Player Ratings/New GWC's

mepbmlist
#1

I agree it would be better to have nothing than something really bad.
However, no one has so far come even close to successfully proving that
this will be really bad, while it appears the majority of posters seem
to want to give it a go.

1) I'm really not sure what posts you've been reading, but I've seen a majority againt this.

2) Inductive Proof that the new system is likely to be bad.

P1: There will be ways to manipulate the rankings.
P2: The rankings will cause some to change their behavior to that which will maximize their rankings.
P3: These changes in behavior will mostly involved causing the game to end quickly, carefully selecting whom you're willing to play with and against, and maximizing chance to win instead of maximizing your oppertunity to enjoy yourself.
P4: Having some players playing for anything other than fun, is likely to be un-fun for those in a game with those players.

C1: Therefore, the ranking system does effect those that ignore them.
C2: The ranking system is likely to have negative effects upon the game.

Most of the arguments against a new ratings system seem to be of the
"fear of change" variety.

Incorrect. They are of the "little to no gain, potential for negative effetcs".

It is all speculation on both sides, based on
personal opinions with very little in the way of actual evidence.

I suppose that a lot of past expereince with a game ranking that promoted a "not just for fun" type of strategy doesn't count.

So why
don't we at least give it a try?

Why? You have yet to prove there will be sufficient bennifit to out weigh the potential harm.

Mike Mulka

Some guy named Darrell Shimel

···

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

#2

>I agree it would be better to have nothing than something really bad.
>However, no one has so far come even close to successfully proving that
>this will be really bad, while it appears the majority of posters seem
>to want to give it a go.

1) I'm really not sure what posts you've been reading, but I've seen a
majority againt this.

** Not my perspective. If you went by Quantity then maybe yes... :slight_smile:

2) Inductive Proof that the new system is likely to be bad.

P1: There will be ways to manipulate the rankings.

*** Any game there is.

P2: The rankings will cause some to change their behavior to that which will
maximize their rankings.

** Very minimally

P3: These changes in behavior will mostly involved causing the game to end
quickly, carefully selecting whom you're willing to play with and against,
and maximizing chance to win instead of maximizing your oppertunity to enjoy
yourself.

*** Um I don't see that at all. It could happen but then again it could be slower... I don't see any evidence to support your viewpoint here.

P4: Having some players playing for anything other than fun, is likely to be
un-fun for those in a game with those players.

** Lots of types of fun in the game! Assassinating an enemy character is certainly fun for you but not so fun for the enemy.

>So why
>don't we at least give it a try?

Why? You have yet to prove there will be sufficient bennifit to out weigh
the potential harm.

** But it could be fun. And based on other experience and experience within the ME milieu it is fun. I would love to know what my rating is comparitively to others in the game. You could say that playing to win is not fun as others are not playing for the same goal by the same argument. But I do agree it could have an impact, but I would hope that it would be a good impact not a bad impact. I would certainly not have put it forward if I did consider that it would be a bad one, nor spent many hours working it out.

Clint

···

At 23:19 16/09/02, you wrote:

#3

>Most of the arguments against a new ratings system seem to be of

the

>"fear of change" variety.

Incorrect. They are of the "little to no gain, potential for

negative

effetcs".

You say tomato...

>It is all speculation on both sides, based on
>personal opinions with very little in the way of actual evidence.

I suppose that a lot of past expereince with a game ranking that

promoted a

"not just for fun" type of strategy doesn't count.

I guess it's not totally irrelevant, but it's still just
speculation, based on a very vaguely similar concept under different
circumstances. None of us has seen a team-based ranking system in
MePBM. To say that either of us knows for certain what the result
would be (or how other players will react to it) is ludicrous.

>So why
>don't we at least give it a try?

Why? You have yet to prove there will be sufficient bennifit to

out weigh

the potential harm.

So, there should be absolutely no change whatsoever unless someone
can first PROVE that it will have no negative effects? Who must it
be proven to?

You cannot possibly PROVE anything unless it is first experiemented
with. "Something vaguely similar didn't work in the past under
different circumstances" is no reason not to try something new.

In order to advance, and to make things better, you have to have to
at least be willing to try something new. Certainly research it
first, and get opinions on how best to proceed. But to not advance
simply out of fear of the possible consequences will do nothing but
stagnate the game. Middle-earth Games has taken some steps forward
in trying to make the game more enjoyable, and most have been
successful. Lets try to keep an open mind about future changes, and
not choke them off out of a fear of what might happen.

Mike Mulka