Player Rating System

[Winn_Keathley]

The main problem in the system is the useless individual VCs. Of the
four main VCs, only one of them (gold) is truly measuring something
that isn't important for winning (and is arguably counterproductive.)........I find it really strange that the
state of your position at the end of the game should have no bearing
on an evaluation of how well you did. I do agree that it would be
great to develop individual VCs that brought in performance of
important goals as a complementary ingredient.

Any reply to this by me would be spam. The archives contain these arguments, and the counter arguments, and the counters to the counter arguments....ad nauseum. Been there. Done that.

This puzzles me a lot. Usually there is a reward for winning a game,
not losing one. And you'll get better games if you encourage the
better players to join new games.

I find the reward to winning to be...winning. Setting up my castle in the highest point in my enemies land and laughing maniacly as I look out over the burning ruins of his kingdom. Why is more required? I find it very hard to imagine that the reward significantly alters the % of victors who sign up for new games. But I like Clint's compromise solution.

Winn

P.S. I agreed completely with Laurence's last post about player based ratings. I would have replied but I couldn't think of anything to say but "Yeah! Exactly!".

···

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

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

This puzzles me a lot. Usually there is a reward for winning a game,
not losing one.

I find the reward to winning to be...winning. Setting up my castle in the
highest point in my enemies land and laughing maniacly as I look out over
the burning ruins of his kingdom. Why is more required?

Mmm... Rather worrying there. Perhaps Clint should replace GWCs
with psychotherapy vouchers...

P.S. I agreed completely with Laurence's last post about player based
ratings. I would have replied but I couldn't think of anything to say but
"Yeah! Exactly!".

You may throw roses from the balcony. @--->-----

I was disappointed though, that Marc was less impressed. That though
is why I'd like us to sort this one out, and come up with a truly catholic
player roster - one which can be acceptable to all players. I think we
can have an opt in player rating system, and a VP or alternative VP tally
running side by side. Players who really don't like one system or the
other would still have their votes and VPs recorded (for own info and in
case they ever change their minds) but not published in the relevant
column on the roster.

I'm away for a few days from tomorrow, so I won't be able to add to
this thread for a while. I hope though that Clint will send out a
questionnaire as I suggested, so we can get a Phase 1 list of interested
players produced.

Regards,

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

···

Winn Keathley <Gnaeus@hotmail.com> wrote

[MPinsono]

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

Winn Keathley <Gnaeus@h...> wrote

One issue with a player-based rating system is that it will favor the
strong nations over the weak ones. I was intrigued by the prospect of
a handicap system that would compare Noldo player to all other Noldo
players. It is fairly easy to predict, for example, that the Cloud
Lord will be one of the three most effective dark servants on a
winning DS team, or that Southern Gondor will take those honors on a
successful free team. And it is bloody hard to try and figure out in
some subjective way that a Woodman position that was played better
than normal somehow gets more points than a Gondor player that sacked
five capitals. If there is any point to it at all, I'll check with
Clint on what sorts of things they could put for individual VCs and I
could try and come up with a 2950 set of custom VCs. I'd leave it to
a 1650 vet to do the same for 1650.
Current VCs that could survive would be
1. character xxx killed (on the other team!) - I don't like this one
though, too random and not directly tied to the player skill
2. population center xxx held at game end - I'd prefer to see
population center xxx held until turn x or taken before turn y
3. kill more than xxx characters - I'd like to see this bumped up a
lot for a CL VC

Holding an artifact, most mithril, most gold, anything involving
friendly characters or pops, most kills all go in the trash.

Useful others could be

Defeating more than xxx armies in battle
Capturing or destroying more than xxx population centers
Shipping a net of xxx more gold than received to allies
Creating more than xxx new camps

Quite apart from the victory conditions things, these sort of things
could serve as a kind of advice to new players about important things
that their nations can do. If you want to do things another way, it
doesn't hurt you at all to ignore this stuff.

So - let's see how we can develop both kinds of systems and then
figure out what works best.

cheers,

Marc

I was disappointed though, that Marc was less impressed. That

though

is why I'd like us to sort this one out, and come up with a truly

catholic

player roster - one which can be acceptable to all players. I think

we

can have an opt in player rating system, and a VP or alternative VP

tally

running side by side. Players who really don't like one system or

the

other would still have their votes and VPs recorded (for own info

and in

case they ever change their minds) but not published in the relevant
column on the roster.

I'm away for a few days from tomorrow, so I won't be able to add to
this thread for a while. I hope though that Clint will send out a
questionnaire as I suggested, so we can get a Phase 1 list of

interested

···

players produced.

Regards,

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

[Harlequin_Games1]

If you use a comparitive scale for game to game. I can't really change the
VCs for nations though i am afraid.

Clint

···

One issue with a player-based rating system is that it will favor the
strong nations over the weak ones. I was intrigued by the prospect of
a handicap system that would compare Noldo player to all other Noldo
players. It is fairly easy to predict, for example, that the Cloud
Lord will be one of the three most effective dark servants on a
winning DS team, or that Southern Gondor will take those honors on a
successful free team. And it is bloody hard to try and figure out in
some subjective way that a Woodman position that was played better
than normal somehow gets more points than a Gondor player that sacked
five capitals. If there is any point to it at all, I'll check with
Clint on what sorts of things they could put for individual VCs and I
could try and come up with a 2950 set of custom VCs. I'd leave it to
a 1650 vet to do the same for 1650.
Current VCs that could survive would be
1. character xxx killed (on the other team!) - I don't like this one
though, too random and not directly tied to the player skill
2. population center xxx held at game end - I'd prefer to see
population center xxx held until turn x or taken before turn y
3. kill more than xxx characters - I'd like to see this bumped up a
lot for a CL VC

Holding an artifact, most mithril, most gold, anything involving
friendly characters or pops, most kills all go in the trash.

Useful others could be

Defeating more than xxx armies in battle
Capturing or destroying more than xxx population centers
Shipping a net of xxx more gold than received to allies
Creating more than xxx new camps

Quite apart from the victory conditions things, these sort of things
could serve as a kind of advice to new players about important things
that their nations can do. If you want to do things another way, it
doesn't hurt you at all to ignore this stuff.

So - let's see how we can develop both kinds of systems and then
figure out what works best.

cheers,

Marc

> I was disappointed though, that Marc was less impressed. That
though
> is why I'd like us to sort this one out, and come up with a truly
catholic
> player roster - one which can be acceptable to all players. I think
we
> can have an opt in player rating system, and a VP or alternative VP
tally
> running side by side. Players who really don't like one system or
the
> other would still have their votes and VPs recorded (for own info
and in
> case they ever change their minds) but not published in the relevant
> column on the roster.
>
> I'm away for a few days from tomorrow, so I won't be able to add to
> this thread for a while. I hope though that Clint will send out a
> questionnaire as I suggested, so we can get a Phase 1 list of
interested
> players produced.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

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/

[Mr_Michael_DuDash]

As usual someone comes up with "this is the best way"

···

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

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley"
<laurence@l...> wrote:
> Winn Keathley <Gnaeus@h...> wrote
One issue with a player-based rating system is that
it will favor the
strong nations over the weak ones. I was intrigued
by the prospect of
a handicap system that would compare Noldo player to
all other Noldo
players. It is fairly easy to predict, for example,
that the Cloud
Lord will be one of the three most effective dark
servants on a
winning DS team, or that Southern Gondor will take
those honors on a
successful free team. And it is bloody hard to try
and figure out in
some subjective way that a Woodman position that was
played better
than normal somehow gets more points than a Gondor
player that sacked
five capitals. If there is any point to it at all,
I'll check with
Clint on what sorts of things they could put for
individual VCs and I
could try and come up with a 2950 set of custom VCs.
I'd leave it to
a 1650 vet to do the same for 1650.
Current VCs that could survive would be
1. character xxx killed (on the other team!) - I
don't like this one
though, too random and not directly tied to the
player skill
2. population center xxx held at game end - I'd
prefer to see
population center xxx held until turn x or taken
before turn y
3. kill more than xxx characters - I'd like to see
this bumped up a
lot for a CL VC

Holding an artifact, most mithril, most gold,
anything involving
friendly characters or pops, most kills all go in
the trash.

Useful others could be

Defeating more than xxx armies in battle
Capturing or destroying more than xxx population
centers
Shipping a net of xxx more gold than received to
allies
Creating more than xxx new camps

Quite apart from the victory conditions things,
these sort of things
could serve as a kind of advice to new players about
important things
that their nations can do. If you want to do things
another way, it
doesn't hurt you at all to ignore this stuff.

So - let's see how we can develop both kinds of
systems and then
figure out what works best.

cheers,

Marc

> I was disappointed though, that Marc was less
impressed. That
though
> is why I'd like us to sort this one out, and come
up with a truly
catholic
> player roster - one which can be acceptable to all
players. I think
we
> can have an opt in player rating system, and a VP
or alternative VP
tally
> running side by side. Players who really don't
like one system or
the
> other would still have their votes and VPs
recorded (for own info
and in
> case they ever change their minds) but not
published in the relevant
> column on the roster.
>
> I'm away for a few days from tomorrow, so I won't
be able to add to
> this thread for a while. I hope though that Clint
will send out a
> questionnaire as I suggested, so we can get a
Phase 1 list of
interested
> players produced.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

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/

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