We’re ready to open the debate on this again now. Comments and feedback
welcome. I’ve seen the results and I must they look fun - and some
interesting surprises. (GM team 16th out of 24!) 
We’ve taken the
feedback from your questionnaire that most of you replied to and combined
that with the ratings we have for you and they are ready to send out and put
on the website.
Long email follows - please cut out anything not pertinent if you want to
reply.
Clint
From before (note some of this will be hard to change now but maybe possible
if a cool idea comes forward): Player and Team Rating Tables
There has been a lot of discussion on the mepbmlist concerning ratings for
players. We’ve taken a look at this and also the emails sent to us on the
subject. Here then are some ideas.
Please discuss and give feedback on what we can do to change it (what
changes you would make and what you would keep the same), what you think of
it (good or bad), what is unclear and needs improvement and anything other
feedback you think useful. We have in mind 6 ratings: Valar, Maia, Istari,
Ainur, Council of the Wise and Nazgul. Note you don’t need to do anything
to get these ratings, we’ll do all the work.!
Valar - this is based on similar ratings found in other games such as chess.
The quality of both teams is taken into account, as is the split of the
neutrals. If this rating became popular, it would have a very profound
balancing effect on the neutrals, it would be rare to get games where one
side is too strong and the game ends too quickly.
Maia - designed to be like experience points. This will show how much
experience you have at playing Middle-earth. It gives more points for
winning than for losing, it also gives more points if you play with other
more experienced players.
Istari - individual success, based on ability to score well for a particular
nation relative to how that nation is normally scored at the end of the
game. In addition we’ll have an overall rating.
Ainur - a rating for Grudge teams. This rewards Grudge teams who win without
losing too many nations along the way.
Council of the Wise - a player voting system. At the end of the game
players vote for their team-mates.
Nazgul - a rating of experience combined with Winning percentage.
Each of these ratings will be updated at the end of a game. For scoring
purposes the last player that ran that particular nation will be counted.
(This means that a player who runs a nation, then stops AND another player
takes over, will not be counted for any of these ratings) .
This also means that if you are in more than one game your rating could well
be different by the end of the game. In these cases it is always your newest
rating that will be used. So if you start one game with 1,500 points and
then lose 50 from another game when the game ends you will have to use 1,450
as your ‘original rating’.
Any games which start with less than 20 positions will count for less and so
only earn 1/2 points. Each rating will also alter as time goes on to show a
true status of active players. The updated ratings will be sent out to
players and added to the website each month. As time passes, players who
have not played recently will find their scores dropping, whilst active
players will remain at the top of the tables.
After each month your scores will be modified as follows 2% drop per month
FAQ: My first question is exactly what are these ratings to be used for?
*** For fun, and also to get a rough feeling for the various strengths of
individual players and teams. I think it will also add to the excitement of
the game.
Just as a refresher, what would be the as of date of these ratings, meaning
do they just start with new games, do they attempt to pick up old games, or
games in progress?
*** We’re not even sure that we want to implement this yet. Feedback has
been mixed - with a small vocal minority wondering about the system at all.
I think that overall players are not a major fan of the Istari system though
as it has a strong relation to the Victory Points but some players enjoy
this aspect of the game and I would like to support them. I have yet to
make a decision about this as I would lots more feedback before coming to a
decision about what changes to make and what to add or remove from the
overall concept (if we use it all). We have records for the last couple of
years that are accurate. Before that reports and information is harder to
come by so we’d probably aim at having just the information from this period
(including current games).
What is the Istari system?
*** Istari - individual success, based on ability to place well at the end
of the game. This follows GSI’s Victory Points system, rewarding those who
are not only on the winning team, but who have achieved their four goals (on
the 1st page).
Does this involve VCs, or just gold/armies/PCs/etc?
*** This would include VCs as well (but only for the Istari). We could aim
to have the original 4 only, without VCs, but they are not what normally
defines who wins the game. Although there are negative aspects to having
this we don’t really have the right to change it and its how the game is
sometimes played.
I think this should be counted, possibly by counting drops (as someone else
suggested). Players should be punished for bailing on their team when a
nation still has life. Players should also be rewarded for picking up
difficult positions.
*** What do others think about this? We could come up with a system that
works with this.
> Any games which start with less than 20 positions will count for less and
so
> only earn 1/2 points. Each rating will also alter as time goes on to show
a
Does that include games with 2 nations/player?
*** Not at present. Note nothing is written in stone (ie unchangeable) at
present - all up for discussion. Other players have offered other systems
of scoring. (Mostly simpler to work out more like the Football where you
get 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss). [Note I use
the World wide name for Football meaning Soccer as it’s more internationally
known]. I would like feedback on that if possible.
Dr Deep checking in with the ratings question. I am not in favor of ratings
as too much depends on the
team you inherit when you enlist yourself to a new game. You may not be able
to perform to your best
ability due to a multitude of reasons not related to the game. So, in all, I
think a ratings system is not
realistic to me. But I am sure there are those who will like the idea. Just
my two cents worth.
*** Certainly true. One of the motivating factors for creating this system
is that I am able to better balance games at game start. At present I just
have to guesstimate teams when I create a game. This should help.
I don’t really understand why your rating would degrade 2%. Chess ratings
don’t degrade.
*** We want to do this to show an active status of players. You might run
up a high total and then leave the game for 4 years, but still be in the top
slot. This will also reduce those embarassing losses that happen to all of
us from time to time.
It’s not and GWC’s sucked. One game back then I was the Corsairs in a Grudge
Game. I declared for Dark, destroyed SG and then sailed up to the Noldo and
was attacking them. The DS team thought I had too many Victory Points and
would get a GWC. So they convinced Harad to attack me to knock my point
total down. The game itself was pretty much over, the FP were beaten. From
that point on, I NEVER played a neutral again in a Grudge game. I told GSI
NEVER AGAIN. Now you want to bring all this crap back to the game?
*** You are able to opt out of the scoring if you want. We’re trying to
offer this as a service for players (ie an additional piece of fun in the
game) and to try and add some excitement to the game. No doubt this won’t
suit everyone but for those that it does then they should have more fun, and
for the others I can see if having minimal or no impact on the way you play
the game. Only the Istari rating (of the 4/5 suggested ratings) has a value
which is related to VPs. Note players still play for the Victory
Conditions in the game as technically it is still a part of the game.
I’ve heard lots of this type of story, but always in reference to “the
past”. The non-North American players claim that, because they never had
GWC’s, they play more of a team oriented game. I’ve never seen anything even
remotely similar in my various games as a neutral
** We’ve not heard a lot of this but it has happened that some players
attack others to gain the VC or reduce their VPs. Game 71 it recently
happened so my opinion is that players will do it regardless of the game.
Note Grudge games are to be defined as no-Neutrals - or at least that is the
what I propose to put to player opinion and debate.
I just wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with starting up the
players rating system. Even if it isn’t perfect to start with it should get
better over time and it would add a bit of extra fun (not something to be
taken too seriously, some of the comments on the MEPBM board suggest some
people are taking it far too seriously already - we play the game because we
enjoy it and I don’t think this will change that dramatically).
*** That’s the intention and overall I agree with this sentiment. No doubt
to get a working system will need tweaking as time goes on.
If Richard’s eyes “glazed over” when he read the mathematics of the proposed
player ratings system, mine positively popped.
*** You don’t need to do the maths. If you win you get points (45 + around
20ish for the Valar rating and similar quantities for the others) and if you
lose you lose a similar amount of points. I use the present Ratings of
players partially to equalise teams at game start, and to use as a factor in
the determination of points allocated. (If you beat a better team/more
players - ie more highly rated than yours - you deserve more points being
the simple policy behind it).
We currently have the old VC points inherent to the software, which are
almost universally disliked.
*** Yes my around 75%+ but I would estimate that the other 25%- like it or
are tolerant of it.
The Valar and Maia ratings actually do reward team players a LOT more than
the old VC point system. In fact, it seems that the only people who should
be overly worried about the new ratings systems would be players like those
you mentioned.
*** Yes that’s one of the points we want to address and encourage as we
think it makes a better (ie more enjoyable) game. Emphasising other aspects
of the game over the negative of others is what we hope to achieve here.
We should keep the “World Chamionships” (or “Team Championships” - or, even
better, BOTH), no matter what. The results “to date” should be included. A
“challenge system” (or “ladder system” as seen in lower-level tennis
competition) would allow for past results to be included on a basis that
would not be unfair to those yet to “enter the fray.” A new national team
would know in advance that they have to start at the “bottom” of the ladder.
*** We’d like to revitalise the flagging World Championships either in the
same format or in another format. Lots of debate on this one to organise
yet - especially with those actually playing in the WCs. I have been
thinking of using the Ainur rating as the new Team Championships. Basically
Ben’s team has effectively won the game - their only challenge left is the
Aussies.
Any ratings system has got to weight nations somehow - obviously someone who
does well as the Woodmen deserves more points than a player who wins with
the Noldo on turn 16. Comparing Woodmen against Noldo or Dark Lts players is
rather unfair - nations need to be compared with performances of other
players running the same nation.
*** This is an interesting idea. Rating them on VPs is one method -
relative to how others have played that particular nation. More complex
solutions to this are possible - with ratings on various aspects of their
play as that nation but I don’t see how we can easily do this without a lot
of player support.
The only ratings that I would truely be interested in, would be a private
rating communicated at end of game that measured your performance vs the
average of your position before you. So, I would be interested to know that
as NG I eliminated 25000HI and 4 MTs, when the average was 20000 and the
best was 35000, for example. This just as a gentle way of helping me gauge
my performance…
*** Very hard to arrange but possible if players wanted it. We’re presently
working on aspects of the program at our end and might consider being able
to take out lots of the information from this. (Bit of a pipe-dream at
present but we’ve managed to pull off a lot more of those so far than
expected). The other way would be for players to tally this up. PCs
(captured/created), armies (destroyed/created), characters
kill/kidnaps/challenges), money gifted/received, what other factors for
actual game mechanics? Playerwise there would be other factors to involve,
team-manship, hard work on collating information, diplomacy, helping out
with turns that sort of thing might be factors to involve as well.
So in closing there is lot of debat on the subject which is what I was
hoping for. We’re happy for this to continue until I can get a feel for
what is the correct course of action to take (even if that is no-action).
Thanks for all the hard work you have put in so far.
Clint
