Okay so how would we rectify this in your opinion.
Leave the "VERY GOOD" game alone, instead of risking messing it up with some ranking system that can't measure how good of a player you really are.
>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
Well, we can get as complicated as the Bowl Championship Series.... Oh wait. Anyone not in America probably has no clue how truely complicated a system can be.
Here in America, we have this football thing, where every college above a few thousand students has a team. Even with multiple divisions based on the size of the school, there are over a hundred teams in the top division. They are organized into about a dozen conferences including Big East, Pac 10, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, WAC, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-America...
So, how do you pick the best teams? How do you pick a national champion? Well, there is this voting thing, except there are two systems there. One uses the sports wirters opinions, and the other uses the coaches opinions. It was possible to have 2 "national champions".
What was worse was that the sports writers and coaches were very impressed with lopsided victories and huge stats on yards gained and such. The result was that teams like Nebraska (always a top 10 team) would beat up on Azusa Pacific (not even in the top division) by a score of 60-3, every year.
So, a "ranking system" was needed. However, they couldn't use just your record as many teams would go undefeated in a season. They couldn't use just margin of victory as it encouraged just stomping on weak opponents. They had to add things like, the the win-loss record of your opponents. Margin of victory of your opponent. Win-loss record of your opponent's opponent. Where the team was ranked when you beat (or lossed) to them.
Now, Nebraska losing to Florida changes the ranking of not only the two teams involved, but the teams that played them, and the teams that played the teams that played them.
This is really an oversimplification, because there are only 3 guys on the planet that understand the college football BCS ranking system, and all three of them were driven insane by it, and they now reside in Sunnyside Mental Illness Treatment facility just outside Newark.
So, what was the point. Any ranking system that truely indicated how good of a player you are would have to account for how well you played. Not just the results, but every email where you proposed an idea. Every turn you scouted the enemy, cast a curse spell that weakened the enemies best agent for your teammate to finish off, every minute you spent coordinating the artifact hunt, or camp placement, or calculating the next commodity buy out.
The game is far more complicated than football, and any system that truely ranked the players skill would be far too complicated to be workable. Better to have nothing than something really bad.
Darrell
ยทยทยท
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx