Player Ratings/New GWC's

mepbmlist
#1

marc_pinsonneault wrote:

I think we all want this hobby to be more successful, and if people
are motivated to play more/get drawn in because of them they could be
an effective marketing tool.

For that reason alone, I like the idea of having them.

For that reason alone, I really don't like them. I don't want to win 4 of 4 games over a 4 year period, and be ranked far below someone that won 25 of 40 over that same period.

I want to be able to join experienced teams, such as the Grudge team that you and I are on, waiting for an opponent (BTW: anyone out there, there is an expereinced 2950/WoTR grudge team waiting fom an opponent). I also like to join randomly formed games, suce as the 1650 game I'm in.

I wouldn't ever want to play with the players in that 1650 game. They post their PDFs to a site, and consider that about all the communication needed. I'm not going to let them mess up my team rankings. In fact, I'm not going to join any randomly formed games. No way. Too risky. I'm sticking just to teammates I know.

What am I talking about? I'm never going to have a great ranking, because I only play 1 or 2 games at a time. I just spend a lot of time on each game instead of paying lots of games. I keep having things like divorce and job loss forcing me to transfer active positions, then start back over with new games once the dust settles. I don't want a list of players that have a crap load of money to spend, being shoved at me as the "best platers".

Darrell the nameless Shimel

···

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

#2

Okay so how would we rectify this in your opinion. With any rating system the more you play the more opportunity to get points you get. Most players play 2 positions, with some mad people like mygoodself playing lots more. (But some as multiple nations in one game).

What am I talking about? I'm never going to have a great ranking, because I
only play 1 or 2 games at a time. I just spend a lot of time on each game
instead of paying lots of games.

I don't want a list of players that have a
crap load of money to spend, being shoved at me as the "best platers".

But if they are any good then they will have a higher rating. If they are not so good their rating will go down. We could add a column - games completed in that period?

Clint

#3

One basic concept that I am interested in is trust of the GMs. Over time we have attempted to build up a base of trust with the players about the methodology of the games we run.

With that in mind I think that the Player Rating scheme is a good one and would certainly want to give it a go. At present I have lots of postings from a small handful of players who are negative, more of a "that's okay" type from a bigger pool of players (some off list) so would like to at least attempt it.

So feedback on what would improve the system would be very useful. It's only been a couple of days since we put it forward and I think the true test is in the actual use of the system to see what sort of results it provides so I would like to see how things pan out over the next few days or weeks.

We're attempting to be as flexible as we can here listening to the various viewpoints and opinions. As with many such things where ideas clash tempers can fray so try to be calm (that goes for me as much as anyone else).

There's a lot of discussion about might bes and could bes but I would like to see how this stands up to reality. If players don't like it we'll stop it (or at least modify it). If they do like it then that's good and we have managed to improve the overall aspect of the game. As you might be aware we are attempting to update and improve the game and I think this is one aspect of such improvement.

Thanks

Clint

#4

I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular - which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and seeking out similarly skilled opposition.

Clint

#5

(Clint, I've said much of what I'm about to say "directly" but thought some of
it should be thrown into the "public" mix).

The WC's and "general" Grudge Games should (must!) be rated separately.

Otherwise, you are "wiping the slate" with respect to WC games allready
played. Unless you plan to refund the fees paid by participants in the
allready-completed, or currently running, WC games.

Also, are the Ainur ratings intended to rate individuals' performance in the
grudge game setting? Or, are they to rate grudge _teams_?? Makes a big
difference, as far as my thoughts on the matter in general ...

b

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

···

I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular -
which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record
available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with
that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge
games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular
with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being
able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and
seeking out similarly skilled opposition.

Clint

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

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

#6

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular - which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and seeking out similarly skilled opposition.

First, I think the WC is neat besides the rankings. It's more of an Olympics type thing, with bragging rights at stake. You can rate those teams, certainly, but keep the round-robin going.

As to the rating, while I've played several grudge games, I've never been on one team in a series. It would be good, though, to have a ladder or rating of teams, so more grudge games could be played. Right now, it takes forever to get one going. I think it'd be very neat to join a game, declare your rating, and what famous grudge team you're on.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#7

The WC's and "general" Grudge Games should (must!) be rated separately.

Otherwise, you are "wiping the slate" with respect to WC games allready
played. Unless you plan to refund the fees paid by participants in the
allready-completed, or currently running, WC games.

At present the WCs is coming to an end - lots of teams have given up the ghost and you have beaten the others... :slight_smile: It's been run for quite a while now (3 years or so). I would like to upgrade/replace it with something else at present I am toying with the idea of the Ainur rating (with your wins from the WC's taken into account).

Also, are the Ainur ratings intended to rate individuals' performance in the
grudge game setting? Or, are they to rate grudge _teams_?? Makes a big
difference, as far as my thoughts on the matter in general ...

The ratings gained in Aniur would go to the Maia, Valar, Istari. My feeling that I am getting is that players aren't very happy about the Istari ratings at present, but the others are okay and some want to try it out, others to opt out. So this means that if you play in a Grudge game your Grudge team rating would be altered for the Ainur rating and your Individual rating (Maia, Istari, Valar) would be modified appropriately for that player. That's the intention at present. There's a clear dichotomy between the Istari (more individualistic) and the Ainur (very much team orientated) styles of play but for now I am happy to go with that as a concept.

Thoughts? Discussion?

Clint

#8

Okay yours and Ben's points taken. I'll give it some more thought but I am not sure how to keep the WC's going.
Clint

···

> I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular -
> which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record
> available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with
> that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge
> games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular
> with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being
> able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and
> seeking out similarly skilled opposition.

First, I think the WC is neat besides the rankings. It's more of an
Olympics type thing, with bragging rights at stake. You can rate those
teams, certainly, but keep the round-robin going.

As to the rating, while I've played several grudge games, I've never
been on one team in a series. It would be good, though, to have a ladder
or rating of teams, so more grudge games could be played. Right now, it
takes forever to get one going. I think it'd be very neat to join a
game, declare your rating, and what famous grudge team you're on.

                        jason

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

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

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#9

Okay we have the updated versions of the 1650 map - one with the Nation map borders on it and one without. We intend to use the one wih the Map Border for the Laminated map - can you check it and get back to us. (We have multiple times so have gone a bit hex-blind!)

Thanks

Clint

#10

I get a page not found at this one 18:56 CTE

David Clemmensen

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

Okay we have the updated versions of the 1650 map - one with
the Nation map
borders on it and one without. We intend to use the one wih
the Map Border
for the Laminated map - can you check it and get back to us.
(We have
multiple times so have gone a bit hex-blind!)

Thanks

Clint

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/ofVplB/TM
------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

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

#11

One basic concept that I am interested in is trust of the GMs. Over time
  we have attempted to build up a base of trust with the players about the
  methodology of the games we run.

  With that in mind I think that the Player Rating scheme is a good one and
  would certainly want to give it a go. At present I have lots of postings
  from a small handful of players who are negative, more of a "that's okay"
  type from a bigger pool of players (some off list) so would like to at
  least attempt it.

  So feedback on what would improve the system would be very useful. It's
  only been a couple of days since we put it forward and I think the true
  test is in the actual use of the system to see what sort of results it
  provides so I would like to see how things pan out over the next few days
  or weeks.

  We're attempting to be as flexible as we can here listening to the various
  viewpoints and opinions. As with many such things where ideas clash
  tempers can fray so try to be calm (that goes for me as much as anyone else).

  There's a lot of discussion about might bes and could bes but I would like
  to see how this stands up to reality. If players don't like it we'll stop
  it (or at least modify it). If they do like it then that's good and we
  have managed to improve the overall aspect of the game. As you might be
  aware we are attempting to update and improve the game and I think this is
  one aspect of such improvement.

  Thanks

  Clint
  RD: Hi Clint (and all),

  I was one of the first to say I didn't like your proposed system, but I'm quite prepared to give it a try. I'm curious to know what my ranking is however you measure it!

  From what I've read there seems to be general agreement that the existing system of VCs and VPs is not a good one and something better should be introduced. Yours is the only system, so far, which has won a substantial if not majority body of support. If we don't try to improve things we never will, so let's give it a go!

  All credit to you and your team at Harle for your hard work and for trying to make improvements. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD!

  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Rating

#12

  I was one of the first to say I didn't like your proposed system, but I'm quite prepared to give it a try. I'm curious to know what my ranking is however you measure it!

*** Me to! (I have no idea - I know that my 1000 rating is there was one would be bad though...)

  From what I've read there seems to be general agreement that the existing system of VCs and VPs is not a good one and something better should be introduced.

*** Only from the list - off list and the quiet players aren't necessarily of that opinion. (You could argue "put up or shut up" but I would not agree with that in spirit).

  Yours is the only system, so far, which has won a substantial if not majority body of support. If we don't try to improve things we never will, so let's give it a go!

** My thoughts exactly. It's a worrying day when I agree with Brad, Laurence and Richard but very heartening as well... :slight_smile: Makes me all teary... :slight_smile: Faith in human nature and discourse and all that jazz.

  All credit to you and your team at Harle for your hard work and for trying to make improvements. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD!

*** We try. :slight_smile: (Enough back-slapping back to the grind stone).

Clint

#13

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

  All credit to you and your team at Harle for your hard work and for trying to make improvements. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD!

Hehehe, I don't know what's worse, your using the DLTBGYD acronym or my
recognizing it and feeling an urge to go to Kazaa to download the
Toasters song... :stuck_out_tongue:

Manhaes

···

--
"Mortis In Anima
Curam Gero Cutis"
Carl Orff - "Carmina Burana"