Player Rating System

mepbmlist
#1

I think my views are clearly established on record, but just to make sure my side is still represented:

I like the ranking system through player votes at the end of the games that was recently suggested.

I strongly dislike any modification which keeps current victory points system and encourages it as somehow meaningful, for example:

> 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with the
> highest adjusted scores as defined above.

I think it discourages good play.

Winn

···

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#2

Players, and most do, are more than welcome to ignore the the VP/Cs. At
present I cannot modify the Printout effectively but am happy to instigate a
Player rating system. We've tried it before, but I will try it again as a
test run soon. I'll come back to you all with what the results and we can
start working through them all.

Any amendments to Laurence's sheet of questions?

Clint

I think my views are clearly established on record, but just to make sure

my

side is still represented:

I like the ranking system through player votes at the end of the games

that

···

was recently suggested.

I strongly dislike any modification which keeps current victory points
system and encourages it as somehow meaningful, for example:
> > 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with the
> > highest adjusted scores as defined above.
I think it discourages good play.

Winn
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#3

I agree that the Rating should be based on player votes, and NOT victory points. It
would make the diplomatic effort more involved, since after the diplomatic efforts to
woo potential neutral allies is over, the diplomatic efforts to "win votes" for the
end game could begin. It would give a sense of rivalry to an allegiance, and might
even spark (role played) civil wars once a team was way out in front.

···

------Original Message-----
-From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
-Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:39 AM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System
-
-
-Players, and most do, are more than welcome to ignore the the VP/Cs. At
-present I cannot modify the Printout effectively but am happy to instigate a
-Player rating system. We've tried it before, but I will try it again as a
-test run soon. I'll come back to you all with what the results and we can
-start working through them all.
-
-Any amendments to Laurence's sheet of questions?
-
-Clint
-
-> I think my views are clearly established on record, but just to make sure
-my
-> side is still represented:
->
-> I like the ranking system through player votes at the end of the games
-that
-> was recently suggested.
->
-> I strongly dislike any modification which keeps current victory points
-> system and encourages it as somehow meaningful, for example:
-> > > 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with the
-> > > highest adjusted scores as defined above.
-> I think it discourages good play.
->
-> Winn
-> _________________________________________________________________
-> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
->
->
-> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
-> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
-> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
->
->
-> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
->
->
-
-
-Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
-To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
-http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
-
-
-Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-
-

#4

I like the Player rating system idea.

In fact, I'll host the roster on my website if there is enough interest.

As at the moment there's a lot of discussion but not much happening. I've
added a page at http://localhost/middle/main/Player%20Roster.htm as an
example of what it might look like.

Really just to get more feedback.

Until Harly actually ask for info, I don't think we'll know.

Kev

#5

And this is good gor the game how???

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaruman [mailto:aaruman@orions.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:08 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System

I agree that the Rating should be based on player votes, and NOT victory
points. It
would make the diplomatic effort more involved, since after the diplomatic
efforts to
woo potential neutral allies is over, the diplomatic efforts to "win votes"
for the
end game could begin. It would give a sense of rivalry to an allegiance, and
might
even spark (role played) civil wars once a team was way out in front.

------Original Message-----
-From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
-Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:39 AM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System
-
-
-Players, and most do, are more than welcome to ignore the the VP/Cs. At
-present I cannot modify the Printout effectively but am happy to instigate
a
-Player rating system. We've tried it before, but I will try it again as a
-test run soon. I'll come back to you all with what the results and we can
-start working through them all.
-
-Any amendments to Laurence's sheet of questions?
-
-Clint
-
-> I think my views are clearly established on record, but just to make sure
-my
-> side is still represented:
->
-> I like the ranking system through player votes at the end of the games
-that
-> was recently suggested.
->
-> I strongly dislike any modification which keeps current victory points
-> system and encourages it as somehow meaningful, for example:
-> > > 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with the
-> > > highest adjusted scores as defined above.
-> I think it discourages good play.
->
-> Winn
-> _________________________________________________________________
-> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
->
->
-> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
-> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
-> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
->
->
-> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
->
->
-
-
-Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
-To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
-http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
-
-
-Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-
-

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#6

Hi Kevin,

Correct link turned out to be: http://www.middleearthpbm.co.uk/main/P
layer%20Roster.htm

Yes, that's the sort of thing. Just like to see a few more columns on the
base information: approx number of games played (as opposed to
certified games since player rating system started); year started playing
(if we ask number of years as player, it has to be updated more often);
contact details - you could hotlink the names to e-mail addresses, but
that could upset the non-emailers.

And of course much more debate until we settle on the detail of how the
voting system works. I don't think you need an "average votes" column,
people will be able to work that out for themselves if they really need it,
and it will rather oppress those who don't manage to get many votes.
Let's stick to the raw data, and not presume to begin the analysis.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Kevin <kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

I like the Player rating system idea.

In fact, I'll host the roster on my website if there is enough interest.

As at the moment there's a lot of discussion but not much happening. I've
added a page at http://localhost/middle/main/Player%20Roster.htm as an
example of what it might look like.

Really just to get more feedback.

#7

I will not participate in beauty contests that will create ill will
between teammates. I can understand some reluctance to reward players
based on what is perceived to be a flawed system. However,you appear
to be saying that there should be no financial incentive for doing
well with a nation, even if there is a handicap system to account for
the difference between nations and even if there are individual VCs
that reflect important things that the nations should be doing.
Quite apart from any personal benefit, there is a *reason* why it is
in Harlys best interest to give $25 away to earn $150 from a typical
game by encouraging folks to join more.

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Winn Keathley" <Gnaeus@h...> wrote:

I think my views are clearly established on record, but just to make

sure my

side is still represented:

I like the ranking system through player votes at the end of the

games that

was recently suggested.

I strongly dislike any modification which keeps current victory

points

system and encourages it as somehow meaningful, for example:
> > 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with

the

···

> > highest adjusted scores as defined above.
I think it discourages good play.

Winn
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#8

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Aaruman" <aaruman@o...> wrote:

I agree that the Rating should be based on player votes, and NOT

victory points.

Have you folks honestly thought through what this would do?

Christ almighty, this idea has the potential to create an incredible
amount of bickering and ill will. Is it *that* hard to come up with
objective measures of what constitutes good or bad performance for a
given nation?

For the record: I will not participate in any beauty contest system in
any way, shape, or form.

Marc

#9

So why not just have each player vote, and send it to
Harly? Then you wont know who voted for who? This
seems like more work than it is worth for Clint and
the gang though, now having to tabulate votes. I do
not think there should be rewards based on the old VP
system though, it just does not accurately reflect who
the best player was, in my opinion. Anyway...

JB

···

--- pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

I will not participate in beauty contests that will
create ill will
between teammates. I can understand some reluctance
to reward players
based on what is perceived to be a flawed system.
However,you appear
to be saying that there should be no financial
incentive for doing
well with a nation, even if there is a handicap
system to account for
the difference between nations and even if there are
individual VCs
that reflect important things that the nations
should be doing.
Quite apart from any personal benefit, there is a
*reason* why it is
in Harlys best interest to give $25 away to earn
$150 from a typical
game by encouraging folks to join more.

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Winn Keathley" <Gnaeus@h...>
wrote:
> I think my views are clearly established on
record, but just to make
sure my
> side is still represented:
>
> I like the ranking system through player votes at
the end of the
games that
> was recently suggested.
>
> I strongly dislike any modification which keeps
current victory
points
> system and encourages it as somehow meaningful,
for example:
> > > 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the
three nations with
the
> > > highest adjusted scores as defined above.
> I think it discourages good play.
>
> Winn
>

_________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

#10

We give 2 free turns to a player who wins - ie we pay their set-up cost. If
the PRsystem works then we'll allocate 2 "winners" and the best player (even
if it is the same player) will get the additional 2 free turns.

Clint

···

I will not participate in beauty contests that will create ill will
between teammates. I can understand some reluctance to reward players
based on what is perceived to be a flawed system. However,you appear
to be saying that there should be no financial incentive for doing
well with a nation, even if there is a handicap system to account for
the difference between nations and even if there are individual VCs
that reflect important things that the nations should be doing.
Quite apart from any personal benefit, there is a *reason* why it is
in Harlys best interest to give $25 away to earn $150 from a typical
game by encouraging folks to join more.

Marc

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Winn Keathley" <Gnaeus@h...> wrote:
> I think my views are clearly established on record, but just to make
sure my
> side is still represented:
>
> I like the ranking system through player votes at the end of the
games that
> was recently suggested.
>
> I strongly dislike any modification which keeps current victory
points
> system and encourages it as somehow meaningful, for example:
> > > 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with
the
> > > highest adjusted scores as defined above.
> I think it discourages good play.
>
> Winn
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#11

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Aaruman" <aaruman@o...> wrote:

I agree that the Rating should be based on player votes, and NOT

victory points.

Have you folks honestly thought through what this would do?

There's potential for trouble certainly. That's why I'd vote, and argue
strongly for a secret ballot. Don't discuss your vote before or after.
Then the guy who gets votes is pleased, the guy who doesn't gets votes
or who gets few is a little disappointed, but not bitter or twisted
towards any individuals.

Christ almighty, this idea has the potential to create an incredible
amount of bickering and ill will. Is it *that* hard to come up with
objective measures of what constitutes good or bad performance for a
given nation?

Yes, it's impossible in war. Wars long finished still have historians
arguing about who fought best, who should have done something
differently, who had honour, who was right, who had clear war aims, to
what extent they were met. The only way you can ever really settle it,
and get a reasonably fair number out of it, is to make a tally of the
historians. You can count the opinions, so what actually happens, is
that you get an objective figure out of the subjective.

Note though that even opinion changes - see when this is done about
Performance ratings of US Presidents. The league table for them is
very different to the ones the newspapers complied 20 years ago.

You can't get an objective score out of the game. Someone said
something about "taking Dol Guldur by turn 10" etc. being used as
measures. Well I'm sorry, but that is completely potty. Who on earth
has the right to decree that attacking Dol G rather than bypassing it on
your way to Mordor is right or wrong? Any such system would take us
back to exactly where were coming from - a scoring system which
distorts game play by adding arbitrary objectives. Let's let players win
the war, by battle or ring, but by whatever strategy they can make
work.

For the record: I will not participate in any beauty contest system in
any way, shape, or form.

Sound's like the Ugly Guy's Lament :wink: But you don't have to. The
Player rating System would have to be an opt in system. For example,
I don't think I would opt in myself, unless it used a system like secret
ballot, which I thought would improve rather than reduce team play.

Also note that WE CAN HAVE THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS. If
enough players liked the old VP system or approved of some new
numerical scoring system, we could have them on the roster:

Name Team Votes Individual VCs (+ other columns)
             Wins Wins
Fred 7 22 0 2800
Dick 3 5 3 6000

Then people can use the data to make their own judgements. I'd be
seeking to play games with or against players like Fred. The VP
players can play with Dick :wink:

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote

#12

So why not just have each player vote, and send it to
Harly? Then you wont know who voted for who?

That's the idea. Secret ballot, basic functional democracy from Ancient
Greece.

This
seems like more work than it is worth for Clint and
the gang though, now having to tabulate votes.

It would have to be an easily manageable system. Harlequin have
always done some tidying up at the end of games anyway, generating
some odd data, like the name of the highest emissary etc. There'd be a
deadline, and a simple format. Should not be too much work for the
GM, and well worth it, for the improvement to the game and retention
of customers.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

John Briggs <john_h_briggs@yahoo.com> wrote

#13

Lots of work... :slight_smile:

It would have to be an easily manageable system. Harlequin have
always done some tidying up at the end of games anyway, generating
some odd data, like the name of the highest emissary etc. There'd be a
deadline, and a simple format. Should not be too much work for the
GM...

We'll give it a go.

C

#14

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

pinsonneault.1@o... wrote
>--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Aaruman" <aaruman@o...> wrote:
>> I agree that the Rating should be based on player votes, and NOT
>victory points.
>
>Have you folks honestly thought through what this would do?
There's potential for trouble certainly. That's why I'd vote, and

argue

strongly for a secret ballot. Don't discuss your vote before or

after.

Then the guy who gets votes is pleased, the guy who doesn't gets

votes

or who gets few is a little disappointed, but not bitter or twisted
towards any individuals.

No, they get angry at their teammates. And the best part of the game
is the feeling of camraderie that you develop. You also run into the
same folks in different games.

>
>Christ almighty, this idea has the potential to create an

incredible

>amount of bickering and ill will. Is it *that* hard to come up

with

>objective measures of what constitutes good or bad performance for

a

>given nation?
Yes, it's impossible in war.

Fortunately, this is a game. And in essentially all games, there is
some method for determining who wins and who loses. As long as you
know this in advance, *by definition* the people who meet the criteria
are the winners. If people feel resentful, they can blame the VCs
instead of blaming their teammates. If people are so terribly
selfless that individual wins don't mean anything to them, then why
should they care if they do mean something to other folks?

W

You can't get an objective score out of the game. Someone said
something about "taking Dol Guldur by turn 10" etc. being used as
measures. Well I'm sorry, but that is completely potty.

I was talking about 2950, which I know a great deal about. Unlike
1650, taking Dol Guldur early has a *huge* impact; in fact, it is by
far the best predictor of who will win a 2950 game. The starting
armies and recruiting bases of the free are far too small in 2950 to
crack the Mordor forts in the first 10-15 turns.

Who on
earth

has the right to decree that attacking Dol G rather than bypassing

it on

your way to Mordor is right or wrong?

It does give rather more useful guidance to a newbie woodman player
than telling them to accumulate the most mithril or kill Elrond :slight_smile:

Any such system would take us
back to exactly where were coming from - a scoring system which
distorts game play by adding arbitrary objectives. Let's let

players win

the war, by battle or ring, but by whatever strategy they can make
work.
>
>For the record: I will not participate in any beauty contest system

in

>any way, shape, or form.
Sound's like the Ugly Guy's Lament :wink:

I'd bet that I'd end up doing just fine in such a system, thank you.
I just plain dislike it, both because of the serious potential for bad
feelings and because I disagree with you root and branch about the
ability to devise objective methods for figuring out what a good job
in a game looks like.

Marc

But you don't have to. The

Player rating System would have to be an opt in system. For

example,

I don't think I would opt in myself, unless it used a system like

secret

···

ballot, which I thought would improve rather than reduce team play.

Also note that WE CAN HAVE THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS. If
enough players liked the old VP system or approved of some new
numerical scoring system, we could have them on the roster:

Name Team Votes Individual VCs (+ other columns)
             Wins Wins
Fred 7 22 0 2800
Dick 3 5 3 6000

Then people can use the data to make their own judgements. I'd be
seeking to play games with or against players like Fred. The VP
players can play with Dick :wink:

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#15

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

>So why not just have each player vote, and send it
to
>Harly? Then you wont know who voted for who?
That's the idea. Secret ballot, basic functional
democracy from Ancient
Greece.

Its not directly related to m/e, but my latest message
for Bftp whacks the basic principles of democracy (me
and another bloke are having a friendly argument, and
I'm trying to use democratic means to resolve the
problem). So its funny you mentioned using democracy
for middle earth.

thanks
din

···

Briggs <john_h_briggs@yahoo.com> wrote

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

#16

We'll reserve the plastic bullets and water cannon for folk like you then
:wink:

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Din <din_ohtar@yahoo.com.au> wrote

but my latest message
for Bftp whacks the basic principles of democracy