Player Ratings

mepbmlist
#1

I recall back in the GSI days when everyone wanted to play Corsairs and elves while few wanted to play Woodmen or Rhudaur.

Playing the Corsairs and going DS gave you a 20% chance of a Game Winner's Certificate, while being Woodmen meant you had no chance.

I think that this Ratings system is likely to return nation selection back to the days when the high VC nations had a waiting list, and Woodmen dropping on turn 0.

I don't understand why anyone would want to add a system that punishes good players for taking "challenging" positions or the side less likely to win. I'm far more interested in playing FP and DS, in a variety of nations, with a variety of players than I am in always playing the few nations with the highest VCs on the alliance that wins more often.

The best I can say about this system, is that it is easy enough to ignore for those not interested in it.

I do think there shuld be penalties added for dropping/transferring a game, otherwise players would be rewarded for getting out as soon as it starts looking bad. Maybe, you get the add only if you are playing at win, but lose the points if you were ever in the game on the side that lost.

The worst I can say about this is that it is likely to casue a lot of short games.

I don't see how this will balance neutrals. Sure, we'd get fewer points for a 14 vs. 11 win than a 13 vs. 12, but a lot more than not having played at all. (Assuming an average of 1500 rank per player in the game, 14 vs. 11 win give you +30 to Valar while 13 vs. 12 gives +35)

The crafty players that want a very high score will join in groups, taking the neutrals, then all switch to the same side on turn 1. This would give them a lot of victories in very short games.

I'd hate to not be on their side in one of those games. I don't think the FP would last long with Harad and Corsairs hitting the Gondors while Rhudaur and Duns team up against the Cardolan.

···

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

#2

Note: I'm focusing on the Valar and Maia ratings here. I view the Istari as secondary.

corsairs game 101 wrote:

I think that this Ratings system is likely to return nation selection back to the days when the high VC nations had a waiting list, and Woodmen dropping on turn 0.

I really don't understand that logic. You get the same number of points whether your NG, SG, the Noldo or the Woodmen. In some ways, I'm better off as a good player taking the WM (or the more difficult nations in general), because I need to make sure my team does well. If I take the Noldo and sit back amassing gold, my team will go down in flames, hurting my rating.

I don't see how this will balance neutrals. Sure, we'd get fewer points for a 14 vs. 11 win than a 13 vs. 12, but a lot more than not having played at all. (Assuming an average of 1500 rank per player in the game, 14 vs. 11 win give you +30 to Valar while 13 vs. 12 gives +35)

This might need to be tweaked. Certainly, a side has a much bigger advantage with a 14v11 than 13v12.

The crafty players that want a very high score will join in groups, taking the neutrals, then all switch to the same side on turn 1. This would give them a lot of victories in very short games.

Clint can police this fairly easily. It's obviously an abuse of the system, and I think already outlawed in the house rules.

    jason

···

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

#3

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "corsairs game 101" <corsairs101@h...> wrote:

I recall back in the GSI days when everyone wanted to play Corsairs

and

elves while few wanted to play Woodmen or Rhudaur.

Playing the Corsairs and going DS gave you a 20% chance of a Game

Winner's

Certificate, while being Woodmen meant you had no chance.

I think that this Ratings system is likely to return nation

selection back

to the days when the high VC nations had a waiting list, and

Woodmen

dropping on turn 0.

I don't understand why anyone would want to add a system that

punishes good

players for taking "challenging" positions or the side less likely

to win.

I'm far more interested in playing FP and DS, in a variety of

nations, with

a variety of players than I am in always playing the few nations

with the

highest VCs on the alliance that wins more often.

The best I can say about this system, is that it is easy enough to

ignore

for those not interested in it.

I do think there shuld be penalties added for dropping/transferring

a game,

otherwise players would be rewarded for getting out as soon as it

starts

looking bad. Maybe, you get the add only if you are playing at

win, but

lose the points if you were ever in the game on the side that lost.

The worst I can say about this is that it is likely to casue a lot

of short

games.

I don't see how this will balance neutrals. Sure, we'd get fewer

points for

a 14 vs. 11 win than a 13 vs. 12, but a lot more than not having

played at

all. (Assuming an average of 1500 rank per player in the game, 14

vs. 11 win

give you +30 to Valar while 13 vs. 12 gives +35)

The crafty players that want a very high score will join in groups,

taking

the neutrals, then all switch to the same side on turn 1. This

would give

them a lot of victories in very short games.

I'd hate to not be on their side in one of those games. I don't

think the

FP would last long with Harad and Corsairs hitting the Gondors

while Rhudaur

···

and Duns team up against the Cardolan.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com