feel the same way. Please add an MVP
vote and score addition.

- add a relative nation score. You can use this one
that Marc contributed

Example: a Noldo player scores 1100 and a Woodman

player scores 1000.
Half of all of the winning Noldo players have scored
less than 1100,
so the Noldo player has no change in their rating.
75% of the winning
Woodmen players have scored less than 1000, so the
Woodman players
rating goes up by (say) 25 points.

or you can use Brad Brunet's statistical variation in
Bree 13.

Clint, you objected this:

But the danger of this is that it does not reward the

good
team
mate that got hit by a group of opponents (eg
Eothraim) held them off
valiantly allowing the rest of the team to do well

which mases the third suggestion:

- have a penalty for elimination and a bonus for
completion. This is a war game! When your nation goes
out, your side suffers. Many, many eliminations result
from preventable player error, including simple
failure to plan ahead.

Some don't, of course, and we could split hairs
forever (comparing the QA not just to other QA's, but
to those in games with the same sort of neutral
declarations, or Northmen when the Blind Sorceror army
attacks and when it doesn't, etc) but the key factor
is the same: your side is stronger when your nation
remains in the game -- or at least it should be!

Dan

···

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com

#2

We've put this in as a factor for the Grudge games where they are very strongly team games. (Ie if you lose nations you score less points) But for the individual games I did not want to do that.

We could have an additional rating - which I quite like the idea of with voting. If so I would suggest many criteria with a rating of 1-10 that you put for each player on your team.

Eg
Teamsmanship 1-10
Skill 1-10
Diplomacy 1-10
etc

Can others add to this what they might think appropriate and maybe a short description of what each means? As this is purely a subjective opinion from player's perspective of player's ability and value to a team as compared with the subjective scores of winning in other ways I would want to stress that aspect with a minor modification due to win/loss/draw in the equation. But it's up for debate and it would be cool if the players could come up with an equation for this.

Clint

3 additions:

···

- please add an MVP vote to the score. Yes, it's
subjective, but also helpful -- ratings aside, it
doesn't take long to see who helps your side, and this
is a good way to account for an important factor.

(>have a hard time beliving that most MEPBM teams are
going to vote for the QA who sent 100k gold to his
allies over the CL with 75 kills
>I concur.)

I don't. In my last game of 1650, our CL player was
excellent not because he got the most kills (which he
did), but because he was always there to contribute to
any effort, in many ways. Other players felt the same.

Of the three of us who have commented on this so far,
all agree that team contribution -- more than, say,
strict number of kills -- matters most. Maybe other
players would feel the same way. Please add an MVP
vote and score addition.

- add a relative nation score. You can use this one
that Marc contributed

>Example: a Noldo player scores 1100 and a Woodman
player scores 1000.
Half of all of the winning Noldo players have scored
less than 1100,
so the Noldo player has no change in their rating.
75% of the winning
Woodmen players have scored less than 1000, so the
Woodman players
rating goes up by (say) 25 points.

or you can use Brad Brunet's statistical variation in
Bree 13.

Clint, you objected this:

>But the danger of this is that it does not reward the
good
team
mate that got hit by a group of opponents (eg
Eothraim) held them off
valiantly allowing the rest of the team to do well

which mases the third suggestion:

- have a penalty for elimination and a bonus for
completion. This is a war game! When your nation goes
out, your side suffers. Many, many eliminations result
from preventable player error, including simple
failure to plan ahead.

Some don't, of course, and we could split hairs
forever (comparing the QA not just to other QA's, but
to those in games with the same sort of neutral
declarations, or Northmen when the Blind Sorceror army
attacks and when it doesn't, etc) but the key factor
is the same: your side is stronger when your nation
remains in the game -- or at least it should be!

Dan

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com

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/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#3

Urgh. Please Keep It Simple. Just vote for 1st 2nd and 3rd best contribution, and best opponent.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 18:13 16/09/2002, you wrote:

We could have an additional rating - which I quite like the idea of with
voting. If so I would suggest many criteria with a rating of 1-10 that you
put for each player on your team.

Eg
Teamsmanship 1-10
Skill 1-10
Diplomacy 1-10

#4

Would you be interested in players opinions on how well they did in each of the categories as a way of creating Grudge teams etc?

One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.

Any other thoughts on this and the suggestions below?

···

>We could have an additional rating - which I quite like the idea of with
>voting. If so I would suggest many criteria with a rating of 1-10 that you
>put for each player on your team.
>
>Eg
>Teamsmanship 1-10
>Skill 1-10
>Diplomacy 1-10

Urgh. Please Keep It Simple. Just vote for 1st 2nd and 3rd best
contribution, and best opponent.

#5

You have to be explicit about it in the house rules, and you should repeat on the voting forms:
- no canvassing (or negative canvassing "Don't vote for Fred")
- a secret vote
- in fact no discussion of the voting within the team whatsoever
- anybody breaks the above 3 principles, in no circumstances vote for him

Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by such guidelines if reminded of them.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 16:24 17/09/2002, Clint wrote:

One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you
vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get
on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.

#6

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by such guidelines if reminded of them.

Tell that to CO101. :-))

While part of me really likes the voting idea, I think it does have some drawbacks:

1. Will people vote? Disagreement on this.

2. Will people vote fairly? Probably yes, but their criteria may or may not be the best.

3. Will this encourage overplay? By that, I mean right now everyone wins and loses equally, also under Clint's system. With voting, "role playing" (that is, not being a star) is discouraged: you won't get voted for. Why not go out in a blaze of glory?

I'm also not clear the nations have an equal chance of being recognized. Certain nations, by their position and power, have a better chance of changing the game. I understand that spectacular play by other nations could push votes their way, but I think we all agree that, given an equal level of play by all players, certain nations will attract more attention than others.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#7

Some good ideas here. (There you go Laurence the kiss of death). :slight_smile:

Jason's note about some nations impacting more and hence more likely to be voted for is what I found in game 39 (not a big sample I admit but definitely noticable).

Clint

···

>One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you
>vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get
>on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.

You have to be explicit about it in the house rules, and you should repeat
on the voting forms:
- no canvassing (or negative canvassing "Don't vote for Fred")
- a secret vote
- in fact no discussion of the voting within the team whatsoever
- anybody breaks the above 3 principles, in no circumstances vote for him

Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by such guidelines
if reminded of them.

#8

Im agenst a voting system and woud proberbly no vote
in most grung games ther is no clear Best player

and a secret vote comme on stand up to your opinion
and if somone went like vote foer me or dont vote vote foer LGT i voud vote foer him as most anoing player.

the only thing i like to know from a rating system is games played games won (as a team) games droped

···

"Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

At 16:24 17/09/2002, Clint wrote:
>One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll
vote for you if you
>vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best
mate and we get
>on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I
vote for you.

You have to be explicit about it in the house rules, and you
should repeat
on the voting forms:
- no canvassing (or negative canvassing "Don't vote for
Fred")
- a secret vote
- in fact no discussion of the voting within the team
whatsoever
- anybody breaks the above 3 principles, in no circumstances
vote for him

Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by
such guidelines
if reminded of them.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/ofVplB/TM
------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->

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/

#9

Again some voting guidelines would be needed. You can ask people to vote for "the player who, given it's resources and characteristics, made the best use of his nation" or you can ask them to vote for "the player who made the best contribution to the team". Some of the chaps I know, work hard on data gathering, mapping, suggesting moves, questioning strategy, co-ordinating multi-national attacks, chaperoning newbies, wooing neutrals, and error checking draft turn sheets - they deserve credit, and would get my votes, and the nation they happen to be playing is of no relevance.

So a lot depends on what you ask for, and how you phrase it. "Best Player", "Best Team Player" and "Best Played Nation" are all slightly different things, sometimes the same chap would get all 3 accolades, but not always.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 20:08 17/09/2002, you wrote:

Jason's note about some nations impacting more and hence more likely to be
voted for is what I found in game 39 (not a big sample I admit but
definitely noticable).

#10

Would you be interested in players opinions on how well they did in each of
  the categories as a way of creating Grudge teams etc?

  One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you
  vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get
  on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.

  Any other thoughts on this and the suggestions below?
  RD: You can't stop people voting as above, but 1) they would be in a small minority - most players who could be bothered to vote would do so honestly;
  2) players behaving as you describe would be ostracised by their former team-mates, therefore they would be the losers in the medium and long term unless they mended their ways.

  > >We could have an additional rating - which I quite like the idea of with
  > >voting. If so I would suggest many criteria with a rating of 1-10 that you
  > >put for each player on your team.
  > >
  > >Eg
  > >Teamsmanship 1-10
  > >Skill 1-10
  > >Diplomacy 1-10
  >
  >Urgh. Please Keep It Simple. Just vote for 1st 2nd and 3rd best
  >contribution, and best opponent.

  RD: Still too complicated. One vote for a member of your own team, one for one of the opposition.
  Or (only slightly more complicated): each player gets 10 votes to bestow upon members of his own team (which would enable him to effectively vote for 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc) and 10 votes to similarly distribute amongst the opposition.

  Or, seeing that we expect that the majority of players won't bother to vote, 100 votes per player! Now there's an incentive....

  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
                
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Player Rating plus

#11

While part of me really likes the voting idea, I think it does have some
drawbacks:

1. Will people vote? Disagreement on this.

2. Will people vote fairly? Probably yes, but their criteria may or may
not be the best.

3. Will this encourage overplay? By that, I mean right now everyone wins
and loses equally, also under Clint's system. With voting, "role
playing" (that is, not being a star) is discouraged: you won't get voted
for. Why not go out in a blaze of glory?

I'm also not clear the nations have an equal chance of being recognized.
Certain nations, by their position and power, have a better chance of
changing the game. I understand that spectacular play by other nations
could push votes their way, but I think we all agree that, given an
equal level of play by all players, certain nations will attract more
attention than others.

                  jason

RD: As far as voting for a member of your own team is concerned, you are voting for the best PLAYER not the most powerful nation, ie, the Eothraim could be down to 1 MT and a camp, but if he were the guy who pulled all the strings to bring about a team win, he should be the guy who gets the most votes rather than the Noldor, even tho they finished with the most pops and gold and all the top characters.

Providing you don't know who is playing which nation amongst the opposing team, there is no possibility of abuse that I can see - you vote for the DS nation that did you the most damage and whoever that player is, he gets the credit.

Richard.

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT
              
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#12

Laurence....??? Can't be sure that previous line
about the nurse was a joke...

Again some voting guidelines would be needed.

Voting Guidelings? A simple mathematical formula, that you
don't have to know, is difficult (number in, number out, you
change nothing, you do nothing) but now we need voting guidelines???

KISS

You can ask people to vote for "the player who,
given it's resources and characteristics, made the best
use of his nation" or you can ask them to vote for "the
player who made the best contribution to the team".

MVP awards in many professional sports leagues have been
fought over and disputed for years because of much simpler
worded definitions (best player on the team, best player on
the best team, best player on the team that won, best player
on the worst team in the league...meow meow meow...the only
constant is that most people disagree with the selected
recipient, all for different reasons)

KISS

Some of the chaps I know work hard on data gathering,
mapping, suggesting moves, questioning strategy,
co-ordinating multi-national attacks, chaperoning newbies,
wooing neutrals, and error checking draft turn sheets -
they deserve credit, and would get my votes, and the
nation they happen to be playing is of no relevance.

Excellent group. Form a grudge team and kick the crap out
of Shushan. What's this got to do with the rest of us and
Player Ratings?

KISS

So a lot depends on what you ask for, and how you phrase it. "Best
Player", "Best Team Player" and "Best Played Nation" are all slightly
different things, sometimes the same chap would get all 3 accolades,
but not always.

Is that one or three or the same with bad glasses? What
happened to 1 point for finishing, 1 point if your team won,
and 1 point if you're voted MVP? Let the players who vote
define MVP for themselves, otherwise we're into listing infinite
"characteristics" and asking for a rating out of 12.4...

KISS

Regards,

Brad

···

--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#13

<<Clint wrote:>>
<<Would you be interested in players opinions on how well they did in
each of the categories as a way of creating Grudge teams etc? One other
danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you vote
for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get
on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.
Any other thoughts on this and the suggestions below?>>

I have been FOR a voting type system, but I can see where the above
concerns might ruin it. Vote trading, "if I declare FP you must vote for
me", etc. I suppose this could become part of the diplomatic landscape
of the game, but I'm not sure it would make it better. Still, I suppose
we could give it a try and see.

Mike Mulka

#14

Sounds good. Any other thoughts on this before I put forward something more concrete on it?

Clint

···

At 20:08 17/09/2002, you wrote:
>Jason's note about some nations impacting more and hence more likely to be
>voted for is what I found in game 39 (not a big sample I admit but
>definitely noticable).

Again some voting guidelines would be needed. You can ask people to vote
for "the player who, given it's resources and characteristics, made the
best use of his nation" or you can ask them to vote for "the player who
made the best contribution to the team". Some of the chaps I know, work
hard on data gathering, mapping, suggesting moves, questioning strategy,
co-ordinating multi-national attacks, chaperoning newbies, wooing neutrals,
and error checking draft turn sheets - they deserve credit, and would get
my votes, and the nation they happen to be playing is of no relevance.

So a lot depends on what you ask for, and how you phrase it. "Best
Player", "Best Team Player" and "Best Played Nation" are all slightly
different things, sometimes the same chap would get all 3 accolades, but
not always.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

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/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#15

Some good ideas here. (There you go Laurence the kiss of death). :slight_smile:

  Jason's note about some nations impacting more and hence more likely to be
  voted for is what I found in game 39 (not a big sample I admit but
  definitely noticable).

  Clint
  RD: No no no! If you are voting for a member of your own team, you vote for the PLAYER not the nation. Thus if the Eothraim player was down to 1 MT and 1 camp, but he was the guy who pulled all the threads together, HE ought to collect most votes regardless of how many cities and how much gold the Noldo piled up.

  It is different voting for the opposition; ideally nobody should know who is playing which nations on the opposing team. This ensures an unbiased vote, purely on the basis of which enemy nation was most effective.

  Richard.

  > >One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you
  > >vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get
  > >on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.
  >
  >You have to be explicit about it in the house rules, and you should repeat
  >on the voting forms:
  >- no canvassing (or negative canvassing "Don't vote for Fred")
  >- a secret vote
  >- in fact no discussion of the voting within the team whatsoever
  >- anybody breaks the above 3 principles, in no circumstances vote for him
  >
  >Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by such guidelines
  >if reminded of them.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
                
  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Voting systems

#16

<<Richard Devereux wrote:>>
<<Providing you don't know who is playing which nation amongst the
opposing team, there is no possibility of abuse that I can see - you
vote for the DS nation that did you the most damage and whoever that
player is, he gets the credit.>>

I don't know if I'm comfortable with the whole "vote for the best
opponent" aspect. Would this be tied directly into the vote ratings?
Would "opponent votes" and "ally votes" be tallied directly together, or
would they be a separate category. Giving them the same weight wouldn't
be a good thing in my opinion. An opponent that caused the most damage
to your side may have been a very obnoxious player who cajoled a few new
players into supporting them. They may have been a player who picked up
a dropped position as a 2nd nation, and transferred all the assets to
themselves. Only the allies of such a player would know this
information, and I think it's relevant, (at least if it is tied directly
to the "ally votes"). The other problem I see is that someone who was
very effective and damaged your side more might be resented by a new
player who happened to be one of the targets that was damaged, and so
not get the vote they may deserve. I say keep them separate from each
other at least.

Mike Mulka