Originally posted by klub
I am worried that my ‘Istari’ rating could be too high, purely coincidental if it is
Istari should be listed in reverse Those of us like myself who take great pride in our 400’s and scream bloody foul when Baranor goes off and kills himself in some stupid encounter if my Arthedain VC lists him to die, would then get to show up on at least one of the ratings lists!
Brad Brunet
Will the PRS apply to variant games like Gunboat ? If so will there be any special consideration taken into account because it was a variant game ?
Cheers
Brendan McGoldrick
GB - yes they will count. No specific changes for this variant.
Clint
I have always had only one concern with a Rating system and that concern is that it will become a source of Eliteism within this gaming community. While I think that some source of Rating player experience would be good if it were used to match up opponents with competitive levels of skill or ability. I do not think it would be a good thing if it were used to bar players from entering a game. As an example say I was a first time player and there was a game filling and most of the players already in positions were very skilled veteran players I would think that I would like to be told that by the Moderator, but I think that the decision to join that game should be mine to make, that the Rating system should not take away access for anyone to join a filling game.
Another item I have seen discussed is that players who play a lot seem to get “first dibs” on the most highly desired nations. Now I have a life like most other players two active games at a time are my limit. As such I cannot play in many many games and drive up my rating. Say I was a gamer who could only handle a single game at a time would that mean I always would get stuck with the Woodmen, Cardolan, etc or is there a chance I could sign on for a game and play a super power too. Personally I like the challenge but I think everyone should have an equal draw for their nation of choice. Maybe the PRS doesn’t apply here, but that is something I am curious about. What I have seen is that the PRS is supposed to be for fun but if it has no useful function why would you go to the extra work to compile such information Clint?
Darrell has some valid concerns about people playing to specifically pad their ratings. If it really means nothing but fun why would anyone want to do that. If the ratings are going to be used for selecting players for games and such what mechanism is there in the rating system to penalize players who sit the fence and let everyone else do the work while building victory condition points for themselves. How does the proposed system take into account the player who plays multiple nations and uses one simply to support and agrandize the other? If the rating system is for fun only then these concerns are unimportant but if they have another purpose which I feel they do then you must try to ensure that there is a level field for comparison.
Brad
The only way I can see a PRS in a TEAM oriented game is to have a survey if you will of the players in the game (Both sides) to pick the top three players in the game. If I’m judging player ability in a TEAM oriented game then it will be that player that oozes teamwork and team sacrifice.
I’ve played PBM for over 15 years and played ME with GSI when the game was in its infancy. I’ve played over 20 types of PBM games. ME (at least its earlier versions) is not a game “made” for individual records.
My 2 cents
What I have seen is that the PRS is supposed to be for fun but if it has no useful function why would you go to the extra work to compile such information Clint?
As you said, for the player’s fun - takes a bit of extra work for us, ditto News from Bree, variant games, writing these emails and the like. Generally comes up under the broad spectrum of service. As for useful function - well that’s to be debated. If you see a team high up on the Grudge teams you might want to challenge them for example.
…think that the decision to join that game should be mine to make…
Where did you get this idea from? It won’t stop anyone. I ALWAYS try to make an even game at game start, with new players and veterans equally distributed for both sides as best I can. If anything this will help me do that.
Another item I have seen discussed is that players who play a lot seem to get “first dibs” on the most highly desired nations.
Nothing to do with the PRS at all - if you have SPECIFIC examples of where you think this is the case (and I see that in the last 3 games you have 20,12 and 1 - two very popular nations) and the other in a grudge game) you seem to do alright… 
How does the proposed system take into account the player who plays multiple nations and uses one simply to support and agrandize the other?
You’re one score for the one rating for the Istari will be higher and the other lower , but otherwise you won’t see any change. I personally don’t give any credence to the Istari rating (other than a negative one).
There is a level field - your score rated against the enemy score.
If I’m judging player ability in a TEAM oriented game then it will be that player that oozes teamwork and team sacrifice.
There is - it’s called the Council of the Wise rating.
Clint
The player who oozes teamwork and team sacrifice will more often than not be on winning teams. The players on winning teams will have their ratings increase. Oozing and sacrificing and scoring 400 of those dumb “VP’s” at the end of the game will get this guy likely very high ranking on 5 of the 6 player ratings that exist. I don’t understand why this so simple and obvious fact is so overlooked. Today we have 1 scoring system. VP’s, and they’re useless to the point of being harmful. So Clint has decided the best way to distract confusable people from that stupid score is to obfuscate (word?) and create 6 ratings, only 1 of which gives a rats pitui for those stupid old VP’s. We’re going from 100% dumb score to16.7% dumb score. How can we all not love the PRS?
Brad Brunet
As posted on the list, for reference here, I still like Brad Brunet’s simple PRS proposal from Bree 13:
% games completed
with VP scores along the lines of Fred’s system:
1 point for every military battle your army wins
against an enemy army.
1 point for every enemy pop center your army captures.
1 point for every enemy character you assassinate.
1 point for every enemy pop center your emissaries
influence away.
1 point for every artifact your mages pick up
Can be tweaked, but it rewards solid, team-based play pretty well.
Dan
Clint;
Thanks for taking the time to address some of the concerns I had voiced. As for the nations I have played or been playing I have no personal complaints. I was remembering the debate on the list a few months back about how games were filled etc. I just don’t want to see a time come where a player is turned away from a filling game because most of the other players in it have high PRS ratings. He may not be competitive and may get spanked but that is his choice. I can see if you said to a first time player “you know we want this to be a good gaming experience for you and the players signed up are very good would you rather wait for another game?” If he said no sign me up I’ll take my chances and a slot is open he should get in. You addressed my concern on that issue.
I guess then I’ll watch how things pan out then.
Brad Jenison
. I can see if you said to a first time player “you know we want this to be a good gaming experience for you and the players signed up are very good would you rather wait for another game?”
I’d generally get a new player to play Bofa first off, then FP in 1650 or 2950, followed by DS in those, then let him loose. That way he’d get a broad spectrum of choices.
For 1650 and 2950 there’s a list of nations I use as introductory nations for the game. However, I would actually encourage a player to play with experienced players - that’s where I have learnt a lot of the game from and seeing a player play the game well is, IMO, worth a lot more than watching several players play badly. (Hence I don’t do newbie games - I could go into more detail if you’re interested).
Best advice - go to a FTF if you want to learn!
Clint
Clint wrote:
I’d generally get a new player to play Bofa first off, then FP in 1650 or 2950, followed by DS in those, then let him loose. That way he’d get a broad spectrum of choices.
Doesn’t directing more new players to the FP in 1650 or 2950 disadvantage them in these scenarios? As this would indicate the DS teams would have more experienced players.
Paul Young
Originally posted by klub
[b]Doesn’t directing more new players to the FP in 1650 or 2950 disadvantage them in these scenarios? As this would indicate the DS teams would have more experienced players.Paul Young [/b]
My anecdotal evidence would certainly support your indication. It makes it difficult to go FP in this game when the quality of that team is a lottery pick but the quality of the DS seems relatively consistent…
This may come as a surprise to some, but I do think a Player Ranking System could be great for MEPBM.
However, the PRS MUST actually reward good play. Regardless of what some people claim, there will be some people that will play to get good rankings. Why have a system if not to get good rankings? The fun of a ranking system is in trying to get a good ranking.
I will continue to activly fight against any ranking system what uses the GSI VC system. It blatently and damaging rewards poor play.
I also think the XP based ranking is equally bad. It clearly ranks those that play the most games as “the best players”. Why not just sell rankings?
To get anything but violent oposition from me, the system MUST reward good play. It must be more than buying rankings. I must not rely on votes or subjective rulings. It must not reward drops and transfers (in fact, it should punish these things). It must be easy to understand.
On the mailing list, I proposed a system that I belive does all these things. I was hoping to get some feedback. Nothing so far unfortunatly.
I think the system Clint has proposed will seriously damage the game. Most will ignore it, giving no fun to them. A few will play to it, meaning almost every game will have 1 or 2 people played selfishly for points.
I think the system I have propsed will actually reward good play, punish poor play, provide fun to everyone as they actually try to move up in the rankings, and will encourage people to play more games.
While I think Clint’s complex system that rewards poor play will harm MEPBM, I think mine would be a profound enhancement to the game.
Please take a long look at my proposal and let Clint and I know what you think.
Darrell Shimel
To late Darrell, they are already posted on the ME game site. Admit, I found it interesting scaning so many familiar names. From some names, nations and points I saw situations where someone was ranked in the top ten for their particular nation even though they were beaten by the One Ring.
Hey, one more category. How many anoymous players have won with the One Ring?
Best Dunlendings is only 1700??? Sheet. I’ll be able to BLOW that away in 233. I hope the Eothraim are restarted in 17. If so, my Corsairs will easily beat 1850.
Of course, it wasn’t easy for that Eothraim to go out on turn 3. He had to do a lot of really dumb buys that he cuoldn’t afford, then ignore all his teammates’ pleas to change the buys.
Clearly, this player was placed into the game by the DS so they could get an easy win and move up in the player rankings.
Oh, and the one SK where I got the second best score on the list. It was an accident. It was an NKA where I took 2 enemy capitals in the first 7 turns. I had huge armies marching on a third enemy when the game ended. Man we had some good players on that NKA team. Guess I won’t have to play that position like a jerk to get to the top of the list.
You know, I’ve been playing a long time, and most of the names on the list I’d never heard of until I started playing with Harlie. Most of the GSI, DGE old timers are noticable absent from the list.
Hopefully it isn’t too late to get Clint to reconsider replacing this system that rewards bad play, with my proposed system that will reward good play.
Originally posted by dshimel
[b]On the mailing list, I proposed a system that I belive does all these things. I was hoping to get some feedback. Nothing so far unfortunatly.
.
.
.
Please take a long look at my proposal and let Clint and I know what you think.Darrell Shimel [/b]
I took a look and replied. I believe the list is now fully moderated due to a recent scourge of unwanted spam. While I’m confident my message will get through, I’ll summarize here. Caution: anyone who hasn’t read through Darrell’s proposal shouldn’t read what follows…
While I liked the work you put into it and really liked your handling of drops/transfers in the Win% portion, I had an issue with your adjuster.
Briefly, a guy plays 3 games for 2.5 years with a 60% win% and ranks higher than a guy who plays 2 games for 5 years with a 70% win%. If win% is so important, this, right off the bat, doesn’t make sense.
I did a quick calculation in my head and determined that the 3 games at a time guy had run (based on 26 turns a year per game) 195 turns. The 2 games at a time guy ran 260 turns over the course of that 5 year period. More turns AND a higher win% gives him…a lower ranking. I simply commented that it might be more worthwhile (and simpler likely) to create a new adjuster based on turns run within whatever period the ratings are based on. Over the 2.5 years 3 game guy ran 195 turns, 2 game guy rank 130. Now, over THAT time, it’s a 50% increase in turns run, but is the money spent worth that much over a 16.7% better win%?
This is a single type of issue that can be arrived at when you try to roll “experience” together with “win%” in any single type ranking. I believe there are many ways to work this, one of which is to break up the various rankings, which is what MEGames has done. Tough and often thankless job.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
Originally posted by Player
[b]While I liked the work you put into it and really liked your handling of drops/transfers in the Win% portion, I had an issue with your adjuster.Briefly, a guy plays 3 games for 2.5 years with a 60% win% and ranks higher than a guy who plays 2 games for 5 years with a 70% win%. If win% is so important, this, right off the bat, doesn’t make sense.[/b]
Brad,
Thank you for your well though out post. I had to rewrite the proposal a bit to get it past the list moderator. One of the things I had to remove is what I think the real reason Clint wants the PRS. Aging the points is a BIG hint at what the PRS is about. You can’t stay at the top, unless you keep playing lots of games.
The “stated” reason for having the adjuster age so quickly is to give newer players a chance to move up. This is a VERY strong, if not the only, reason for aging the experience.
The point of the game is to try to get you to play a lot of games, and win as many of them as possible. No one will be encouraged to win, and play many games by the ranking system that would rquire them to wait 5+ years to have a decent shot of moving up the leader board…
No, to stay at the top, you can’t rest on past games. You have to keep playing lots of games, and you have to keep your win % up. If you play a few games at a time, you better have a killer win %, or someone that playes a lot more will pass you up.
That said, the math could easily be worked to reduce the rate at which expereince ages. Instead of going away at a rate of 1/20 a season, it could age at a rate of 1/30th, 1/40th, whatever. This can easily be tweaked.
Also, the current PRS that Clint is implimenting ages points at a rate of 5% per… hat was it… 5% per month? I was just trying to follow his lead on this.
Originally posted by Player
[b]This is a single type of issue that can be arrived at when you try to roll “experience” together with “win%” in any single type ranking. I believe there are many ways to work this, one of which is to break up the various rankings, which is what MEGames has done. Tough and often thankless job.Regards,
Brad Brunet [/b]
The win%, experinece (aged and unaged), and the final ranking could all be displayed. That would give you the separate numbers for various rankings. Heck, they could even show more than 10 games of history if you’ve been in more than 10 games. However, only the most recent 10 should be used for the win%. That way, even if you have a drop, you can eventually (by playing lots of games) move back up the ranking system as the drops fall of your “record”.
My recent experience in Game 17 has shown me the need for an additional rule. Only games lasting longer than 7 turns would count. It is turn 3, and it looks to be over. People may drop $15 of $20 on a puppet account to sabotage a game and get a quick win, but I doubt many would drop $50-75.
Again, thanks for your well thought out ideas.
My biggest concern is that the PRS not reward bad behavior, such as drops, selfish play, backstabbing allies, neutrals riding the fence until the game is in the bag, etc.
Darrell Shimel
wow,
i read some of this, and skipped to the end. so its a rating system based on your play in a fantasy game, which has a pretty tight group of players, you’ll most likely never meet. hey, i’m all for it( its amusing fun), but guys, keep it in its proper context. a rating system in which being number one gains you nothing but a sense of pride. it doesn’t make you a better man, a better player, nor rate you a fiscal benefit worth losing sleep over. whats the rumpus all about, its a game. lets move on to something important, like randomizing all the starting artifact numbers, and punishing those who drop out on turn 2 without telling anyone.
its a game guys…
sm
Originally posted by smuller
wow,
keep it in its proper context. a rating system in which being number one gains you nothing but a sense of pride.
If I believed that it wouldn’t change how ANY ONE played, I would agree with you. However, I STRONGLY believe it will change how some play. A few players will modify their behavior in order to get a better ranking. If only 10% do modify their behavior, then it will average 2-3 players per game that are playing for points instead of fun and challenge.
It was no fun dealing with these people back in the GSI GWC days, and it will be no fun dealing with them now. Ask the players of 233 and 17 how much fun it is playing with someone going for points instead of challenge, balance, fun, etc.
In other words, All Else Being equal, the rating system is a small gain at no cost. However, it is VERY unlikely that there will be “no cost”. I find the potential cost WAYYYYY to high to justify the very small gain.
Darrell Shimel
Until I actually reviewed the PRS it never struck me how short a shrift One Ring victories receive. Possibly the most difficult feat in this game and you get no credit for it. Even the 200 extra points for ending the game via One Ring means nothing except in one rating. That particular rating appears, from comments posted, to be a negative or inverse rating.