Player Rating System

General
#41

Darrell,

I also believe the PRS will change some peoples play to try get better ranks, but since many of the ratings are about team play and winning, I expect these players will try to improve their play to rank better and I think this is a good thing.

For instance how can a person rate well in the Council of the Wise without playing a good team game? If you are a selfish Noldo, South Gondor or Cloud Lord player who goes for the points every time, won’t your team lose more often and your Maia, Ainur and Nazgul ratings be crap?

I do not profess to fully understand or presume the system is perfect at the moment, but it has good potential.

Paul

#42

Is One Ring “difficult” or “lucky” when it comes right down to it?

Come to think of it, most people I talk with would likely consider a One Ring game a “rip off”, as we’re playing, essentially, a war game…

Brad Brunet

#43

Brad, try it sometime. Then you will know if it is easy/hard/lucky.

Alternately, when Harley has the source codes propose its abolition. We can make this game as pedestrian as virtually all wargames. Call cursers ‘heavy artillery’, etc.

#44

Originally posted by klub
[b]Darrell,

I also believe the PRS will change some people’s play to try get better ranks, but since many of the ratings are about team play and winning, I expect these players will try to improve their play to rank better and I think this is a good thing. [/b]

IF, the system was JUST based on winning % and games played (as the system I’ve proposed is), I’d agree the PRS would be a good thing.

However, the system implimented by Clint uses Victory Points. Horrid, Horrid Victory points… Yes my precious, we don’t like the VPs do we. No my precious.

People counting victory points get very tentative in the mid and late game. They hoard resources. They keep thier characters and armies out of harm’s way. They let others do the fighting and dieing. I have no desire to return to the days where 1-2 players per game were counting victory points.

And, the current PRS doesn’t descriminate against a neutral that sat the fence the whole game. A win is a win. And, the current PRS doesn’t account for someone that drops a position that is picked up by someone else.

AND, the current PRS is so complicated that I couldn’t understand it. I got straight As in 4 semisters of college calculus, and I couldn’t understand it.

I think a much simplified system that laymen can understand, with fewer rankings, that accounts for drops and neutrals riding the fence, that ignores the VPs, that combines experience and winning into a single understandable number, would be much better than what Clint has implimented.

Darrell Shimel

#45

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.

I attempt to balance the games as much as I can - and they are usually pretty balanced. So I split the new players amongst both sides for example and also make sure, if possible, that there are mentors to help out if I can.

As for difficulty understanding the ratings - it’s not that hard - having done calculus I would say that it is much easier than that I would say. Basic algebra is what you need.

In short: Compare your team score vs your opponents team score; gain or lose the difference appropriate.

eg Valar rating: Change in your rating = 45 + (Total of losing team’s indvidual scores - Total of the winning team’s individual scores)/150.

An example is given on the webpage but that’s the basics (note you don’t need to understand the maths either we do that for you).

Each rating attempts to give an insight into each players ratings slightly differently. Valar, team play (wins rewarded), Maia (experience in the game), Istari individual prowess as indicated by the VPs you gain both as a ranking for the highest rated Nations and as an overall total. (Note overall total is compared to other players playing that nation so playing a nation that typically scores big won’t give you a big rating here - but playing, say, the Northmen, and scoring well with that will do).

Ainur I think is the most interesting - Grudge team games. I hope that it will replace the World Champs when that comes to an end but that’s for you guys to decide.

Nazgul: combination of experience (games played) and % wins.

Basically covers the main points of a rating I think. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this. For more detail check out the website.

Clint

#46

Originally posted by Clint
eg Valar rating: Change in your rating = 45 + (Total of losing team’s indvidual scores - Total of the winning team’s individual scores).

So, do you get this change to your score whether you win or lose? What is the “ranking” of a brand new player in comparison to someone that has been playing for 10 years with a very experinced bunch of players?

How about people like me that have won 7-8 games under GSI and DGE, but ony 3 since you have taken over?

So, if you’re team of 12 averages 10 rating points above the competition, giving you 120 more points than them, then you could actually lose 75 point, even if you win the game?

So, let’s say my team of 12 10-year veterans has a valar rating averaging 1600 each. We win against a team of players that average 1500.

Are you telling me we that by winning gain (45+18000-19200= -1005)… I mean lose 1005 points?

Either I’m still REALLY far from understanding the system, or it sucks FAR worse than even I thought.


Each rating attempts to give an insight into each players ratings slightly differently. Valar, team play (wins rewarded), Maia (experience in the game), Istari individual prowess as indicated by the VPs you gain both as a ranking for the highest rated Nations and as an overall total. (Note overall total is compared to other players playing that nation so playing a nation that typically scores big won’t give you a big rating here - but playing, say, the Northmen, and scoring well with that will do).

I won’t pester anyone by again explaing all the ways around the system that you have failed to address.


Ainur I think is the most interesting - Grudge team games. I hope that it will replace the World Champs when that comes to an end but that’s for you guys to decide.

Even this one I don’t like. I’m playing in a grudge game where Marc P it the captail. Last game Darren Morris was our captian. The game before that, I sat out. Is this the team that is lsited in the top 10 for this ranking, or is that a different team run by Marc? Last geme, Richard Deveruex was on the team we beat. Now he’s a better grduge team player because he joined out team for a game?


Nazgul: combination of experience (games played) and % wins.

Hmmmm… I thought it was ordered only by win %.

[b]
Basically covers the main points of a rating I think. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this. For more detail check out the website.

Clint [/b]

Hardly… How does the aging work? How are drops going to be handled? How is my score affected by playing two positions?

Why did you design a system that rewards poor team play?

MUCH has been left totally uncovered.

Darrell Shimel

#47

Hey ho, I haven’t won a game or even been on the winning team for years now but I keep playing in the fond hope that I will be again one day . . . Guess what, most of my ratings are fairly crap though I am reasonably “experienced” according to the system - this is accurate enough. I think that I’ve discovered most of the ways to shoot myself in the foot in this game. (If anyone from game 87 is reading this don’t mention that incident:o).

I still like the idea of the PRS, I’m not bothered by it. I’m only relieved that the “worst” rankings aren’t on there because no-one would ever play on my team again I suspect. Certainly not Darrell I’m guessing.

Let’s just get on with it and if we see it becoming detrimental we can review it. ME is a fabulous game, I’ve played it and been fascinated by it for around about ten years. This is just a “fun” sideshow in my book. And if there are any brilliant grudge teams looking for a genuine challenge why not have me on your team? If you still win then you really are something special! :rolleyes:

Simon.

#48

maybe I’m just stupid but with so many different rating systems can’t you just figure out which one you consider valid and only pay attention to that one? it seems a bit rediculous to worry too much about it…my thoughts on the subject as simplistic as they may be

#49

Perhaps people drop because they don’t like some of the guys that have arbitrarily been allocated to the team in random start up games.

It takes a few turns to work out that there are idiots on your team and then a couple more to realise that nothing short of a miracle is going to change the situation. Why then, waste money on something you’re not going to enjoy - I’m not talking about only playing to win here, but playing to make friends, have fun and play against challenging oposition.

I can also see from the rating lists that some people who are definitely crap (oooh, controversial, but come on, everyone thinks someone is crap) have high point scores.

At what point will people start asking only to be in games with people over a certain point score?

If, as is being said, the system is just for a bit of fun, then fine, it’s another great free addition to the game. If people change the way they play because of a new system (when most people have been happily ignoring the old system) then it won’t be a great addition.

Having said this, I’d like to see the formulae used for each of the ratings and I’d like to see how my own are made up - but since I haven’t signed this Clint, then don’t reply, I’ll email you direct off the list.

Cheers

Sc0rp10

#50

Originally posted by blind one 118
maybe I’m just stupid but with so many different rating systems can’t you just figure out which one you consider valid and only pay attention to that one?

If there were a way to ensure that every person in every game I join were ignoring the VPs, I’d have no problem with the PRS. However, it only takes 1 or 2 players per game watching VPs to screw the game up for everyone else.

As someone else said much better that I have, you have to be careful what you measure because measuring people will change them.

There was a study done here in the states where they put secret cameras in a public restroom. If there was only 1 person in the restroom, it was 50-50 whether they would wash their hands when done. If there were 2 or more people in the restroom, it was 80% they’d wash their hands. Something as stupid as a total stranger noticing you don’t always wash your hands, is enough to get many to wash.

Back in the days of GWCs, soemthign as stupid as a free $15 setup was enough to make many pay attention to their VPs. It sucked becuase the VPs reward bad play. Rewarding bad play encourages bad play.

I’d been away for about a year getting a divorce. When I came back to the game, I’d found DGE gone and MEGames in charge. They changed a lot of things.

No turning Special Service off and skipping a turn to avoid going under. SWEET!
More players playing with a single company meat games started much faster. SWEET!
An improved web site, a better forum, Yahoo mailing list. SWEET.
Encouraging players sharing info to give newbies a fighting chance. Sweet.

BEST of all, the VPs were ignored. No GWCs. No “winners lists”.

Since that time, I’ve not been in a single game where I felt a player was playing poorly just to get VPs.

I don’t want those days to return. They sucked.

And, I’m not even againts change for change’s sake. Palantir is great. Many love Meow and AM. Color maps are okay (though I have trouple seeing forts on some terrain).

I think a PRS is a great idea. I just think they need to be MUCH more careful in creating one so that it only rewards behavior that really should be encouraged.

In my dozens of times asking why VPs are being used, the closest to an answer I’ve gotten is that some players want it. This tells me that “some players” look forward to playing selfishly for the sake of personal bragging rights. These few will gain these personal bragging rights by pissing off 80% of their teammates. For that reason, I think it is the WORST thing Clint could do to the game.

Darrell Shimel

#51

I would say that in your case…and mine since I don’t care for sandbaggers either…the player voting system would be the one to watch…I was in a game…my first actually…where there was no witch king and the cardolan player won without ever fighting a single battle…and I do mean none lol <yes this was in the good old gsi days>…think he would have gotten many votes? anyway…I personally refuse to allow where my rating stands to influence my play…I have my own rating system and that is the more the enemy hates me the better I’ve done…and if you really hate sandbaggers…well go out there and kill them before the game ends lol

#52

eg Valar rating: Change in your rating = 45 + (Total of losing team’s indvidual scores - Total of the winning team’s individual scores)/150

Sorry missed the divide by 150.

We sent out a questionnaire for players to get their initial ratings. For those who want to participate and answered we have incorporated those answers. Base value is 1500 as explained on the website.

In a 15v10 game you could indeed lose points.

As for Istari - some players asked for it. I put Darrell’s Nazgul system up - as time goes on we’ll update bits and pieces - anything in particular anyone wants? When we have let this run a while we’ll look at updating it more but for now I want to see what we get out of it. So far I have had a bunch of emails off list saying cool so I am glad that it has increased enjoyment for those players.

Grudge teams - we have a list of the players for each team - should we put that up on the list? Some players are part of more than one team and we have contacted all the Team Captain/co-ordinators. We can do all this if players want.

As for Darrell’s other questions the answers for drops, two nations and aging are all on the website. In short, drop counts as a loss, 2 nations only one counts, aging 5% normalisation (ie closer to 1500 for some of the ratings not the Istari, Nazgul, CoWise ratings) occurs and only active players show up.

Hope that helps.

Clint

#53

Originally posted by Clint
As for Istari - some players asked for it.

That should put to bed forever the idea that no one will try to score high VPs. Why ask for a rating unless you think it would be fun to try to do well at it.

Originally posted by Clint
as time goes on we’ll update bits and pieces

So, it is no longer “giving it a try” with the possibility it could go away?

Originally posted by Clint
drop counts as a loss
[/b]

Odd since a person with 2 drops is listed in second place of the Nazgul rating.

Originally posted by Clint
2 nations only one counts,
[/b]

Even for the XP rating? Doesn’t seem right to me? Two positions shoud count double for all rankings.

Originally posted by Clint
aging 5% normalisation (ie closer to 1500 for some of the ratings not the Istari, Nazgul, CoWise ratings) occurs
[/b]

Every how often.

You keep mentioning that all the specifics are on the web site, but I can’t find it anywhere. Care to tell me how to find it?

#54

Odd since a person with 2 drops is listed in second place of the Nazgul rating.

Okay for clarity. With Nazgul they are recorded so that players can see, as per your original request.

For Valar and Maia it counts as a loss.

www.MiddleEarthGames.com

go to the PRS section - not sure which link but it’s the one with the equations on it as per the earlier email on this subject.

One nation counts only for rating. Seemed most appropriate.

Updating doesn’t mean that we won’t consider dropping it should we get negative feedback. At present I have overwhelming feedback in the positive, where players claim that it’s adding to their fun and won’t affect their play. This is the first draft and I’ll consider modifications and use feedback from players to improve it.

If anyone else has any questions please feel free. Having spent 8 hours answering Darrell’s emails now I feel it only fair that I spend some time allocated to others in the game. I hope that I have been reasonable throughout and apologise if I have become irate or unfair at any time.

Clint

#55

I have a question which is if most of your team think it is ok to use the most offensive language to insult players on the other side and continue to do so, am I no forced to play on or get a drop next to my name?

Vandal

#56

Vamdal, are you still talking about Herman’s “KISS”, or dealing with an obnoxious team mate? Or, what?

#57

Vandal,

You spend your money as you will. If people are insulting you on this forum, don’t visit this forum. No guns to your head, nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you drop, it’s a loss. Your choice.

Brad

#58
  1. Nothing to do with HERMAN though we will dance our dance till one of us passes one way or the other.
  2. I did specify in game and nothing to do with the Forum and nothing to do with anyone insulting me.

The question is if you team thinks its ok to tell the nuetrals not once but at least about 20 time to F*** O** and I will not bother with the rest of the bile, why should I get penalised?

Of cours the fact I do not follow the points means what do I care but all the same still do not like it on that basis.

Of course I could be wrong and perhaps most of the players think its OK, just not me

Vandal

#59

Is it possible that there is a plan here? Perhaps the neutral has a fragile ego and can’t take pressure (profanity shows a limited vocabulary, however). The intent being to run off that particular neutral and obtain a better replacement? (( BTW, one more unforseen consequence of filling all vacancies ASAP.))

Psychology plays an enormous, if unremarked, role in this game. I have seen individuals and teams fold up when the right psychological pressures are exertred. So, you may not be privy to a particular psyops but one is underway anyway?

#60

Originally posted by vandal
The question is if you team thinks its ok to tell the nuetrals not once but at least about 20 time to F*** O** and I will not bother with the rest of the bile, why should I get penalised?

It’s a fair point - there are certainly genuine reasons to drop from a game but then again there’s no reason to limit it to an obnoxous team-mate or team. Unexpected changes in personal circumstances are probably the number one reason for drops and no one should really get penalised for these, either.

On the other hand, drops due to this nature or because of a bad team are probably not going to happen that often on an individual basis - maybe one or two games for each person. That won’t impact your ratings much and I don’t think people will look down on someone who’s dropped a couple of games. There has to be something to catch ‘serial droppers’ if there are any.

If you never want the chance of dropping due to your team then play only with people you know. While you’re at it, better make sure you never get sick or hit by a bus in case you have to drop a couple of games :slight_smile: